KCET’s SoCal Connected recently ran this follow up piece to their award-winning series on the expansion of medical cannabis collectives in Los Angeles. City Council Member Ed Reyes, Community Organizer Mike Larsen, and I are all finally on the same page about one thing – we are tired of this controvesry. Unfortunately, there may be no end in sight. Collective operators should take no comfort in that. Growing frustration may lead to more enforcement, more onerous restrictions, or an outright ban on collectives.
The Los Angeles City Council approved amendments to its Medical Cannabis Ordinance (MCO) on Friday, paving the way for full implementation of the controversial measure this summer. The City Council removed the two-year sunset clause and provided additional protection for patients’ medical records. The most significant changes, however, involve how the city will determine which patients’ associations are eligible to register. It seems no one is happy with the compromise designed to work around a Preliminary Injunction blocking enforcement of some provisions of the ordinance.
One day after approving onerous new restrictions on where medical cannabis collectives can be located, the Los Angeles City Council seemed ready to rethink the issue today. Spurred by comments from Councilmember Ed Reyes, several members indicated they were willing to revisit Tuesday’s motion by Councilmember Perry to double the size of the buffer zone between collectives and a laundry list of sensitive uses to 1,000 feet – including any property used as a residence. The change of heart is good news for tens of thousands of patients in Los Angeles. Perry’s unexpected motion might have excluded collectives in most of the properties in Los Angeles.
The City Council has delayed a vote on the final ordinance, including Perry’s motion, until Wednesday, December 16, when the Planning Department is expected to produce maps illustrating 500 and 1,000 buffer zones around sensitive uses and residential use. Early research suggests the maps will show little opportunity for legally organized collectives in the city. This may spur City Councilmembers to reconsider the previous language, which required collectives to locate 500 feet from sensitive uses and avoid only those properties that abut residential use.
The Los Angeles City Council will not be voting this week on a medical cannabis ordinance approved by the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee. The LA Times reports that City Councilmember Ed Reyes wants more time to resolve the complicated issues surrounding the ordinance, and staff at City Hall tell me that more committee hearings may proceed a vote by the full City Council. It is possible that a joint committee meeting between the PLUM and Public Safety Committees will address the necessary changes.
At this point, delay may be beneficial for patients. The City Attorney’s latest draft version has some big flaws – including lack of protection for patient privacy, a ban on edible preparations, and unreasonable restrictions on where collectives can be located. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) recommends substantial changes to the draft. It will be easier to make improvements like these at the committee level than it will be before fourteen or fifteen City Councilmembers.
City Councilmembers are right not to be bullied into adopting a bad ordinance. This issue is too complicated and important to rush.
The City of Los Angeles continued its long march towards regulations for medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives today, when the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee heard the second round of status updates from city departments. Committee members heard updates from the Planning Department, the Building and Safety Department, and comments from the public – including representatives from three Neighborhood Councils concerned about continued proliferation and nuisance activity around cannabis facilities. Notably absent, however, was input from newly elected City Attorney Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich, who has yet to take a public stand on medical cannabis regulations.
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.
