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.

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.

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.

—

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.

This report is the latest evidence of growing frustration in Los Angeles neighborhoods. The Mid-Wilshire Neighborhood Council adopted a resolution this week asking the City Council to enforce the moratorium. They join the Melrose-Fairfax Neighborhood Watch, Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, and others community groups in speaking up about medical cannabis. Many of the principals in those organizations were featured in the report.

Bad media is bad news for patients and providers in Los Angeles. Councilmembers must adopt a permanent ordinance before the moratorium expires on September 14, and we do not want them having that debate in the context of a public outcry. This report spared collectives and cooperatives the harshest criticisms – making only passing reference to marketing aimed at young people and profiteering. We can expect more critical coverage if the public outcry grows.