Today the PLUM committee heard reports from three departments regarding
the permanent regulations for medical cannabis dispensaries: the planning
department, the chief legislative analyst, and building and safety.

Planning stated that department was responsible for the land use portion
of the ordinance and was reviewing the public benefit provision to be
used
within these regulations. It was stated that a by right permit would be
available to applicants meetings all of the required standards. Those
not
meeting all standards would have to have a public hearing on the matter.
These provisions are different than what had been discussed in previous
meetings. A by right permit is much easier to obtain than a CUP and
instead of putting in language that allows for a request of a variance, a
public hearing would be required. Planning is also responsible for
producing the maps of the sensitive uses for PLUM to review \u00e2\u2022\u201e they are
using 2007 data to compile this information.

The office of the Chief Legislative Analyst stated that their office is
working on the operational scheme for medical cannabis dispensaries and
is
awaiting comments from the other departments with whom they are working.
They stated they are primarily waiting on the city attorney\u00e2\u2022\u02d9s office
who
said it would be weeks before city attorney staff got back to the CLA.
This operational language is different than any other use the City has
regulated. The City has not had another use where this many details of a
business\u00e2\u2022\u02d9 operations are addressed in regulations. This included the
language about ensuring a closed membership, non-profit status, etc.

Newly elected Councilmember Paul Koretz now sits on the PLUM committee
and
took the opportunity to ask the representative from the CLA about
hardships and should this committee or council spend the energy on the
hardships given that the energy should be spent on the regulations.
Koretz argument was that the committee may be shutting down collectives
that might be compliant under the new regulations. The question was
deferred to the city attorney staff in attendance with the committee who
reiterated what had been said before \u00e2\u2022\u201e that the hardships are heard and
criteria set at the discretion of council. During the subsequent
hardship
hearing, Koretz would not second the motion to deny the hardship. It is
apparent that is process is problematic to him.

Building and Safety stated that their office has been providing input to
the other departments on permanent regulations as well as handling the
enforcement of the current ICO. From the original 14 applications heard
in council, orders have been issued for those establishments to be shut
down. Five have already closed their doors and 6 have been referred to
the City Attorney for legal action. Of the 28 applications that were
denied in PLUM last week, at least three have voluntarily closed while
some locations were not operating as dispensaries but as other businesses
while awaiting their hearing and will apparently continue the business
that each is currently operating.

Councilmember Reyes stated that he wanted all departments to report back
in two weeks including the City Attorney, whose office was noticeably
absent during this meeting. Reyes spoke of the importance of an
\u00e2\u2022\u02dbenforceable ordinance\u00e2\u2022\u02c7 suggesting that maybe this committee has
learned a
little something from their ill prepared ICO. This committee hopes to
have a draft ordinance to present to council by September.

If you and your patient members are going to weigh-in, RIGHT NOW is the
time to PREPARE. From what I have witnessed of this council, public
comment is a must. It is the only thing that is entered into the
official
record. This council does not read correspondence or reveal the number
of
letters, calls or emails received on an issue as is the case in other
cities. YOU must present it yourself during public comment.

During public comment other advocates reiterated what we have provided to
the City in writing earlier this year regarding patient and
patient-cultivator privacy, hours of operation and the 1000-foot rule.
Thus far, the other provisions of the ordinance are reasonable and
attempt
to legislate accountability on behalf of the collectives. However, these
regulations are still taking shape and we need to be diligent during the
next few weeks to ensure that the medical cannabis community is not
harmed
or quashed by ignorant, power-hungry neighbors who want to use our issue
as a whipping post.

A note on the hardship that was denied today - This hardship was
continued
from last week and was in Rosendahl\u00e2\u2022\u02d9s district. While the dispensary
was
able to collect 100 letters from patients and signatures from nearly 30
businesses in support of their hardship, Rosendahl ultimately did not