MARIJUANA ORDINANCE APPROVED

Despite warnings that lawsuits would ensue, the Ukiah City Council on
Wednesday passed a sweeping new marijuana ordinance.

The council gave unanimous consent, although the 4-0 vote reflected the
absence of Council member Doug Crane. Crane had said previously he didn't
like the wording of any of the draft ordinances he'd seen.

Even if Crane had been there Wednesday to dissent, though, it was clear
almost from the outset of the discussion that the council had enough votes
for passage.

Once the ordinance takes effect, growers in residential areas will be
limited to six plants per parcel. The max in non-residential zones is six
mature plants and 12 immature ones. Also, the property owner must sign a
statement acknowledging that growing marijuana may lead to federal prosecution.

All growers, regardless of the location of their operation, must obtain a
permit from the city. The permit is good for up to one year; after that the
grower must renew it to stay legal.

Moreover, all pot must be grown indoors in a secure location. The ordinance
also forbids marijuana growing within 300 feet of certain places such as
schools, parks, churches and day-care centers.

Because the council intends to use zoning regulations to rein in unfettered
pot growing, the ordinance now must go before the Planning Commission. That
means there will be another public hearing, and planning commissioners can
do whatever they want to the text.

Wednesday's vote made all of that a formality, though, and planning
commissioners will essentially deal with a foregone conclusion. Even if
they find fault with the ordinance, the council left no doubt about its intent.

"The number of findings (I included) is overkill," City Attorney David
Rapport told the council. "The reason for that is I wanted to establish a
factual basis for the ordinance."

Those 16 findings take up nearly three pages of the eight-page ordinance.
The first one mentions Proposition 215, which California voters passed in
1996, thus legalizing medicinal marijuana use. Another finding refers to a
"popular strain of marijuana (that) is called skunk' or super skunk.'"

Such details might be more than council members ever wanted to know about
the drug, but Rapport was trying to cover all the bases.

In doing so, he and the council overreached, said Dane Wilkins and Bob
Boyd, representatives of the Northern California chapter of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

When Wilkins, the chapter's executive director, stepped to the podium to
address the council, an audience member chuckled and said, "Here we go."

Wilkins gave an example of a patient with multiple sclerosis who cannot
afford an indoor greenhouse. Such a person would be deprived of the
medicine they're entitled to under the law, Wilkins said. He offered to
assist the council in making the ordinance more "compassionate."

Boyd, a local attorney and NORML supporter, said the council was
"eviscerating" Proposition 215 and asking for someone to "take this to the
courthouse."

Vice Mayor Phil Baldwin reiterated his support for legalizing marijuana,
and he suggested NORML members review the organization's original mission.
Baldwin said Prop. 215 "has turned out to be a disaster." He added that
growers and sellers have completely distorted the voters' intent.

Separate high-profile robbery attempts in past months put pressure on
council members to address the public safety concerns surrounding backyard
marijuana gardens. Baldwin has been the most vocal, and a lack of precedent
has not deterred him from promoting the ordinance.

But did good intentions cause a rush to act? Critics of the ordinance say
yes. And as Crane pointed out in an earlier interview, "There's no prize
for being first."