NEWS: Long Beach weeds out more medical marijuana sites

LONG BEACH - Nine more Long Beach medical marijuana sites will shut down under proposed amendments supported Tuesday by the City Council, leaving 28 total locations for dispensing or growing the drug.

The council reached a late-night compromise, voting not to fully support changes to the city's medical marijuana law that had been pushed by three council members, but still adding some new restrictions for marijuana collectives.

Most notably, the council didn't restrict marijuana cultivation to industrial areas nor limit the number of collectives allowed throughout the city, but it did create buffer zones around parks.

The council voted 7-2 to rewrite the law that it had approved in March, adding to existing rules that include prohibitions against collectives operating near schools, in residential areas or within 1,000 feet of each other, and a requirement that they must grow their marijuana within the city limits.

Supporting a compromise proposed by Councilman Robert Garcia, the council added several new rules, which were based off of a more stringent proposal by council members Gary DeLong, Gerrie Schipske and Patrick O'Donnell.

"I think what's being proposed tonight is overly restrictive," Councilman Robert Garcia said of the original proposal.

"We are talking about patients, and these are people that have been prescribed medicine and they have a right to access that medicine."

Under DeLong, O'Donnell and Schipske's proposal, collectives would have been allowed to grow marijuana only in industrial areas; wouldn't have been able to operate within 1,000 feet of libraries, child-care centers and parks; and would have been restricted to 18 operations citywide and two per council district.
Under Garcia's proposed restrictions that were approved by the council:

Collectives must submit audited financial statements and their annual state sales tax report to the city.

Collectives only be open from 9 a.m. to 7p.m. daily (this is a change from the original proposal that collectives close at 5 p.m.)

There will be a 45-day public review period followed by a hearing in front of the council for new marijuana collective applications, rather than just a public hearing.

No collectives will be allowed within 1,000 feet of parks.

Security cameras will be required on the outside of collective buildings.

A one-year moratorium on new collectives will go into effect.

DeLong calculated during the meeting that the changes would eliminate nine of the existing 37 marijuana sites.

O'Donnell and Councilman James Johnson voted against the motion because they wanted a stricter policy. Johnson said he feared that without limiting the number of collectives, certain parts of the city might end up with a proliferation of collectives.

"I just don't think it's fair for certain parts of the city to bear the potential burden of potential nuisance activity while others don't," Johnson said.

Tuesday's action requires the City Attorney's Office to rewrite the ordinance, but the council will have to vote on it two more times, giving the council two more chances to tweak the law.

Collective operators had already threatened to take legal action if the council changed the ordinance, and that had been one of the concerns of some council members going into the meeting.

Still, one question that concerned Councilwoman Rae Gabelich was how the city will be able to reimburse the collectives for their permit fees, which were $14,700 for a single collective, but that increased to $25,000 for those that had a separate cultivation site.

Long Beach officials used that marijuana permit revenue - over $700,000 in all - to help end the last fiscal year with a balanced budget.

"We couldn't tell you tonight where the money would come from on that," City Manager Pat West told the council.

Collective operators had mixed feelings about the new rules after Tuesday's meeting. Some were relieved that their collectives won't be affected, while others, such as Judi Farris, who runs Long Beach Natural Solutions collective at 726 W. Willow St., feared that more changes are to come.

"They (the council) can just keep doing it and doing it until there's no one left," Farris said.

Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram

NEWS: The hazy road to Long Beach's medical marijuana regulations

It took months of meetings for the Long Beach City Council to craft a law regulating medical marijuana collectives. Once the law was approved, collectives worked for months to meet the requirements, then participated in a controversial lottery process.

Collectives still must go through city inspections and take other steps before receiving permits to operate, but even that is in question now. Today, three council members are seeking to alter the ordinance to further restrict where collectives may operate.

The council meets at 6tonight - an hour later than usual - in City Hall, 333 W. Ocean Blvd.

Aug. 4, 2009 - Concerned about the number of collectives in Long Beach, the council votes to have a committee consider how to regulate the operations.

Nov. 10, 2009 - In a meeting attended by a crowd of medical marijuana advocates, the council approves creating a medical marijuana law but takes out some of the more restrictive measures. At Councilman Gary DeLong's suggestion, the council votes not to prohibit collectives near libraries and parks, as City Attorney Bob Shannon proposed. The council leaves in some requirements, such as prohibiting collectives in residential areas, near schools and within 1,000 feet of each other.

Jan. 21 - Draft ordinance goes to the council. Council deadlocks over where to allow marijuana cultivation.

Feb. 4 - Police recommend requiring marijuana to be grown within city limits but the council decided not to restrict medical marijuana cultivation within city limits.

Feb. 9 - A final vote on the law is postponed by Mayor Bob Foster and City Attorney Bob Shannon because of concerns about the crime ramifications of importing marijuana from outside of the city.

Feb. 16 - Council again delays a final vote, after representatives from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the L.A. County Sheriff's Department tell the council that Long Beach's law should require marijuana to be grown within the city limits.

March 9 - Council votes 5-4 to require that medical marijuana be grown within the city limits.

Aug. 27 - Collective members protest in front of City Hall after their applications were rejected.

Sept. 21 - City holds lottery to eliminate collectives that are too close together; 32 out of 43 total collectives move forward in the permit process. Marijuana advocates ridicule the lottery after the city's lottery machine fails and winners' numbers must be drawn from a trash bin.

Today - Citing constituent concerns, DeLong and council members Gerrie Schipske and Patrick O'Donnell seek to add new restrictions, including creating collective-free zones around parks, libraries and child-care centers; limiting marijuana cultivation to industrial areas; and restricting the number of collectives.

Videos clips of speakers from previous council meetings

Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram

NEWS: L.A. strictly interprets restriction on pot dispensaries

When the Los Angeles City Council adopted its medical marijuana ordinance, it aimed to rout unscrupulous dispensary operators whose unruly customers irritated residents and operators who opened up willy-nilly across the city, ignoring a ban on new stores.

But the ordinance has snared operators who appear to have tried hard to adhere to state law and the city's rules. Among them are some of the most politically active operators whose dispensaries are considered model operations. Last week, the city sued these dispensaries and dozens of others and asked a judge to rule that they could be shut down.

The ordinance, which went into effect in June, allowed dispensaries that registered with the city by Nov. 13, 2007, to apply to stay open, but it required them to have "the same ownership and management." The city attorney's office has decided that means the owners and managers must be the same people who held those positions three years ago.

When Barry Kramer opened California Patients Alliance in April 2007, he ran it alone. "I was the manager. I was the operator. I was the secretary. I was everything," he said. Now, with about 1,500 members, the Beverly Grove dispensary has added two managers. "I can't be here seven days a week," Kramer said. "I don't see any legal basis for saying a business is not allowed to expand."

Under the city's interpretation of the ordinance, if a dispensary's manager died, quit or was fired and was then replaced, it must close. If the business grew and added managers, it must close. If it shrank and let managers go, it must close. If it was sold to new owners, it must close.

"It makes it completely irrational. This is life. Things happen," said David Welch, a lawyer who represents more than 60 dispensaries. "It almost puts an impossible burden on collectives."

Stewart Richlin, another attorney for dispensaries, noted that the city did not tell registered dispensaries in 2007 that they could not change owners or managers, and he pointed to a 2009 planning department memo that says the city "does not prohibit ownership changes."

"This is America," he said. "Every business can be transferred."

The city attorney's office said it must interpret the ordinance strictly, saying any discretion would expose the ordinance to legal attacks. "We are constantly thinking of the greater good, which is an enforceable ordinance," said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney who helped draft the law and is defending it against 32 lawsuits filed by dispensaries that were ordered to shut down.

Usher said the language that the City Council adopted is unambiguous: no change in ownership, no change in management. "There was a very clear road map," she said, "and I don't know why dispensaries didn't follow it, but I assume they didn't follow it because they couldn't."

David and Irina Vayntrub learned last week that their dispensary, Absolute Herbal Pain Solutions, was ineligible to stay open.

"I was shocked," said David Vayntrub, holding up a point-by-point summary of the ordinance that his wife had typed up and that he keeps on his desk. "This is in front of me every day."

The Vayntrubs think the city disqualified their dispensary because Irina, who they said has been involved since the store opened in January 2007, is now the secretary of the board. Under the city attorney's interpretation, that might be a management change. They are not certain, though; they said city officials did not respond to the five voice messages they left last week.

"I'm still here. Same manager. Same owner," said David Vayntrub, who said he works at the store on South La Brea Avenue every day. "We truly tried to follow this ordinance."

The city clerk last week notified 128 of the 169 registered dispensaries that they were ineligible to remain open. The city filed a lawsuit against the ineligible dispensaries, but they will be allowed to operate until a judge considers the suit.

According to the suit, 120 were ineligible because of management changes. Of those, 58 were disqualified solely on that basis; the others also had ownership changes and other issues.

The clerk's office is trying to figure out how to respond to distraught dispensary operators. "I'm trying to iron that out now," Holly Wolcott, its executive officer, said last week.

Councilman Ed Reyes, who oversaw the drafting of the ordinance, said the city needed to "stick with the letter of the law" but promised to assess the effect on dispensaries.

Some disqualified operators will be familiar to Reyes because they have been active at City Hall for years. All of them are original operators and were excluded for management changes.

Besides Kramer, they include Yamileth Bolanos, who runs PureLife Alternative Wellness Center and heads a group of about 60 original dispensaries; Michael Backes with Cornerstone Research Collective, which focuses on severely ill patients; James Shaw with Arts District Healing Center, who runs the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients; and Bill Leahy, who manages the Farmacy stores, which were started by a pharmacist, JoAnna LaForce.

"I can't tell you how surprised we all were," said Leahy, adding that the city is targeting registered dispensaries when it has failed to shut down numerous unauthorized outlets. "Most of them have reopened again and the city's done very little about it."

Some ineligible dispensaries appear to be victims of a Catch-22 or two.

Almost a year after dispensaries were required to register in Los Angeles, the state attorney general advised that they needed to be run as nonprofit collectives. Many were not. So they reorganized as nonprofit corporations, a change that replaced an owner with a board of directors. Under the city attorney's interpretation of the ordinance, that may have disqualified them.

This summer, when the city started to determine whether the registered dispensaries were qualified to remain open, it sent them a letter asking for "the name(s) of the collective's management." Because the ordinance defines managers as anyone responsible for "organization, registration, supervision, or oversight," some dispensaries included names of employees that were not on their original registration forms, which may have disqualified them.

More than a few wonder whether it was a trap. "We all knew they were looking for some slimy little technicality, and this seems to be it," Kramer said.

Chris Fusco, a consultant who knows the ins and outs of City Hall, said that when he inquired about the letter, he was told by officials at the clerk's office that an exact match was required. But others, including the Vayntrubs, said they were not.

"The administration of the application process is just like nothing I have ever seen or known or imagined," Fusco said. "It's a black curtain, and what's behind it, no one will tell you."

Source: Los Angeles Times