|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Danville enters the new year, the Town Council is on track to implement new regulations on all marijuana-related activities in response to statewide voters approving recreational use in November.
The proposed Danville ordinance, which the council is set to consider adopting on Tuesday after giving initial support to it last month, would ban all marijuana sales, delivery, processing and outdoor cultivation within the town limits while allowing up to six marijuana plants to be grown indoors at residences for personal use.
And the council-endorsed proposal goes beyond the version drafted by town staff and recommended by the Planning Commission by featuring additional indoor cultivation rules inspired by specific regulations approved in Pittsburg and Martinez, such as locks on grow rooms, banning gas products in the grow process, and allowing cultivation only at primary residences with written consent from the property owner.
Vice Mayor Newell Arnerich, during the council’s initial discussion Dec. 20, called the additional regulations “all reasonable. It’s not limiting how it’s used. It’s not violating the proposition.”
The Danville ordinance would largely extend the town’s existing medical marijuana rules to recreational marijuana. The town formally prohibited medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and processing last January after already having a dispensary ban on the books.
But the town decided to revisit its marijuana rules after California voters approved Proposition 64 — the Adult Use of Marijuana Act — on Nov. 8 with 57.1% support.
Prop 64 legalized the use and possession of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older and directed the creation of a state regulatory system for the sale, cultivation and processing of marijuana and related products.
The new state law allows cities to regulate sales, delivery, processing and commercial growing, but it largely preempts local regulation of personal cultivation, Danville city attorney Rob Ewing told the council.
Prop 64 protects people’s right to grow up to six plants in their home as long as the cultivation area is locked and can’t be seen from a public place, and cities are able to “reasonably regulate” indoor growing, Ewing said.
Town staff drafted an ordinance with several rules for indoor cultivation of up to six plants in a home or accessory structure, and that version was endorsed by the Planning Commission in November — though the commission majority also urged the council to allow marijuana delivery in the town.
Ewing said after the Planning Commission meeting, town staff met with Patty Hoyt, alcohol policy coordinator for the Danville-based nonprofit Discovery Counseling Center, who advocated for additional regulations on personal cultivation in Danville.
So Ewing also presented the council with Pittsburg’s non-medical marijuana ordinance as an example of regulations other local cities have adopted.
The example regulations included stipulations such as the property must be primarily used as a residence, and marijuana cultivation can’t been a home occupation.
The property owner must give written consent allowing marijuana growing, and the cultivation is limited to six marijuana plants per home, regardless of how many people live there.
The home or accessory structure must have adequate mechanical locking or electronic security systems installed, and the grow area cannot be accessible to people younger than 21 years old and must have a portable, up-to-code fire extinguisher.
Also, indoor grow lights must not exceed 1,000 watts per light, gas products (such as butane, propane and natural gas) and generators can’t be used in the cultivation process, and grows in fully enclosed and secure structures must have a ventilation and filtration system to prevent marijuana plant odors from going outside.
Hoyt told the council Dec. 20 that while she supported all 14 extra regulations in the Pittsburg and Martinez ordinances, she hoped Danville would at least approve several important ones to protect local youth and public safety.
“Local high school students report that marijuana is already very easy to obtain and indoor grows will just make that even more so, unless you include a regulation to make those inaccessible to youth,” she said. “Just put it in a room where they can’t get to it — sort of like we do our alcohol; we lock our alcohol up, too.”
The only citizen speaker from among the several people in the council’s audience at the Town Meeting Hall, Hoyt also urged cultivation only in a primary residence, requiring an owner-tenant agreement for growing in leased homes, no flammable gases and a ban on delivery.
“The delivery of marijuana contributes to the potential for crime, youth access and abuse, and it shouldn’t be allowed to be delivered to a home, either medically or non-medically,” she added.
The council members indicated support for the extra regulations on indoor growing without much discussion, but the council did debate on marijuana delivery.
Councilman Robert Storer encouraged his colleagues to allow some form of delivery in Danville to help residents who use marijuana to ease pain and are too ill to leave their homes, reiterating his initial position during the medical marijuana delivery debate last January.
“All I’m saying is there’s a percentage of our population in Danville and around the Bay Area that need a little bit of help to get this, that relieves pain, to their home,” Storer said. “Those that are going to be abusing, do you think this (ordinance) is going to stop them? It’s not going to stop them.”
Arnerich firmly backed the ban on marijuana delivery.
“The wrong people will get it,” he said. “The No. 1 users are the unintended people, and we have to stand — as adults — to take care of our children, protect them.”
New Councilwoman Lisa Blackwell said she was uncomfortable allowing delivery in Danville now, in part because the rules at the state level haven’t been established yet. The state is required to create a licensing board to regulate marijuana-related activities by Jan. 1, 2018, Ewing said.
“I just am waiting to hear a little more specifics before I would sign off on even medical marijuana delivery,” Blackwell said. “If I felt like there were some contingencies that really were strong to me, I might consider it … but I don’t feel comfortable with that at this point.”
At the end of the 45-minute discussion, some council members indicated they were open to revisiting the delivery question after the state regulations are approved.
“It sounds like there are two or three of us who, in the future, would be willing to have that conversation, but not until the state gets all the law sorted out,” Arnerich said.
The council voted 5-0 Dec. 20 to approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance, including the 14 extra regulations for indoor growing and the delivery ban, and advance the ordinance forward for final consideration this month.
Storer, like in the January 2016 vote to prohibit medical marijuana delivery, sided with the rest of the council this time around in voting to ban all marijuana delivery — while acknowledging he hopes the council would look at the issue again.
The final ordinance vote is scheduled to take place Tuesday morning during a 9 a.m. meeting in the town offices at 510 La Gonda Way as part of a previously scheduled council study session.
If approved Tuesday, Danville’s marijuana regulations would take effect during the second week of February.
Thank you Town Council for putting in the toughest regulations allowed under state law. We do not need deliveries of pot to be allowed in Danville. Although liberal California may ignore the obvious problems with pot usage, I am glad our Town Council uses common sense in putting regulations in place.
Thank you, Town of Danville, as always, for being ahead of the curve and diligently working to maintain the safe, high quality of life for the residents of the area!
Storer- why didn’t your vote match your input?
Thank you Danville.
I see thru the billion-dollar
marijuana industry and lobby on how they always like to present the (extremely rare)
Situation of the dying shut-in, sitting in the wheelchair, desperately needing their marijuana delivered to them. This is really a sham to promote the marijuana agenda.
Folks, please don’t be fooled. Marijuana is not like a drink of alcohol. It has lasting effects and definitely dumbs-down people.
I thank the leaders of Danville so much for making a move that will help preserve the community!!!
Danville is an ever wonderful, highly dedirable community because of leadership and decisions like this!
I disagree. This is unnecessary legislation. Protecting our kids is a parents job. How many places can we buy liquor in Danville and how many Danville parents keep it a locked room in the house? If you think that Danville parents don’t already allow kids to host parties with booze or weed are present, then you are living in a dream world. There are already laws about breaking into a yard for theft. Stay out of the people’s lives and don’t legislate additional restrictions that State voters decided to allow.
I can see from the comments that none of you have ever been sitting in a wheelchair, suffering from a degenerative illness. Many do not want to take addicting narcotics that are used for pain and aid in sleep.
I hope none of you ever suffer this pain, isolation, and insomnia, or do I?
The state law was passed and is reasonable. Many people in chronic pain offered their input and Doctors and other medical professionals worked with Gavin Newsom on this. What are your qualifications to pass judgments or make laws?
The City of Thousand Oaks does not have regulations like Danville we can grow it outdoors in our backyards. I disagree this is unnecessary legislation for Danville. !
Hamilton- I agree with you. May your voice be heard by the Council soon & they reconsider this heavy handedness. This vote isn’t go to change recreational marijuana use in town, it is going to legalize for those that need it.
Medical studies show an 8 percent drop in I.Q. for chronic pot users and it being a gateway drug to more serious drugs like heroin and cocaine. Listing Gavin Newsome as a supporter of pot usage actually hurts, not helps the pot head arguments. He committed adultery with his best friends wife and blamed it on ” drinking too much”. Sorry, stoners, don’t need advice from Gavin Newsome on anything.
Anyone, for or against, can do worse than view on youtube “Adam Ruins Everything – The Sinister Reason Weed is Illegal”.
Please check out the 1930’s movie “Reefer Madness”. this is a hoot!
Many Doctors would disagree with the comment made by American.
I sincerely hope that Gavin Newsom becomes our next governor. so your rude comment about our Lieutenant Governor means nothing to me. Marijuana and alcohol do not have the same effects on humans. I have never heard of anyone who uses it becoming violent and attacking someone violently. The News is full of stories about alcohol causing violent behavior. I used to be married to an alcoholic, I should know!
I was discussing the use of Medical Marijuana. It has a low THC content. THC is the chemical in MJ that makes people high. You should know about this since you are so opposed to its use.
What would you have those of us who live in intractable pain do? Narcotics cause much more harm and cause brain problems!! Should we all take a long walk off a short pier?
One more thing, if you don’t like Liberal California, I suggest you move! This state has been liberal as far back as my memory goes, and I was born and raised here. I suggest Indiana, where Mike Pence was governor and people lived in fear of what he might do next!
The city of danville is overeacting. Fear is driving them to Try to adopt anti-pot laws. They don’t fear alcohol because of all the revenue it brings when they stake out the back of the local bars and pull people over for dui after drinking.
This will be like alcohol. Adults have a choice to buy it. kids don’t. If you don’t drink you won’t go to a liquor store and buy alcohol, If you don’t smoke you wont be buying cigarettes. if you dont smoke pot you wont be buying any. but in the end it has not and will not be Danville’s choice.