My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
65B - BALLOT INITIATIVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
06/03/2014
>
65B - BALLOT INITIATIVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 4:51:10 PM
Creation date
5/29/2014 3:29:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
65B
Date
6/3/2014
Destruction Year
2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative <br />June 3, 2014 <br />Page 4 <br />Analysis of Collective- backed Initiative <br />In February, 2013, the City Council directed the City Manager to prepare an analysis of the <br />collective- backed Santa Ana Medical Cannabis Restriction and Limitation Initiative. This initiative, <br />if approved, would repeal the City's current prohibition of medical marijuana <br />collectives /cooperatives, and replace it with a ministerial process to authorize <br />collectives /cooperatives to operate in the City. Staff has a number of concerns regarding the <br />proposed regulations contained in this initiative, most notable among these are: <br />1. No regulations regarding the distribution and/or separation between collectives/ <br />cooperatives. <br />2. No maximum on the number of collectives /cooperatives permitted (minimum of 22 <br />required). <br />3. Definitions of collectives and cooperatives results in smaller operations (more than 1 but <br />less than 5) being unregulated. <br />4. Collectives /cooperatives permitted in all commercial, industrial and professional zones <br />including properties that may be directly adjacent to residential properties. <br />5. No separation (buffer) requirements from sensitive uses (parks, churches, child care <br />facilities, liquor stores, adult entertainment, etc.). <br />6. Ministerial approval process requires no public noticing or public hearing. <br />7. Limited /vague guidance regarding the provision of on -site security. <br />8. Prohibits the Police Department and Code Enforcement from accepting Federal funding or <br />participating in any task force that accepts Federal funding or revenue sharing, to <br />investigate, cite, arrest, prosecute or seize property based on offenses which would be <br />legal under California medical cannabis laws. <br />9. Proposed licensing /taxation method is substantially less than what other cities that regulate <br />medical marijuana collectives /cooperatives require and does not consider taxation methods <br />for registered non - profit collectives /cooperatives. <br />10. Proposed changes to the Business License Tax Code (Chapter 21) for medical marijuana <br />collectives /cooperatives results in possibility of unintended consequences regarding the <br />taxation rates for businesses other than medical marijuana collectives /cooperatives. <br />A complete analysis of the collective- backed initiative was provided in the Report to City Council <br />on March 18, 2013. <br />L. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.