|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
—
Expanded version of previously reported story.
—
The Town Council of Portola Valley is known for trying to get out in front on progressive matters, including environmentally conscious construction of publicly owned buildings and protection of undocumented immigrants.
On Oct. 25, the council did it again, this time with its stance on commercial cultivation and sale of recreational marijuana. By consensus, the council chose not to adopt an ordinance that would have imposed a 45-day moratorium, extensible to two years, on retail sales and outdoor cultivation of marijuana for personal or commercial use.
The state is expected to publish its regulations on commercial cultivation in January 2018. Local governments have been using moratoriums to give themselves time after the state acts to consider the new regulations and whether more needs to be done locally.
A staff report by former town attorney Leigh Prince, presented by Town Manager Jeremy Dennis, recommended a moratorium.
Mr. Dennis said that, given the council’s decision, he would initiate a conversation with Planning Director Debbie Pedro and the Planning Commission and get back to the council in early January with an update regarding local regulations, assuming the state has published its regulations by then.
Moratoriums are in place in Woodside (expiring in September 2018), and in Menlo Park (expiring in November but with options to extend it). Atherton has no moratorium, but with no commercial zoning, the matter is not a concern, City Manager George Rodericks said.
In Portola Valley, without a moratorium a dispensary could set up shop, but only at the northeast corner of Alpine and Portola roads. This area known as the Nathhorst Triangle is the only location distant enough from a school to not violate state law.
Town Hall has received an inquiry regarding a dispensary there, Mr. Dennis said. To obtain a permit, existing regulations would require the business owner to participate in an extensive administrative process, including a hearing before the Planning Commission.
It was on the assumption that the existing regulations are sufficient that the council chose not to impose a moratorium.
Not without concerns
The town’s land-use ordinances are tough enough to withstand tests by this new law, Councilwoman Maryann Derwin said. “For peace of mind,” she added, the town could limit the number of retail outlets and require them to use selected credit unions to handle their cash.
Retail marijuana outlets have trouble getting small-business banking services because the products they’re selling are illegal under federal law. These credit union services are expensive, Ms. Derwin said, but they are out there.
As for cultivation, which is water intensive, the town could require smart irrigation systems, she said, adding that indoor cultivation regulations could mandate efficient heating and lighting, the use of fire-safe materials and perhaps scaled-down fire sprinklers.
If the absence of a moratorium makes Portola Valley unique, it may attract marijuana entrepreneurs, Mr. Dennis said, a concern that drew comment from Mayor Craig Hughes and Councilwoman Ann Wengert.
Existing ordinances may be sufficient “assuming everything’s normal,” Mr. Hughes said, “but if there’s sort of a rush, which there might be (if) we’re the only door that’s open, a lot of people might try and squeeze through.”
Ms. Wengert noted that while Portola Valley is not afraid to lead on an issue, it may not be ready for commercial marijuana. Scenarios should be imagined, processes gone through “to make sure that we aren’t unwittingly and unknowingly creating a problem for ourselves,” she said.
Someone with deep pockets could make an offer, she said. “We know that there are always prices for every property, including some of our biggest remaining very very valuable properties in town. … We’re a rural area. We have the space. We have the land.”
As to that land, Councilman John Richards said that some of it should be available for personal cultivation, a practice not allowed in Woodside or Menlo Park. A ban on outdoor cultivation would “create outlaws in our town who are already growing it,” Mr. Richards said, “and give our police more things to do that they don’t need to have on their plate.”
Urgency?
Commercial cultivation of marijuana would involve zoning regulations and trigger reviews by planning commissions, multiple public readings of ordinances and 30-day comment/waiting periods.
To bypass these traditional checkpoints, city attorneys have been using “urgency” ordinances to impose moratoriums. Under state law, such ordinances are 45 days long and may be extended for two years. No planning commission reviews, no second readings, no waiting periods.
Urgency ordinances also require a super-majority vote for approval, and that councils “find” an immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare.
“I am supposed to make a finding that not doing this is a threat to public safety and I cannot make that finding,” Councilwoman Derwin said.
Recreational marijuana is illegal for anyone under 21, she said, and some commercial products have the psychotropic qualities removed, including products that address hyperactivity in dogs, muscles aches and treatment-resistant depression.
As for public safety, dead oak trees and branches near power lines are more dangerous, Ms. Derwin said, adding: “I would be more inclined to say that our culture of entitlement, not allowing our children to fail and putting extraordinary pressure on them to succeed to an impossible 1 percent standard is more of a threat to public health.”
Councilman Jeff Aalfs said he had a hard time finding the public safety threat. “It doesn’t feel that way to me,” he said, adding that he considered the town’s permitting processes good enough for now.
Without a moratorium, Town Manager Dennis said, the council sets itself up to react to events rather than craft regulations beforehand.
An urgency ordinance will be appropriate, Mayor Hughes said, if a real threat to public safety emerges.
In the event of a deluge of activity, “we could get a handle on things and move forward,” Mr. Richards said.
—
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
It would be helpful to know the property in question. Was the inquiry about vacant land, ie., behind Roberts where new construction would occur? Or was it about permitting a retail store in existing commercial development? Also, the article notes that it is the only location in PV “distant enough from a school.” The corner of Alpine and Portola Road is VERY close to Corte Madera School, even though it is technically beyond this 1,000 foot minimum distance required by AB1588. Commercial operators and sellers are likely canvassing every town, city and unincorporated area in Northern California to find vacant land that falls within this criteria.
Having a marijuana dispensary is not the end of the world. It will bring more money from taxes, that can be used to fix other things in our neighborhood. Why worry about this when we have much bigger things to worry about than a simple marijuana dispensary, close to our homes. Nobody is making you buy the marijuana, yet other people may not be able to go to another dispensary to get the product, and it adds convenience to our neighborhood.