The Southern California Coalition, organized to implement sensible marijuana policies, along with safeguards to regulate, control and tax the legal sale of cannabis, has requested that the city of Los Angeles make changes to the city’s cannabis land use to clear up ambiguities and prepare for deeper scrutiny as the state organizes it’s medical and recreational market.

That was the message in a commentary letter from the coalition to the city’s code studies division of the Department of City Planning in July.

One of the issues that the coalition discussed in the July commentary to L.A. City Planner Niall Huffman was a “more robust assurance” that an entity securing a temporary state license would be vetted more in line with what the state of California wants, rather than just accepting the temporary license permit – essentially merely a piece of paper.

They say that the state wants to know more details, including that the business has been examined at the local level, so that the state can be assured that they don’t inadvertently license a business that is not safe and compliant.

When Proposition D was enacted in June, 2013, the coalition letter stated, there were almost no laws regulating the medical cannabis business, and no laws at all regulating the recreational cannabis businesses. Proposition D stated that “there is no such thing as a lawful medical marijuana business,” but did provide limited immunity to medical marijuana businesses that meet specific requirements, adding that unless the occupying business is immunized, “it is a violation of Proposition D to rent, lease or otherwise permit a medical marijuana business to occupy or use a location.”

Now the state has developed more comprehensive and strict regulations, first created by law enforcement and the League of Cities as part of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), then included in the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act that was passed as part of Senate Bill 94 in June.

The coalition says that the city’s  limited immunity set of rules that had been in force for medical cannabis businesses resulted in “mass confusion” because the limited immunity was not defined.

The commentary noted that dispensaries that were excluded from the city’s designation as immune from legal action then sued the city, adding that “In the absence of any guidance, such as a list of licensees, law enforcement had to guess who was in compliance and who was not,” the coalition letter stated. “When they guessed wrong, it created litigation headaches for the city.”

A regulatory process for these businesses would have predetermined who was eligible to operate a cannabis business in the city, and would have “taken all the guesswork” out of the equation.

The limited immunity arrangement made dispensary owners unable to attract funding and business partners because those businesses had no licenses and no assurances from the city that they were compliant within the limited immunity rules. “Limited immunity was a legislative response to conditions which have changed,” the coalition wrote in their letter to the city.“The city needs to adjust its regulatory framework accordingly.”

The letter went on to criticize the way that the city land use ordinance overly restricts cannabis businesses to a few zones in the city, crowding them together in limited space, and treating these businesses “like they are processing plutonium rather than plant material.”

Proposition D held that, in addition to meeting all the requirements for immunity, a medical marijuana business cannot locate within a 1,000 feet radius of a school or within a 600 feet radius of a public park, public library, religious institution, child care facility, youth center, alcoholism, drug abuse recovery or treatment facility or other medical marijuana business.  Proposition D also imposed residential proximity restrictions.

The coalition explained that an expanded zoning ruling should allow manufactured baked goods to be near edible makers, and land zoned for agricultural use should not exclude cannabis cultivators. “The determining question should not be is this a cannabis-based business, but rather is this business obeying the rules. If so, the business should be treated like any other businesss similarly situated, and not lumped in with strip clubs and liquor stores.”