Tuesday, July 7th, 2009
Angelinos got some indication about what direction city staff will take in developing an ordinance regulating collectives and cooperatives in Los Angeles when the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee heard status updates at this afternoon’s meeting. Input from city staff is encouraging, but it is clear there is still significant work to do in crafting policies that protect access and patient privacy, while addressing community concerns.
The Planning Department has assembled a project team to craft a land use ordinance that specifies in which zoning districts collectives and cooperatives can establish storefront facilities and how far they must be from other medical cannabis facilities, sensitive uses, and businesses prone to nuisance activity (liquor stores, adult entertainment, etc.). The Building and Safety Department is coordinating on separate operational protocols, which are likely to include regulations concerning hours of operation, required security, and other measures.
Observers were surprised by a proposal from the Planning Department for a more lenient permit process than the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) proposed by advocates. City Planner Alan Bell told the committee that permits may be available to any collective or cooperative that meets the land use and operational requirements without a public hearing, while other facilities can request an exception to some requirements through an administrative hearing process. We can anticipate some controversy on this topic. Neighborhood groups want more input in the permit process, and even some advocates want a tougher process to allay community concerns.
The City Council’s legislative analyst has already circulated language for the ordinance to various departments for review, but has not yet discussed the matter in detail with newly elected City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. City staff is doing technical analysis on the draft ordinance now. Part of this process includes developing maps showing what territory would be off limits given differing requirements for distances between collectives and sensitive uses. PLUM Committee Chairman Reyes asked staff to report back on their timeline in two weeks.
A representative from the Code Enforcement said that his department is already enforcing hardship application denials, saying that five facilities have already closed and six have been referred to the City Attorney’s office for further enforcement. Newly elected City Councilmember and PLUM Committee member Paul Koretz was the first member to sound a cautionary note regarding hardship applications. Koretz questioned the wisdom of closing facilities that might ultimately qualify under the new ordinance. It remains to be seen whether this represents a softening of the committee’s hard line approach to hardship applications.
I encouraged committee members to be careful about recommending any regulations containing a laundry list of sensitive uses, pointing out that the well-regulated facilities anticipated by this ordinance would not be problematic for neighbors. Councilmember Huizar echoed this sentiment. He related his positive experience visiting Cornerstone Research in Eagle Rock. The Councilmember said there was no reason that facility could not be near a sensitive use, adding he was rethinking a proposed 1,000-foot requirement in the current draft.
I also encouraged the committee to abandon plans to require collectives to disclose the names of patient-cultivators. Chairman Reyes agreed to hear more on this topic. Reyes also expressed concern about doctors writing recommendations too freely. I reminded committee members that enforcement for doctors falls to the California Medical Board, which has already sanctioned doctors who fail to uphold the agency’s standards.
In a subsequent item, the PLUM Committee also recommended denial of a hardship application for a collective on Venice Blvd. When questioned by Councilmember Koretz about what constitutes a hardship under the moratorium, a representative from the City Attorney’s office said that the decision was a exclusively legislative one, which must only have a “rational basis.” The representative reiterated that the hardship application did not give anyone permission to operate in violation of the moratorium.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council quickly denied fourteen hardship applications today for medical cannabis collectives that opened or relocated since the city adopted a moratorium on new facilities in September of 2007. Observers expected a hard line from Councilmembers, who have come under increasing pressure from neighborhood groups and media in light of the proliferation and clustering of new collectives under the moratorium.
I joined five Councilmembers at a press conference before the meeting, where they reiterated their commitment to protecting safe access and enforcing local law. Councilmembers Zine, Hahn, Huizar, Reyes, and Garcetti all answered pointed questions from media and promised an aggressive response to the neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Zine also acknowledged the work of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) by name, thanking them for diligent work in promoting sensible regulations.
The City Council later approved a motion by Councilmember Huizar to remove the controversial hardship provision, and surprised advocates by extending the city’s moratorium on new facilities for another six months. The provisions will take effect when the City Council votes on a new ordinance next week. Councilmember Huizar said that staff needs more time to craft permanent regulations. City staff reassured concerned advocates that the extension was legal – despite the fact that it exceeds the usual two-year limit for urgency ordinances.
Observers were surprised to hear strong words of support for medical cannabis and cannabis law reform from Councilmember Alarcon, who has so far been silent on the topic. Councilmembers Zine, Rosendahl, Huizar, Reyes, LaBonge, and Hahn also rose in vigorous support of medical cannabis – and all worried aloud about abuse of the system. Councilmember-elect Paul Koretz will replace outgoing Councilmember Weiss, an opponent of safe access, as a solid pro-access vote in July. The growing cadre of medical cannabis supporters on the City Council means sensible regulations are almost certain to be adopted (when they are finally finished). Only Councilmembers Smith and Parks rose today to oppose the Council’s pro-medical cannabis agenda.
Hardship applicants would fare no better in hearings before the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee later this afternoon. The committee denied one application after cursory testimony. Chairman Reyes continued a second hearing so that Councilmember Rosendahl’s office could confirm the applicant’s claim that the collective was not already open, and therefore, not in violation of the moratorium.
Today’s press conference and 15-0 scorecard make it clear that the City Council and PLUM Committee sent a message to hundreds of hardship applicants awaiting hearings. The rapid proliferation and anecdotal reports of bad behavior have generated a backlash against which applicants must fight. For most, the outcome is likely to be bad. This is especially unfortunate for the unknown number of collectives that registered with the City Clerk before the moratorium, but later relocated as a result of federal intimidation.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
Saturday, June 6th, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council will take up fourteen hardship applications for medical cannabis collectives in Eagle Rock and Highland Park on Tuesday morning. These are the first of approximately five hundred hardship applications filed for medical cannabis facilities that opened or relocated after the City Council adopted a moratorium on new collectives on September 14, 2007. Increasing pressure from neighborhood groups and bad media coverage have embarrassed the City Council in recent weeks, and observers expect all or most of the applications will be denied. The City Council will also vote on a motion by Councilmember Huizar to remove the hardship provision from the city’s moratorium. If approved, the motion will prevent any new hardship applications.
Later on Tuesday, the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee will discuss permanent regulations, which the City Council plans to adopt before the moratorium expires September. Medical cannabis advocates joined City Councilmember Dennis Zine earlier this year in rejecting a draft ordinance prepared by outgoing City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. That misguided measure regarded collectives as illegal and would have forced every facility in Los Angeles to close. The PLUM Committee is expected to send recommendations for improved regulations to the full City Council on Tuesday. The Council will then forward the recommendations, including any amendments, to the City Attorney’s office with instructions to write a new ordinance.
An alphabet soup of advocacy organizations has been working with Councilmembers and city staff for over a year to craft the permanent regulations – Americans for Safe Access (ASA), Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance (GLACA), Patients Advocacy Network (PAN). These groups join other local players, including patients, law enforcement, and neighborhood groups. The final phase of writing the ordinance will be controversial, as various interests compete to shape the next draft. Expect differing strategies and priorities.
There is likely to be something in the draft ordinance to which every stakeholder objects. Ultimately, every measure must be evaluated based on its benefit or harm to legal patients. It will be even more important now that every medical cannabis supporter in Los Angeles stay plugged in and let Councilmembers know which provisions help facilitate access to medicine – and which will roll back patients’ rights.
The City Council meets at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, June 9, in Room 340, City Hall, 200 North Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles. Arrive early to complete a public speaker’s card. The PLUM Committee meets at 2:00 PM just across the rotunda in Room 350.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | 1 Comment »
Saturday, May 30th, 2009
Update June 2 – The PLUM Committee approved Councilmember Huizar’s motion this afternoon. It will be considered by the full City Council on Friday.
—
The Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee will consider a motion by Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar on Tuesday that would remove the controversial hardship provision from the city’s Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) establishing a moratorium on new medical cannabis facilities. Hundreds of new and relocating patients’ associations have filed hardship applications and opened since the City Council adopted the ICO in September 2007. According to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) published recently by the Planning Department, applicants should have waited for approval of their hardship applications before opening. However, inconsistent information from city staff and a lack of enforcement contributed to hundreds of new collectives opening in the last eighteen months.
Councilmember Huizar’s motion is aimed at stopping the proliferation of new medical cannabis providers in light of a growing public backlash. Media, neighborhood groups, and law enforcement are speaking out against the continued proliferation citywide and the clustering of facilities in some neighborhoods. The public outcry comes at an inconvenient time for patients and advocates. The City Council is debating the terms of a permanent ordinance for medical cannabis associations in Los Angeles right now. The growing controversy is likely to influence that debate and the contents of the final regulations.
The PLUM Committee is likely to recommend that the full City Council approve the motion and amend the ICO. No additional hardship applications will be available if the City Council approves the measure at a future meeting. Councilmember Huizar’s motion will not directly impact hundreds of hardship applications already filed. These must still be heard separately by the PLUM Committee, before going to the City Council for final approval or denial. No date has been set to hear the hardship applications at this time.
The PLUM Committee meets at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, June 2, in Hearing Room 350 at City Hall – 200 N. Spring St. at Temple in downtown Los Angeles.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009
Angelinos are concerned about the growing number of medical cannabis collectives opening in the city lately, despite the eighteen-month old moratorium on new facilities. Concern is greatest in those neighborhoods where storefront collectives are clustering. In an op-ed published today, the LA Daily News says North Hollywood has “more than its fair share of dispensaries;” and neighborhood activists in the Melrose-Fairfax area are actively lobbying the City Attorney and City Council to close facilities that opened after Councilmembers adopted a moratorium on new storefronts in August 2007. The proliferation of new facilities has escalated since US Attorney General Holder made comments on February 25 and March 18 indicating federal policy opposing medical cannabis may be changing, giving many would-be collective operators what is likely a false sense of security.
The medical cannabis community in Los Angeles would do well to take notice of this growing backlash, and vocally support implementation and enforcement of local ordinances. Community complaints may undermine the goodwill that led Coucilmembers to opt for regulations, instead of a ban on facilities; and to endorse the Hinchey- Rohrabacher amendment in the US House of Representatives and support a California Senate Joint Resolution calling for an end to federal interference in state medical cannabis programs.
The moratorium adopted in 2007 contains a boiler late hardship exemption, which allows collectives and cooperatives to ask the City Council for an exemption from the terms of the ordinance. The City Council intended that this provision be used by those facilities that registered by the original deadline of November 12, 2007, but subsequently relocated for reasons beyond their control. Some of the original collectives made legitimate use of this provision, after their landlords were intimidated into evicting the collectives by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Other collectives are using the hardship application as a free pass to open new collectives in defiance of the moratorium. Inconsistent information from city staff and opportunistic legal advice fuel this trend. Over 200 collectives have filed hardship applications since the effective date ordinance. This unchecked proliferation of new storefronts leads to ambivalence towards medical cannabis in Los Angeles. If left unchecked, the growing neighborhood opposition could reverse our progress and result in onerous regulations for every collective in Los Angeles – or renewed calls for an outright ban. At the City Council meeting in Van Nuys on March 6, 2009, Councilmember Dennis Zine, a champion of regulations for collectives, promised the city would start reviewing hardship applications and closing illegitimate collectives.
Medical cannabis patients and providers should stand in solidarity calling for enforcement of the existing moratorium, and ask the City Council to move quickly in processing the hardship applications. We must also keep pressure on Councilmembers and city staff to craft sensible permanent regulations for storefronts in Los Angeles. Research and experience shows this reduces crime and neighborhood complaints, making patients and collectives safer in the long run.
Get more information about the Los Angeles moratorium from Americans For Safe Access (ASA).
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
