PORT ANGELES — Clallam County commissioners still intend to place a recreational marijuana law on the November ballot.
The three commissioners Monday remanded a proposed pot zoning ordinance to the county Planning Commission for a recommendation with the caveat that any change to the existing interim law be approved by the voters.
The new ordinance would impose tighter restrictions in Clallam County on the growing, processing and sale of up to one ounce of marijuana to adults 21 and older under state Initiative 502.
Like the current ordinance, the new proposal would restrict marijuana businesses from most rural neighborhoods.
It would allow the growing and processing of cannabis in 11 county zones, including commercial forest, rural commercial, urban commercial and industrial.
Community Development Director Mary Ellen Winborn requested the remand after the Planning Commission was unable to decide on a recommendation on the proposal last month.
Three members of the panel voted against an affirmative recommendation, four voted yes and two were absent, according to the minutes of the May 20 meeting.
Winborn has said the new ordinance provides predictability for growers and assuages the valid concerns of rural county residents.
“Land use is at the center of economic development,” Winborn told commissioners.
“It’s important that we get it right.”
Commissioners on June 8 said they would ask citizens to weigh-in on the staff proposal. They held firm to that decision Monday.
Planning Manager Steve Gray said the Planning Commission would re-evaluate the prohibition of marijuana on agriculture lands.
The current draft does not allow marijuana in agricultural retention zones as Commissioner Jim McEntire and some citizens had requested.
Last week, the county Agricultural Commission supported marijuana businesses on agriculture lands with “appropriate development standards,” Gray said in a staff memo.
“Based on the body of work by the Planning Commission, the Department [of Community Development] believes there was either consensus and/or majority support on appropriate regulation of marijuana production, processing and retailing for most county zones,” Gray wrote.
“At a minimum, we are hopeful that a remand will provide the board a clear recommendation from the Planning Commission on appropriate zones and development standards for marijuana production, processing and retailing, particularly where there is majority agreement.”
Nancy Esteb, chair of the Planning Commission, told commissioners that the marijuana issue had become “distressing” for the commission.
“We spent many work sessions on this, which was necessary because it’s such a complex issue,” Esteb said.
“My worry is that in taking this ordinance to the voters, they will not have the time to spend six work sessions on it to vote responsibly.”
Commissioner Mike Chapman took “great umbrage” with the notion that voters would not be informed.
“I think this is one of the most educated electorates in the state of Washington,” Chapman said.
“I know this county. People will study this, they will read the newspaper articles, they’ll go to the forums, they’ll talk to friends. I’m not afraid that the voters will be uneducated.”
Chapman said onus falls on Winborn to convince the public that a more-restrictive marijuana law is the “right way to go.”
The existing ordinance works well, Chapman added, and few marijuana businesses have opened since the interim law took effect last year.
Chapman said he would vote to make the interim ordinance permanent.
Fifty-five percent of Clallam County voters backed the 2012 state initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
Many proponents of the industry have avoided speaking at public meetings because they do want to reveal the location of their growing operations, Planning Commission member Gary Gleason said.
Gleason estimated that there are 300 medicinal marijuana producers in Clallam County.
“They are deathly afraid of being exposed,” Gleason said.
McEntire noted that the county ordinance only deals with recreational marijuana.
“We don’t get into the medical side because we don’t know what the legislature has done, is doing, or will do with regard to how to integrate both of those segments of the marijuana industry into one regulatory framework,” McEntire said.
_______
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5072, or at rollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
