Pubdate: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2013 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.utsandiego.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386 Note: Seldom prints LTEs from outside it's circulation area. Author: Craig Gustafson COUNCIL REVISITS POT POLICY Filner's Proposed Ordinance Trumped by Move to Look Again at Failed 2011 Plan SAN DIEGO - The City Council rebuffed Mayor Bob Filner's proposed ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries Monday and chose instead to revive its own failed 2011 plan for those businesses. After three hours of public testimony, the council had barely started to discuss the merits of Filner's proposal when Councilwoman Marti Emerald proposed using the older ordinance as a starting point to create new rules for dispensaries. The 2011 ordinance limited dispensaries to some commercial and industrial zones and required them to be at least 600 feet from each other as well as schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care and youth facilities, parks and churches. They also must operate as nonprofits, have curtailed business hours and hire security guards. At the time, medical marijuana proponents called the ordinance too restrictive and launched a successful signature drive that forced the council to repeal it. Since then, dispensaries have been in legal limbo. The council unanimously voted Monday to move forward with that plan with a few proposed changes. The proximity restriction was changed to 1,000 feet, and the council asked for an analysis of cost recovery issues and legal options for fees and taxes on dispensaries. In addition to a greater distance restriction than Filner's, the council's proposal also applies that restriction to more kinds of facilities. No final decision was made Monday. The City Attorney's Office will craft the new ordinance, which will be reviewed by community planning groups and then the Planning Commission before returning to the full City Council for a decision. Emerald said the debate over medical marijuana has been settled in California, and it should be allowed for compassionate use. However, she said she preferred a more restrictive approach than the one offered by Filner. "It's about where do we allow storefronts if we're going to? ... If we're going to have them, let's be prudent, let's find a balance," Emerald said. Filner revived the civic discussion over dispensaries in January and had proposed new rules that would have allowed dispensaries in all commercial and industrial zones with a 600-foot proximity limit and require them to pay a $5,000 annual permit fee and a 2 percent excise tax on wholesale acquisitions. Unlike the council's ordinance, Filner's distance requirement didn't include churches, libraries or youth-serving facilities. The mayor's plan was less restrictive than the 2011 ordinance in an attempt to strike a balance between safe access to the drug and neighborhood concerns. "It's not an easy balance. ... On the one hand, we would like to provide access, and on the other hand, we don't want to impose on neighborhoods, and we certainly don't want to endanger our children," Filner told the council. "That's the aim I think we might all share to various degrees of where we put that emphasis on." A mayoral spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment after Monday's vote. The lengthy council meeting had more than 70 public speakers in favor and against allowing dispensaries to operate within city limits. Proponents pleaded for compassion for patients with debilitating health conditions, while opponents expressed concern that dispensaries could encourage drug use among children and increase crime. Lane Hetherington, who lives in the City Council District 1, said she had several worries about dispensaries. "I have family members, very close, their lives have been ruined by marijuana," she said. "They started with marijuana at a young age, and I'm very concerned about the messages that dispensaries sent to our younger children. I would like to really voice an opinion about the 600 feet, that just seems like it's really too close. You could have a dispensary then on every other block." Rudy Reyes, who was seriously burned in the 2003 Cedar fire and uses marijuana to ease his pain, said he's tired of opponents continually warning about the dangers dispensaries pose to children and wants the city to finally put rules in place. "This was brought about and was made legal in 1996, and here we are a decade-plus later still trying to get regulations," Reyes said. "That's all we want. All we want are simple regulations, sensible regulations, so that someone like me can acquire something without having to go through illegal acts." Filner halted city prosecutions of dispensaries in January by using his strong-mayor powers to direct police and code enforcement officers to stop forwarding cases to the City Attorney's Office. The City Council reversed that decision Jan. 29 in closed session with Filner's approval. They agreed that enforcing the city's zoning laws, which don't allow for dispensaries, would prevent new dispensaries from opening throughout the city ahead of a planned ordinance. That hasn't been happening. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said the city isn't currently enforcing the law because no cases have been forwarded to his office from departments under the mayor's purview. One part of Emerald's successful motion was to direct the mayor to enforce the law while a new ordinance goes through the approval process. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom