Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - MEDICAL MARIJUANA MORATORIUM (2)Agenda Item: T CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT NEW BUSINESS City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Lisa hardy DATE: March 28, 2006 SUBJECT: INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE FOR THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES DEPARTMENT: Community Development City Council adopt an interim urgency ordinance to place a 45 -day moratorium on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Santa Clarita with a minimum 4/5 vote; and instruct staff to analyze whether and/or how the City should proceed in its regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries. IMasi Kc)1101IRP It is a federal crime to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess marijuana. California, too, prohibits the possession or cultivation of marijuana. Unlike federal law, however, California law creates an exception from these prohibitions for certain parties relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes ("medical marijuana"). On June 6, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed in Gonzales v. Raich that notwithstanding California's exception for medical marijuana, federal law still prohibits marijuana in all circumstances, and the federal government has the right to enforce its laws against private individuals using medical marijuana for purely personal consumption. Simply stated, medical marijuana does not violate state law, although it is a federal crime. Since Gonzales v. Raich was announced, there has been increased attention on the issue of medical marijuana, and numerous bills have already been introduced, and additional bills are anticipated, which might alter the federal government's regulation of medical marijuana. As Adopted: 0rop, 06 z. such, it is unclear whether federal law will continue to prohibit the usage of marijuana for medical purposes. Further, it is unclear how federal enforcement (or lack thereof), and the public's perception of Gonzales v. Raich will affect local government and local use of marijuana at or near medical marijuana dispensaries. The City may receive requests to permit medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. Even though federal law prohibits such activity, there are numerous cities throughout California that continue to have medical marijuana dispensaries within their jurisdictions. For example, the City of Berkeley capped the number of permitted facilities at three. The City of West Hollywood currently has nine in operation. Although Gonzales v. Raich was clear that the use of medical marijuana is illegal for federal purposes, it is still unclear how that decision and future Congressional action will affect requests to the City for permits to establish and/or operate medical marijuana facilities. If the federal law permits medical marijuana or changes its regulation, these changes may affect whether medical marijuana dispensaries would constitute a hazard to health, safety and welfare of the City's residents. It is also unclear what the City's responsibilities and rights are with regard to permitting medical marijuana facilities. On the one hand, generally, cities must comply with state law, which allows medical marijuana dispensaries, but on the other, if the City permits such facilities, it is permitting violations of federal law. Simply stated, after Gonzales v. Raich, it is unclear whether medical marijuana dispensaries will continue, how the City may regulate such facilities, and whether such facilities will exist absent City actions. Pursuant to Government Code § 65858, with a 4/5 vote, the City Council may enact this urgency ordinance, which would place a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of use permits, variances, building permits, business licenses, or any other entitlement for the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary. There are various reasons that the City may consider enacting such a moratorium. First, after an initial review, it appears the City's General Plan does not expressly indicate whether and/or how the City will regulate or permit medical marijuana dispensaries. As such, for the City to determine whether and/or how the City would allow medical marijuana dispensaries, the City will need time to thoroughly review the General Plan. Staff would also need time to prepare and notice any potential General Plan amendments and the City Council would need time to deliberate on potential amendments. Second, the City will need time to review the City's zoning code, as it apparently does not explicitly indicate whether and/or how medical marijuana dispensaries are regulated within the City. City staff would need time to prepare any recommendations relating to zoning amendments and the City Council would need time to deliberate on any potential amendments. Third, a moratorium would allow more time for the City to ensure that any subsequent approvals would be consistent with the future potential amendments to the zoning code or general plan. Last, a moratorium would allow the City time to research the existing state of the law, and to determine how potential Congressional action, or other enforcement changes will affect the City. In light of the time needed to adopt an ordinance regulating medical marijuana, staff intends to bring forward an extension of this ordinance at the Council's April 25, 2006 meeting. Under state law, an initial moratorium may be adopted by a 4/5 vote of the Council, but can only last for 45 days. Thereafter, the ordinance may be extended, but only after holding a public hearing. Thus, a public hearing will be noticed for the April 25, 2006 meeting and staff will have a recommendation for the duration of the moratorium in the April 25 staff report. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other direction as determined by the Council. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated with the adoption of this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance