CCMIN081605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky asked what the procedure would be today if someone wanted to open a dispensary? Mr. Roush said if Council did not adopt the proposed ordinance or if it is adopted and expires at the conclusion of the 45-day period, the City would not have any regulations that would apply particularly to these types of uses. Staff would try and analogize it to what it most closely resembles. The concern is that dispensaries are similar to pharmacies or medical establishments that are permitted uses in many districts and, therefore, the City would be hard pressed to categorically say that a dispensary would not be allowed. The City would have to rely on the fact that by allowing this type of use to go in it would inheritably violate federal law and, therefore, not be allowed. This would place the City on the cutting edge of defending a decision not to allow the use on grounds that have run afoul of the federal law where the City believed the moratorium would essentially provide a period of time in which this issue can be looked at on a federal level and perhaps come up with some rules and regulations to establish a happy medium. He noted that the City has had an inquiry about a potential dispensary. Mr. Brozosky asked for the length of time it would take staff to create an ordinance that is required for this type of use? Mr. Roush said that staff would return to Council with this matter within 45 days and request that the moratorium be extended again for an additional 10 months and 15 days. Thereafter, the ordinance may be extended for one additional year and no more than two extensions may be adopted. At the conclusion of that time, Council would need to decide what it would do. He noted that staff would need ample time, perhaps six to nine months, to figure out if there is an appropriate place or rules and regulations as to where this type of use could be located. Mr. Fialho said realistically, staff would request the one-year time frame, which would provide staff sufficient time to study the issue and present it to Council for its review and consideration. Ms. McGovern was hopeful that Council could take a proactive stance and possibly contact its federal legislatures informing them that this situation needs to be resolved at the federal level. She was hopeful that during the one-year period of time, Council would write its federal legislatures and ask for their help in resolving this issue. Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. Joseph Partansky, a Concord resident, said this matter is a health and welfare issue and addressed the merits of the staff report. He noted that the State Department of Health mandated an identification law, which is now in effect, and each County has an option to provide identification, which assists cities and police departments in identifying legitimate use and medical certification of the user. He submitted written communication to Council which included a copy of a document entitled "Protecting Dispensing Collectives and Cooperatives" by the Americans for Safe Access, a copy of a one-page document entitled "Salis Conferees Guide," a copy of a one-page document entitled "Safe Access" which lists eight brochures on the use of cannel treat specific conditions, a one-page document entitled 'Talking Points: Medical Cannabis Dispensary Bans," a one-page document entitled "Resources for Reading Action," and a one-page document entitled 'Worstpills." Pleasanton City Council 6 08/16/05 Minutes