My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:128
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2005 11:25:33 AM
Creation date
7/14/2005 10:57:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/16/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:128
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
<br />DISCUSSION <br />The Pleasanton Municipal Code does not define or regulate medical marijuana dispensaries <br />either through a Police permitting process or through land use regulations. Thus, a person <br />interested in opening such a dispensary might argue that the use is similar to a pharmacy, <br />medical office or limited retail use and locate in a number of zoning districts. <br />As indicated by Police Chief Neal and in the memorandum from the Dublin Police Chief, <br />jurisdictions with medical marijuana dispensaries are experiencing negative impacts, such as <br />crime, vagrancy and blight. In particular, there are examples of increased illegal drug activity, <br />robbery of dispensaries and persons leaving dispensaries, loitering, fraudulent efforts to obtain <br />identification cards, increased traffic and parking issues and increased criminal activity in <br />general. The U.S. Department of Justice/Drug Enforcement Administration's California <br />Medical Marijuana Information Report states that "large-scale marijuana cultivators and <br />traffickers" pose as caregivers invoking Proposition 215. <br />The City of Pleasant on has received at least one telephone inquiry regarding the establishment <br />ofa medical marijuana dispensary, as have the Cities of Livermore and Danville. As <br />neighboring jurisdictions adopt moratoriums on medical marijuana dispensaries, it becomes <br />more likely that such dispensaries will be located here. Thus, these medical marijuana <br />dispensaries pose a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare requiring <br />this moratorium. <br />Accordingly, city staffrecommends that a moratorium be adopted on medical marijuana <br />dispensaries to allow review and consideration of a number of issues including the following: <br />1. Ability to approve and regulate uses currently illegal under federal law; <br />2. Procedures adopted by other jurisdictions and the experiences in those <br /> jurisdictions; <br />3. Ifregulations are allowed, consideration of: <br /> a. Establishment of a permitting process, likely through the Police <br /> Department, which includes criminal background checks for operators and <br /> employees of proposed dispensaries; <br /> b. Establishment of a permitting process through the Planning Department, <br /> which classifies the use and allowable zoning districts, if any; <br /> c. Over-concentration issues and proximity to sensitive uses such as schools; <br /> and <br /> d. Regulations regarding operational conditions such as hours and security <br /> features. <br />A proposed moratorium ordinance is exempt for review under the California Environmental <br />Quality Act (CEQA) as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical <br />change in the environment, and only directs that a planning study be undertaken. (14 CCR <br />sections 15060(c)(2), l5061(b)(3), 15262) <br />SR:OS: 128 <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.