“… City Council voted 5-0 in support of an interim ordinance at Thursday’s meeting that prohibits the establishment of marijuana dispensaries in Beverly Hills…. ‘Staff believes that the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in Beverly Hills has the potential to change the character of Beverly Hills,’ [Director of Community Development] Keene said, noting the recent string of robberies and murders that have occurred at dispensaries in Los Angeles…”

Read the entire story online.

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.

(Download the relevant documents from the LA City Clerk’s website.)

Advocates are skeptical, however, of an amendment to the initial motion extending the term of the moratorium for another six months (until march 2010). Councilmembers Reyes, Rosendahl, and Zine proposed that friendly amendment to give city staff more time to write a permanent ordinance regulating collectives. Advocates worry that the extension violates California Government Code 65858, which prohibits cities from using an Urgency Ordinance to establish a moratorium for more than two years. This may generate litigation when the initial two-year moratorium expires on September 14, 2009, and new collectives try to open.

City staff argues that work on the permanent regulations is underway, and therefore, the extension is defensible. This may be true, but delays caused by litigation will certainly complicate the already chaotic path towards regulations. The situation is even more complex because, as a Charter City, Los Angeles has the constitutional right to make its own law. Whether or not state law preempts Los Angeles from adopting longer moratoria under Section 253 of the City Charter is unclear. That section can be read as allowing longer Urgency Ordinances, although it is reasonable to assume a court would disallow an open ended ban on any activity temporarily prohibited under Section 253. This may have to be settled in court if the City Council extends the moratorium beyond two years.

What the city needs now is clarity and concrete progress. The City Council would be wise to leave the original deadline in place and prod city staff into action on the final ordinance before the original two-year ICO expires.

The City Council will consider the amendments at 10:00 AM on Friday, June 19, in Council Chambers (Room 340) at City Hall – 312 N. Spring Street at Temple Street in downtown Los Angeles.

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.