Urgency Ordinance Suggested for Unincorporated Marijuana Dispensaries

An urgency ordinance regulating marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated areas was suggested to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors during Tuesday's meeting.

After a full day's discussion, the board unanimously decided to revisit the urgency ordinance on July 27. 

Medicinal marijuana dispensaries operating within unincorporated areas, like Fair Oaks, are operating without any set regulations. Therefore, open code enforcements are serviced to each dispensary operating within an unincorporated section of Sacramento county.

The ultimate goal of the discussion Tuesday was to create a process and regulations so dispensaries could operate in unincorporated areas, said Sacramento County spokeswoman, Chris Andis.

“The county does not have any existing zoning laws that allow for this kind of business to operate,” Andis said. “This is 'step one' toward creating rules and regulations for these kind of businesses. We want to create a careful planning process that balances the needs of the neighboring communities, the dispensaries and the medical patients.”

Currently, there are 45 open code enforcement cases on dispensaries located in unincorporated areas of the county.

There are at least two dispensaries open in Fair Oaks.

Alternative Medical Source (AMF) is one such dispensary operating out of Fair Oaks without official regulations.

Mike Kiano, operator at AMF, said the dispensary was opened in January and was serviced with its code enforcement last month.

Kiano said he understands the system and why enforcements are being handed out, but believes this could have been avoided.

“The county has had their hands in this for a long time,” he said. “They've watched this steady spread of dispensaries happen day-to-day for two years now. They had to have known that eventually it would leak into unincorporated areas, because there are people there who need our services too.”

Medicinal marijuana dispensaries are legalized under the passage of Proposition 215, which was passed in 1996. Labeling this ordinance “urgent” after taking into consideration the time that has passed since Proposition 215 is what puzzles Kiano.

“It's just unconstitutional if you ask me – we should get the same kind of time and respect that other ordinances do,” Kiano said. “I just don't think it's an emergency situation. (An urgency ordinance is) an idea they can try, but the amount of backing that we have, not only from the patients, but from stakeholders and investors is going to get in their way.”

Roberta MacGlashan, District 4 Representative on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, questioned how this urgency ordinance would mend the open code enforcements in action, which are currently straining county resources, during Tuesday's meeting. 

Michelle Bach, county counsel, said current enforcements would be dropped and new ones applied when a new ordinance is adopted.

“Well that's an even worse answer,” MacGlashan said, while the crowd laughed and applauded. MacGlashan followed up the applause by saying, “I didn't mean for there to be applause or laughter. That is just not what we are trying to accomplish.”

With the board decision to revisit the urgency ordinance on July 27, current rules must be enforced leaving dispensaries to continue operating without any official regulation.

While the general consensus of public comment on Tuesday recognized the need for regulation, they also agreed with Kiano.

One woman said, “If this wasn't urgent 6 months ago – then why is it now? Give us a proper amount of time to educate you on medicinal marijuana and how best it should be regulated. Because let's be honest, we know better than many of the people who have spoke today.”

One man with the California Cannabis Organization said the first task force for these kind of problems was developed in 2004, therefore this is not an urgent matter.

“This is a void ordinance, not an urgency ordinance,” he said.