(Oct. 27, 2009) -- A draft ordinance regulating medical marijuana entities in LB will await direction by the full City Council following today's memo'd response from City Attorney Bob Shannon.
In a memo to the Council's Economic Development and Finance Committee (chair, Rae Gabelich; vice chair Gary DeLong; member Tonia Reyes Uranga), cc'd to Mayor Bob Foster, all Councilmembers and city management, City Attorney Shannon cited what amount to process issues in declining to prepare a draft ordinance at the Committee's voted request (3-0) yesterday (Oct. 26).
City Attorney Shannon's memo says that absent exceptional circumstances, his office only prepares draft ordinance at the direction and request of the full Council...and notes that the item was sent to the Committee by August 4 Council action for receipt of additional public comment.
The memo adds that the Council requested that the City Attorney report back to the full Council with regard to the feasibility of a local regulatory ordinance. "This I intend to do," City Attorney Shannon's memo says.
The City Clerk's minutes of the Aug. 4 meeting reflect the following voted action:
Vote: Second Substitute motion to:
A. Concurrently refer discussion of medical marijuana dispensaries licensing to the Economic Development and Finance Committee for receipt of additional public comment; and
B. Request the City Attorney to report back to the City Council within 60 days on the feasibility, legality and enforcement of potential local ordinances the Council may enact regarding medical marijuana, pursuant to state law. The report would include the following considerations:
[1] The means for legal medical marijuana collectives, as defined in state law and clarified in court cases such as People v. Mentsch, People v. Northcutt and People v. Urziceanu, to operate within the City;
[2] Zoning criteria for the location of collectives within the City, including whether it is feasible to limit the location, size and number of members in a collective operating within a residential-zoned area;
[3] The ability to prohibit any collective from being located within a 1,000-foot radius of schools, parks, licensed child care facilities, or other medical marijuana collectives;
[4] The establishment of a system in which qualified collectives must register with the City to obtain a permit, and provide a list of the primary care givers and qualified patients that belong to the collective;
[5] An appropriate fee payable to the City prior to being issued a permit;
[6] The ability to regulate the sale or dispensing of any marijuana-related paraphernalia;
[7] Require that all permitted collectives meet certain conditions, including, but not limited to: a) The location shall have a security plan approved by the Police Department, and the Police Department or other appropriate City department may inspect every medical marijuana collective location at a reasonable time to ensure compliance; b) No cultivated marijuana or dried marijuana product may be visible from the building exterior; c) No medical marijuana products may be consumed on-site, or in the parking areas of the site ; and d) Any food-related products offered by the collective shall comply with Health Department standards;
[8] The applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act towards the operating of collectives in either residential or commercial corridors; and
[9] The legality and feasibility of imposing a tax on gross receipts of medical marijuana, similar to the measure recently approved by the voters of the City of Oakland, CA.
The foregoing motion also incorporated Councilmember Reyes Uranga’s request that the discussion on dispensary licensing include how the City would:
[1] Provide a process for the collectives and cooperatives to apply for a business license, to set forth the specific standards and criteria under which such businesses shall be conducted and regulated within the City, and to set forth any regulatory fees pursuant to Title 5;
[2] Declare a moratorium on medical marijuana facilities in order to develop a process for business licensing, adopt related zoning ordinances and to provide a time period for the registration of all existing facilities in order to determine the location and number of dispensaries within the City;
[3] Develop and recommend the zoning requirements for placement of these facilities: i.e .not allowed near churches or schools, in neighborhoods, etc.; [4] Develop and recommend a standard on the number of dispensaries that would be allowed in the City; and [5] Determine how to amortize the closure of preexisting, non-confirming uses after guidelines have been established. (Carried 9-0)
Yes: Garcia, Lowenthal, DeLong, O'Donnell, Schipske, Andrews, Reyes Uranga, Gabelich, and Lerch.
As previously reported by LBReport.com, the City Attorney's office issued a legal analysis memo on October 22 for the Mayor and Council. (To view it, click here).
The legal analysis memo cited legal points but didn't contain a draft ordinance...and Committee members Gabelich and Reyes Uranga expressed displeasure to Deputy City Attorney Cristyl Meyers on the matter during the Committee meeting.
Medical marijuana dispensaries have proliferated across the city...and Committee chair Gabelich came prepared with a written list of specific items she favored including in a city ordinance. City Prosecutor Tom Reeves (below) also brought his own six page memo offering specific suggested areas for regulation.
To view Committee Chair Gabelich's suggestions (among them: no more than nine medical marijuana dispensaries citywide, and none in residential areas), click here. To view City Prosecutor Reeves' memo and suggestions, click here.
What takes place next will apparently involve agendized voted direction by the full Council.
