AgdaPkt 2009-12-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 1 REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and City Council From the Cit Mana er December 14, 2009 SUBJECT Temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of inedical marijuana collectives. RECOMMENDATION By 4/5 majority vote of the City Council, waive reading and estabtish a temparary moratorium on the establishment and operation of inedical marijuana col(ectives (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND In 1996, California voters adopted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA} which allows for cultivation, possession, and use of inedical marijuana by seriously ill persons and their primary caregivers upon recommendation of a physician. In 2003, the California Legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP) which created a vo(untary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients and their primary caregivers. The MMP immunized from prosecution certain limited conduct necessary to enable the program's purpose. It also quantifies the amount of marijuana a quafi#ied patient may possess. Together, the CUA and the MMP authorize such persons and those who care for them to grow the marijuana plants necessary to meet that need by "collectively" pooling their resources to grow and provide for their collective needs. This is why many municipal ordinances refer to these establishments as "collectives", which are substantially similar to cooperatives and are defined as such in the attached ordinance. In contrast to collectives, the law does not allow for"dispensaries"where entrepreneurs sell marijuana to provide for the needs of an undefined group of customers. State law allows for collectives and/or cooperatives but places very few limits on these businesses. Cities across California have approached medica! marijuana collectives in three different ways: • Allow but regulate collectives (about 30 cities); • Ban collectives (10� cities); or • Temporarily ban collectives by enacting a moratorium (50 cities}. Some 30 cities have chosen to allow collectives but regulate them fairly stringently by limiting them to designated areas though zoning, and requiring security precautions. The cities of South San Francisco and San Mateo, and the County of San Mateo are local examples of municipalities that allow but regulate collectives. 1