SanLuisObispo.com wrote:Posted on Thu, Jan. 31, 2008
Appeals stall plan for pot shop in Templeton
<span class=postbigbold>The dispensary’s fate will have to wait for a decision by supervisors April 8</span>
By Stephen Curran
<table class=posttable align=right width=256><tr><td class=postcell><ul class=postlist>
<li>
Read the staff report from Thursday's meeting</li>
<li>
Read the appeal</li>
<li>
Read a letter from Paso Robles police Chief Lisa Solomon opposing the dispensary</li></ul></td></tr></table>
A pair of appeals challenging a planned medical marijuana dispensary in Templeton has put the controversial project on hold until at least April.
Paso Robles police Chief Lisa Solomon and Templeton resident David La Rue last week asked the Board of Supervisors to revisit a county Planning Commission vote to allow the North County Resource Center to open at 3850 Ramada Drive.
The appellants say the plan violates federal law and would increase crime in the rural area.
The Planning Commission would have had the final vote on the project, if not for the appeals to the supervisors.
The dispensary’s fate is now expected to come before supervisors April 8, senior county Planner Bill Robeson said.
It took commissioners three tries over nearly six months to reach a 3-2 decision allowing applicant Austen Connella to open the cannabis co-op.
Members deadlocked in July amid disagreement over whether the facility complied with a county ordinance governing such facilities and postponed a decision again in October.
Connella and his supporters have argued that the dispensary would provide patients suffering from a variety of ailments with needed medication.
Connella was not available for comment Wednesday. Kent Connella, owner of the Ramada Drive industrial park and Austen Connella’s father, said the facility would operate in a manner consistent with state law.
“If we can get through this appeal, then the patients will hopefully be able to get their medicine in a safe form,” Kent Connella said. “… The only argument these people (the appellants) have is a political argument.”
Medical marijuana dispensaries such as the one proposed in Templeton fall into a gray area between state and federal law.
California voters in 1996 passed Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. But federal law still prohibits such use.
In her letter to the county, Solomon repeated claims that such dispensaries have created more crime in other communities. She cited the March 2007 arrest of Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers owner Charles Lynch following charges he grew and sold cannabis for profit from his Morro Bay dispensary, which has since closed.
Supervisor Harry Ovitt, Sheriff Pat Hedges and Atascadero police Chief Jim Mulhall have also said they do not support a dispensary at the Templeton location.
“I strongly urge you to listen to your constituents and move to deny the establishment of this dispensary,” Solomon wrote. “To do otherwise violates federal law and places Paso Robles and Templeton citizens at risk.”
A county ordinance allows medical marijuana outlets in unincorporated inland areas, including Templeton, but restricts them from operating in a downtown business district or within 1,000 feet of any school, library, park or youth recreation area.
Planners initially told the commission that the dispensary’s proposed location was 1,004 feet from a park managed by the Templeton Oaks Homeowners Association. A second measurement from the park’s closest boundary found it was 925 feet from the planned dispensary.
However, the park is across Highway 101 and would be about a mile’s drive from the dispensary.
Kent Connella said his son chose the Templeton location because it was most consistent with the county guidelines.
“I’d be very surprised if (supervisors) voted against it,” he said. “They’re the ones who enacted the land-use ordinance, and they’d be going against their own parameters.”
Ovitt, whose district includes Templeton, said the business is a poor choice for that location.
“I didn’t say I agreed with the county in terms of their ordinance,” he said. “That kind of a facility is more for a larger urban area that can control it.”
Opponents had until Jan. 25 to appeal the commission’s decision.