News

Woodside preserves right to regulate marijuana; shifts council elections to even-numbered years

 

The Woodside Town Council acted unanimously on two matters Tuesday: preserving the council's right to locally regulate the cultivation and handling of locally grown marijuana, and shifting council elections to even-numbered years when turnout tends to be much higher .

The council introduced an ordinance to extend each council member's four-year term by one year, which would change elections to even-numbered years.

Elections in even-numbered years will be in alignment with statewide and federal elections, when voter turnout is usually higher.

As usual with a new ordinance, the council must vote on it once more, but in this case, instead of then becoming law in 30 days, the ordinance will go to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for its review.

Marijuana regulation

The council approved an urgency ordinance to preserve the council's right to regulate the cultivation and handling of marijuana in Woodside. The ordinance becomes effective Nov. 9 if voters approve state Proposition 64 on Nov. 8. legalizing the cultivation and recreational use of marijuana.

Had the council not acted, the town would have been regulated by the state law established by Prop. 64, which would preempt local regulations.

The urgency ordinance is a placeholder that expires in 45 days, but the council can extend it to up to two years to allow the town to craft a more detailed ordinance. The urgency aspect sidesteps the normal process of two public readings and a 30-day wait before it becomes law.

The urgency ordinance dies if voters do not approve Prop. 64.

In discussing this process and the window of time allotted to refine the urgency ordinance, council members spoke of holding at least one study session to explore with the public how to locally regulate marijuana.

Town Hall staff will be working on draft language for the council's consideration. Two residents spoke at the meeting, both asking the council to act with prudence and to consider the potential for consequences harmful to the community.

Even-year elections

The council had several options in complying with a state law aimed to increase voter turnout, but by consensus chose the option with the most immediate effect: extending council members terms by one year.

The prospect of not acting quickly carried with it a financial penalty. Elections cost money and the jurisdictions in the county share the costs. In Woodside, a typical election costs about $7,500, according to town staff.

The shift to even-numbered years is required by a law passed and signed by the governor in September 2015. As jurisdictions in the county make the move to even-numbered years, the number of jurisdictions still holding elections in odd-numbered years shrinks, boosting their share of the costs for holding elections in odd-numbered years.

For Woodside, the cost could have jumped to $50,000 or beyond, Town Manager Kevin Bryant told the council. "I've seen estimates that go a lot higher," he said.

The terms of Mayor Deborah Gordon, Councilman Dave Tanner and Councilwoman Anne Kasten will now expire in 2018, and terms for councilmen Peter Mason, Tom Livermore, Chris Shaw and Daniel Yost will expire in 2020.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Kings Mountain/Skyline
on Oct 26, 2016 at 4:39 pm

"Let's pass a law to preserve our rights to pass more laws -- even if State law says otherwise".

Light it up, TOW!


2 people like this
Posted by concerned citizen
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Oct 27, 2016 at 1:06 pm

I truly hope Woodside doesn't set up a double standard between wine production and marijuana cultivation if Prop 64 passes in November. The state will set guidelines and Woodside should abide by the guidelines and look at how it treats wineries and grape production. There is a detailed description of the requirements to be a winery in Woodside why shouldn't the same guidelines be used for commercial marijuana? It is ok to produce alcoholic beverages but not marijuana? There is more evidence of alcohol harming people than marijuana. If it is ok for vineyards to exist on property in Woodside for either a home vintner or selling their grapes to winery and they are either paid for the grapes or given bottles of wine in exchange for the grapes. Why shouldn't homeowners be able to do the same if they want to cultivate marijuana aligned with the state law. I am concerned that residents are getting all worked up about big drug houses buying up property in Woodside to grow marijuana. Sorry but the economics don't work when you can go to Gilroy and buy acres for pennies compared to Woodside. I hope we allow home owners the same rights we do for grape growing and wine production. If not we are very hypocritical sending the message that producing alcoholic beverages is ok but producing marijuana is NOT. We have all kinds of exterior lighting ordinances etc to control annoying any neighbors etc. I am concerned that once again if something new wants to be done in our town good luck. I went through this trying to build a smaller home than my neighbors but they had theirs but I could not have mine. In the past this is how the town council operated. Lets not ban or totally restrict anything new! Lets follow the state law and allow what is aligned with that law and at least treat the new marijuana entrepreneurs or home growers the same way we treat our boutique wineries and grape growers in our community.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: A Relationship Test . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,052 views

Food Party! SOS
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 855 views

Enjoy every configuration of your family
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 535 views