Tuesday night, the Burbank City Council held hearings regarding an ordinance to the Burbank Municipal Code regarding Marijuana growing by private residences and retail sales along with changing the General Plan land use designation of a 4.7 -acre property from Rancho Commercial (RC) to Low-Density Residential (LDR) to develop 34 single-family homes
The first hearing was on a staff-proposed change to the Municipal Code that would restrict growing Marijuana growing to indoors along with a ban on retail sales.
After much public content supporting fewer restrictions and being able to grow outside, the Council voted 5-0 to adopt the ordinance however they changed it to allow outdoor growing as long as the conditions of State Law were met.
While at this time there is a ban regarding the retail outlets, the Council did seem that they wanted to open the door regarding retail sales in the future.
Councilwoman Sharon Springer said that she checked the results from the Prop. 64 election results and said that 61% of voters in Burbank voted to approve legalized Marijuana in California.
While no path has been set up yet to allow retail stores in Burbank, there was strong support to set up a task force or committee to study the best way to start the process however no timeline was given when this process might begin.
The second hearing of the night was the changing of the zoning in the Rancho District for an amendment to the General Plan land use designation of a 4.7 -acre property from Rancho Commercial (RC) to Low-Density Residential (LDR) to develop 34 single-family homes. The property is located in the Rancho Master Plan Area, south of Riverside Drive near the Mariposa Street Bridge.
The developer had wanted to put 34 homes into the area but Rancho residents came out by the dozens to protest during the hearing. While the Council was not allowed to consider the development itself, or what a re-zoning would mean when the Pickwick property came up at a later date, they were told it was solely to change the zoning on that particular project.
In the end, the Council voted 3 to 2 (Councilmembers Springer and Rogers were in support) to not re-zone the area in question.
