Long Beach, Ca. - A series of maps that showed how various "buffer zone" distances separating medical marijuana outlets from schools, libraries, parks, day care and beaches would affect their locations citywide under a draft ordinance set for Council discussion on Jan. 19 is no longer accessible on City Hall's website as of Jan. 16.
On Friday Jan. 15, LBReport.com published a report on the agendized item with links to each one of the buffer zone maps. A day later on Saturday Jan. 16, clicking on City Hall's map links displays the following statement:
"This record no longer exists. It might have been deleted."
LBReport.com is making an effort to reach a City Hall spokesperson over the long weekend (City Hall will be closed until Tuesday Jan. 19, the day of the hearing) to learn what happened. LBReport.com previously downloaded the maps, so we have them, and we can make them accessible on our website if City Hall doesn't.
In a related matter, LBReport.com also separately reports today (Jan. 16) that on Jan. 14, LB Unified School District management sent City Councilmembers a letter recommending that any local ordinance allowing medical marijuana establishments "should specify the maximum feasible buffer zone between such establishments and all properties owned or leased by LBUSD, as any property owned or leased by LBUSD has the potential to house students."
The School District letter, signed by Carri Matsumoto, Exec. Dir. of LBUSD's Facilities and Planning Branch (and cc'd to Superintendent Chris Steinhauser) says LBUSD prefers the 1,500 foot buffer alternatives [the maximum distance shown on City Hall's now inaccessible buffer zone maps]. The School District letter also says such an ordinance should ensure that consumption of medical marijuana shouldn't occur within such buffer zone areas.
Background
The latest draft of a medical marijuana ordinance (set for Jan. 19 Council discussion) includes revisions recommended by the Council when it discussed an initial draft on November 10. At that time, the Council (with some members non-committal on their future votes) agreed to consider text that could regulate/restrict marijuana collectives which are currently proliferating as unregulated operations.
After roughly three hours of discussion, the Council voted to make changes to an initial discussion draft, most of which reduced or eliminated possible restrictions.
On a 9-0 vote, Councilmembers approved a substitute motion by Councilman Robert Garcia that echoed basically all the points of a motion by Councilman Gary DeLong...and also removed a cap of 18 medical marijuana outlets citywide proposed by DeLong that Garcia called "arbitrary." Councilman Garcia's substitute motion asked the City Attorney's office to come up with recommendations on a number after examining the issue.
The Garcia (DeLong) motions removed restrictions that included prohibiting medical marijuana operations within 1,000 feet of libraries and parks. In place of explicit ordinance restrictions, DeLong proposed that medical marijuana collectives obtain a "conditional use permit"...meaning persons who object would have to file an appeal to the City Council (with an uncertain outcome determined by a Council majority).
Vice Mayor Val Lerch went further...stating that he disagreed with requiring a CUP and urged only an "administrative use permit" in which city staff could approve an application (which opponents would also have to appeal)...and Councilman Garcia incorporated this in his substitute motion (seconded by Vice Mayor Lerch) to bring back a revised working draft ordinance (not as a first reading) subject to the following:
[From City Clerk's minutes] 1. That the application and permitting of marijuana collectives be administered as are applications for conditional use permits;
2. That the City Attorney prepare an ordinance that:
a.) Deletes proposed language pertaining to abutting neighborhoods, and provisions regarding the proximity of collectives to parks and libraries;
b.) Provides revised language to allow collectives to: i.) Locate in mixed use corridors; ii.) Offer on-site consumption of edibles, provided that appropriate Health Department kitchen inspections are passed; iii.) Cultivation of marijuana on-site and off-site at member homes (only if cultivated by collective members); and iv.) Provide soil and nutrients to members so they can grow plants off-site at home;
c.) Prohibits the permitting of marijuana collectives within 1,500 feet of any high school;
d.) Establishes an appropriate citywide limit on the number of medical marijuana collectives at anytime;
e.) Suggests possible ordinance provisions related to: i.) Amounts of marijuana that a collective can keep on-site; ii.) Mitigation measures that will prevent the escape of smoke within buildings occupied with multiple tenancies; and iii.) Appropriate measures that promote patient privacy to a higher level;
f.) Provides for a transition period (after the effective date of the ordinance), so that marijuana collectives can continue operations for 30 days upon the filing initial permit application documents, and up to 90 days pending submittal of final permit application documents and final approval;
g.) Provides for an appropriate process, including by subpoena, by which the Police Department may request that the marijuana collective allow inspection of records or video tapes; h.) Provides for the payment of appropriate fees when marijuana collective relocates to another location within the City.
That motion carried 9-0 on November 10.
On January 19, a few hours before LB's City Council considers the new draft of its ordinance, L.A.'s City Council is poised to vote on its own medical marijuana ordinance that some say could close over 80% of about 1,000 L.A. operations.
How many outlets should LB allow? Oakland allows four. L.A.'s draft ordinance would allow 70...and would exempt (i.e. allow) those that have operated continuously without problems to continue doing so (a number estimated by some at over 150). [L.A.'s population is roughly 4 million; LB's was at last reckoning slightly under 500,000 (about 12.5% of L.A.'s)].
Those opposing a "cap" on the number of allowed outlets generally call it "arbitrary" and contend it would raise prices; others counter that medical marijuana operations are supposed to be non-profit and fewer, larger outlets can provide more services in one place.
Meanwhile, some CA cities have banned medicinal marijuana outlets outright
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: LBReport.com
Contact: LBReport.com
Copyright: 2010 LBReport.com
Website: Maps Showing Buffer Zone Options For Separating Medical Marijuana Outlets From Schools, Parks, Libraries, Day Care & Beaches Disappear From City Hall's Website
On Friday Jan. 15, LBReport.com published a report on the agendized item with links to each one of the buffer zone maps. A day later on Saturday Jan. 16, clicking on City Hall's map links displays the following statement:
"This record no longer exists. It might have been deleted."
LBReport.com is making an effort to reach a City Hall spokesperson over the long weekend (City Hall will be closed until Tuesday Jan. 19, the day of the hearing) to learn what happened. LBReport.com previously downloaded the maps, so we have them, and we can make them accessible on our website if City Hall doesn't.
In a related matter, LBReport.com also separately reports today (Jan. 16) that on Jan. 14, LB Unified School District management sent City Councilmembers a letter recommending that any local ordinance allowing medical marijuana establishments "should specify the maximum feasible buffer zone between such establishments and all properties owned or leased by LBUSD, as any property owned or leased by LBUSD has the potential to house students."
The School District letter, signed by Carri Matsumoto, Exec. Dir. of LBUSD's Facilities and Planning Branch (and cc'd to Superintendent Chris Steinhauser) says LBUSD prefers the 1,500 foot buffer alternatives [the maximum distance shown on City Hall's now inaccessible buffer zone maps]. The School District letter also says such an ordinance should ensure that consumption of medical marijuana shouldn't occur within such buffer zone areas.
Background
The latest draft of a medical marijuana ordinance (set for Jan. 19 Council discussion) includes revisions recommended by the Council when it discussed an initial draft on November 10. At that time, the Council (with some members non-committal on their future votes) agreed to consider text that could regulate/restrict marijuana collectives which are currently proliferating as unregulated operations.
After roughly three hours of discussion, the Council voted to make changes to an initial discussion draft, most of which reduced or eliminated possible restrictions.
On a 9-0 vote, Councilmembers approved a substitute motion by Councilman Robert Garcia that echoed basically all the points of a motion by Councilman Gary DeLong...and also removed a cap of 18 medical marijuana outlets citywide proposed by DeLong that Garcia called "arbitrary." Councilman Garcia's substitute motion asked the City Attorney's office to come up with recommendations on a number after examining the issue.
The Garcia (DeLong) motions removed restrictions that included prohibiting medical marijuana operations within 1,000 feet of libraries and parks. In place of explicit ordinance restrictions, DeLong proposed that medical marijuana collectives obtain a "conditional use permit"...meaning persons who object would have to file an appeal to the City Council (with an uncertain outcome determined by a Council majority).
Vice Mayor Val Lerch went further...stating that he disagreed with requiring a CUP and urged only an "administrative use permit" in which city staff could approve an application (which opponents would also have to appeal)...and Councilman Garcia incorporated this in his substitute motion (seconded by Vice Mayor Lerch) to bring back a revised working draft ordinance (not as a first reading) subject to the following:
[From City Clerk's minutes] 1. That the application and permitting of marijuana collectives be administered as are applications for conditional use permits;
2. That the City Attorney prepare an ordinance that:
a.) Deletes proposed language pertaining to abutting neighborhoods, and provisions regarding the proximity of collectives to parks and libraries;
b.) Provides revised language to allow collectives to: i.) Locate in mixed use corridors; ii.) Offer on-site consumption of edibles, provided that appropriate Health Department kitchen inspections are passed; iii.) Cultivation of marijuana on-site and off-site at member homes (only if cultivated by collective members); and iv.) Provide soil and nutrients to members so they can grow plants off-site at home;
c.) Prohibits the permitting of marijuana collectives within 1,500 feet of any high school;
d.) Establishes an appropriate citywide limit on the number of medical marijuana collectives at anytime;
e.) Suggests possible ordinance provisions related to: i.) Amounts of marijuana that a collective can keep on-site; ii.) Mitigation measures that will prevent the escape of smoke within buildings occupied with multiple tenancies; and iii.) Appropriate measures that promote patient privacy to a higher level;
f.) Provides for a transition period (after the effective date of the ordinance), so that marijuana collectives can continue operations for 30 days upon the filing initial permit application documents, and up to 90 days pending submittal of final permit application documents and final approval;
g.) Provides for an appropriate process, including by subpoena, by which the Police Department may request that the marijuana collective allow inspection of records or video tapes; h.) Provides for the payment of appropriate fees when marijuana collective relocates to another location within the City.
That motion carried 9-0 on November 10.
On January 19, a few hours before LB's City Council considers the new draft of its ordinance, L.A.'s City Council is poised to vote on its own medical marijuana ordinance that some say could close over 80% of about 1,000 L.A. operations.
How many outlets should LB allow? Oakland allows four. L.A.'s draft ordinance would allow 70...and would exempt (i.e. allow) those that have operated continuously without problems to continue doing so (a number estimated by some at over 150). [L.A.'s population is roughly 4 million; LB's was at last reckoning slightly under 500,000 (about 12.5% of L.A.'s)].
Those opposing a "cap" on the number of allowed outlets generally call it "arbitrary" and contend it would raise prices; others counter that medical marijuana operations are supposed to be non-profit and fewer, larger outlets can provide more services in one place.
Meanwhile, some CA cities have banned medicinal marijuana outlets outright
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: LBReport.com
Contact: LBReport.com
Copyright: 2010 LBReport.com
Website: Maps Showing Buffer Zone Options For Separating Medical Marijuana Outlets From Schools, Parks, Libraries, Day Care & Beaches Disappear From City Hall's Website
