COUNCIL OKs MED POT LICENSE RULES

Ordinance Was Modeled on Liquor Store Licenses.

City Council unanimously approved an ordinance on licensing medical
marijuana centers Monday night after a low-key public hearing that
attracted few speakers.

They also gave reluctant approval to a zoning ordinance for those same
businesses, but it was clear that several council members thought the
measure was so restrictive that marijuana centers may not bother to
try and operate legally. Near 11 p.m., council voted for the zoning
plan -- which limits medical marijuana businesses to B-3, B-4 and
industrial zone areas and also requires a 1,000-foot buffer from many
businesses such as child care facilities and schools.

The zoning plan and buffers set such tight limits that Council
President Larry Atencio said the city was approving a good licensing
plan but defeating it with a zoning map that would discourage medical
marijuana centers from complying.

A majority of council indicated they were willing to amend the plan,
but city staff urged them to pass some zoning plan Monday night.

The licensing ordinance also called for council to sift through many
of the details of the ordinance, which spells out regulations on
everything from who could apply for a center license to security
measures at those facilities.

As with the zoning ordinance, which came later in the meeting, staff
assured council the ordinance could also be amended, even after
passage, so council approved the measure rather than postpone the
licensing decision any further.

Kurt Stiegelmeier, assistant city attorney, said he shaped the
ordinance closely on liquor store licensing. Even so, council wanted
to make changes in the proposal.

Councilwoman Judy Weaver had a long list of changes -- including
requiring that anyone obtaining medical marijuana present a picture
identification card as part of the process.

She also noted there are no limits in the new state law on how many
times someone with a state-approved marijuana card can patronize a
center on any day.

Councilman Ray Aguilera, a liquor store owner, questioned that, noting
there are no state limits on how many times a person can patronize a
liquor store in a day.

Councilwoman Vera Ortegon countered that medical prescriptions are
different, that pharmacies can deny a prescription if records indicate
that prescription has already been filled.

Stiegelmeier said he tried to balance the city ordinance with
Amendment 20, the state constitutional amendment that legalized the
use of medical marijuana for some health conditions.

Weaver noted that center operators have approached her and identified
some of their patients as a way to reassure her, but she found that to
be an alarming violation of patient privacy.

Stiegelmeier agreed that confidentiality should be required and the
ordinance could be amended to do that.

Karl Tameler, an attorney who represents center owners, asked council
to revise the ordinance to allow centers to have growing sites away
from the center. He said the state law bans identifying the actual
location of growing sites to prevent robberies and theft. Tameler
argued that by requiring marijuana centers to grow their product at an
adjoining building or site, the city was identifying locations.

Stiegelmeier said the city ordinance allows the grow site to be in an
adjoining building or even on an adjoining lot.

He put the adjoining requirement in the ordinance because the new
state law prevents any public hearing on establishing a grow site, so
the city ordinance requires it to be adjoining to a center. Centers
will not be licensed without a public hearing, he said.

"Otherwise, the city residents wouldn't know if there was a grow site
in their area," he said.

Councilman Steve Nawrocki questioned Stiegelmeier, about who would
inspect a center's security measures and was told that city police
could do that.