LA City Attorney Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich

City staff reported some progress during the brief discussion. Staff has mapped “sensitive uses” for 35% of the city. When the entire city is mapped, Planning Department staff will draw radii of various sizes around these addresses to determine how far collectives and cooperatives must be from a laundry list of uses, which may include schools, churches, parks, beach access points, youth-oriented businesses, places where young people tend to congregate, public beach access points, drug treatment facilities, and on and on.

Debate about what constitutes a sensitive use and how far permitted collectives must be from each is likely to be one of the most contentious debates in the process of writing the new ordinance. Neighbors concerned about crime and unchecked expansion in the number of patients’ associations are calling for broad buffer zones from a wide range of uses. Councilmember Paul Koretz, who is temporarily serving on the committee in former Councilmember Jack Weiss’ seat, expressed concern that the buffer zones must not be so large as to make operating a collective impossible. Chairman Ed Reyes assured listeners that the goal was to have an enforceable ordinance that secured access for those in need.

Buffer zones will be one of the contentious issues in the new draft ordinance, but there is an even more serious issue that threatens to complicate the process late in the game. City Attorney Trutanich has yet to weigh in on an unpublished draft ordinance circulated by city staff last week. Advocates worry that the City Attorney may be influenced by staff held over from former City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who regarded all storefront collectives and sales of cannabis as illegal. If Trurtanich ignores City Council instructions and case law affirming the legal status of collectives, he may revert to Delgadillo’s position that “illegal” activity can not be regulated. This would be a serious set back for patients and advocates.

Representatives from Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the Greater Los Angeles Collectives Alliance (GLACA) are working hard to educate the City Attorney and his staff about the California Attorney General’s guidelines for medical cannabis, which recognize that legally organized and operated collectives may maintain storefront facilities; and about important case law upholding the legal status of patients’ associations in Los Angeles. Recent ASA court victories in Butte County and San Diego are the cornerstone of this effort.

Trutanich may pleasantly surprise advocates, who rallied around his candidacy in hopes of defeating former City Councilmember and medical cannabis opponent Jack Weiss in this year’s runoff election. However, his silence does little to reassure the community at this strategic juncture. Unless Trutanich repudiates his predecessor’s ideological stance and vocally supports real implementation, advocates may soon conclude that “better than Jack Weiss” is too low a standard for the City Attorney.

No one will benefit if the debate about new regulations regresses to where it was a year ago, when law enforcement and a reluctant City Attorney impeded regulation based on personal bias and faulty legal analysis. It is past time to move forward with sensible regulations, which are proven to protect patients and the community by reducing crime and complaints around collectives. The City Council should be eager for Los Angeles to join dozens of other jurisdictions that have already realized these benefits – especially given a growing backlash from neighborhood groups and critical media.

County of Butte v. Superior Court “upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts’ ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively ’should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights.’ Judge Roberts’ ruling also rejected Butte County’s policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to ‘contribute financially’.” (quoted from ASA) This has positive implications for defendants and regulations statewide!

Read more about the Butte County decision on the ASA web site.