Pot Shops:

SANTA BARBARA VOTES TO ALLOW UP TO 5 MEDICINAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

In a 6-1 vote, the Santa Barbara City Council voted to introduce an
amendment to grandfather in two Eastside medicinal marijuana
dispensaries, but opened the possibility of a different settlement.

Since a federal court granted an injunction on the city's order to
close down the Green Well dispensary, City Attorney Stephen Wiley
advised the Council to amend the council's June 2010 ordinance to
allow the two dispensaries, or up to five, to operate.

Last week the amendments were approved by the ordinance subcommittee
and came before the council yesterday.

Wiley told the council that while the ruling wasn't final, it
indicated that the judge is inclined to side with the owners of the
Green Well Dispensary at 500 Milpas Street.

The Green Well opened in January of 2010 after receiving a permit
from the city under the original 2008 ordinance controls.

But in June, the city council drafted a new ordinance that, among
other things, extended the minimum distance between a dispensary and
a school from 500 to 600 feet.

The Green Well, 532 feet from Santa Barbara Junior High, found itself
in violation of the new ordinance and sued when the city tried to
shut them down.

Some members of the public were opposed to the new amendments,
feeling the city should pursue the lawsuit and appeal the decision if
the judge ruled against them.

Neighborhood activist Jim Westby said the council should let the
court case play out. He felt that the city should settle if
necessary, but the dispensary should not be allowed to stay.

"We changed the law so we owe them something," Westby said. "But we
don't owe them so much that they can exist here forever."

Wiley said the city could pursue the case, but it ran the risk of
having the judge invalidate the ordinance and having to pay the
plaintiff's legal fees.

"You could be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal
fees," Wiley said.

Mayor Helene Schneider said attorney fees weren't as worrisome as the
possibility that the judge could throw out the ordinance altogether.

"To me, the bigger issue is invalidating an ordinance that took
twenty-plus meetings, an election, and a lot of grief and angst to
get to where we are," Schneider said. "The last thing this community
needs is for us to start all over again on a new ordinance."

Council member Grant House agreed.

"That's a present danger and puts us in a very important position
when we make our decision today," House said.

Dale Francisco, an outspoken opponent of dispensaries within the
city, supported the ordinance but wondered if another solution to the
litigation could be found.

"If these dispensaries are what they claim to be, compassionate,
nonprofit operations helping the seriously ill we can probably find
some other compensation suitable to them other than indefinitely
grandfathering them," Francisco said.

That suggestion proved to be popular among the council. Michael Self
believed that finding another solution that didn't involve keeping
the dispensaries around indefinitely would be better for the community.

"Let's face it, dispensaries, legal, illegal, whatever, are expensive
to the city," Self said. "By keeping the two nonconforming
[dispensaries] we're going to have enforcement expenses, legal fees,
and intimidation to the neighborhood."

Council member Randy Rowse was the lone voice of dissent. Rowse
acknowledged the legal implications, but said he couldn't bring
himself to vote for it on principle.

"It may be the wrong thing to do for the benefit of the city itself,"
Rowse said. "But I'm having a real struggle ethically with going
forward and saying 'Well the ordinance says three but maybe five.'"