HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-25 - ORDINANCES - MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSERIES (2)ORDINANCE NO. 06-3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARTTA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE URGENCY ORDINANCE
TO EXTEND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT
AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby
find as follows:
A. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, which was
codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, et seq., and entitled the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("the Act").
B. The intent of Proposition 215 was to enable persons who are in need of medical
marijuana for medical purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specified
circumstances.
'— C. On January 1, 2004, SB 420 went into effect. SB 420 was enacted by the
Legislature to clarify the scope of the Act and to allow cities and counties to adopt
and enforce rules and regulations consistent with SB 420 and the Act.
D. On March 28, 2006, the City Council adopted a forty-five (45) day interim urgency
ordinance to impose a moratorium on the issuance of any entitlement for any
medical marijuana dispensary. The Santa Clarita Municipal Code, including the
Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, does not otherwise address or regulate in
any manner the existence or location of medical marijuana dispensaries.
E. After receiving inquiries from persons interested in establishing medical marijuana
dispensaries, numerous other cities in the State of California have adopted
ordinances prohibiting or heavily regulating such dispensaries. Because the
County of Los Angeles has adopted an ordinance regulating medical marijuana
dispensaries, there is a substantial increased likelihood that such establishments
will seek to locate in the City of Santa Clarita, thus creating a current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.
F. Other California cities that have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana
dispensaries have witnessed an increase in crime, such as burglaries, robberies, and
sales of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding such dispensaries.
Recent examples from last year include: men who kicked in the window of a
medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland and tried to burglarize the dispensary; in
Alameda County, thieves broke into a medical marijuana dispensary, burglarized
the safe and robbed persons present. Furthermore, the United States Department
of Justice's California Medical Marijuana Information report has advised that
large-scale drug traffickers have been posing as "care givers" to obtain and sell
marijuana, thus increasing the likelihood that such parties would traffic in illegal
drugs in the City, thereby endangering the public health, safety and welfare.
G. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 US 483 (2001) that, notwithstanding
California law, the federal Controlled Substances Act continues to prohibit
marijuana use, distribution, and possession, and that no medical necessity
exception exists to these prohibitions.
H. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, U.S. LEXIS
4656 (2005), that pursuant to the commerce clause, the federal government has the
power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, even though such
cultivation and use complies with California law.
I In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court of the United States did not indicate that
California law was invalid, but rather, merely indicated that the federal
government could continue to enforce its medical marijuana laws.
J. Members of Congress continue to introduce bills which would, among other
things, have the effect of legalizing the medical use of marijuana in California, or
impose moratoriums on all federal government enforcing marijuana laws against
users of marijuana for medical purposes. For example, on May 4, 2005,
Representative Frank introduced HR 2087, with 36 co-sponsors, to provide for the
medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. The
most recent action on HR 2087 was taken May 13, 2005, when it was referred to
the House Subcommittee on Health.
K. Even though medical marijuana dispensaries violate federal law, these facilities
continue to operate throughout California. Prior to the issuance of Gonzales v.
Raich, the federal government has only infrequently enforced its anti-drug laws
against medical marijuana dispensaries. For example, as of June 7, 2005, there
were nine medical marijuana facilities operating in the City of West Hollywood. It
is unclear whether, after Gonzales v. Raich, the federal government will strongly
enforce its laws.
L. To address the apparent conflict between federal and state law, as well as the
community and statewide concerns regarding the establishment of medical
marijuana dispensaries, and the fact that federal legislation and enforcement is
currently in flux, it is necessary for the City of Santa Clarita to study the potential
impacts such facilities may have on the public health, safety, and welfare.
M. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that approving additional
subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits or any other applicable
entitlement providing for the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana
2
dispensaries prior to (1) resolving whether federal law will be routinely enforced
against medical marijuana dispensaries; (2) the City's completion of its study of
the potential impact of such facilities; and (3) resolving any zoning conflicts based
on the fact that no zoning currently exists in the City for such dispensaries; would
result in the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and
welfare. The City finds that a temporary moratorium on the issuance of such
entitlements is therefore necessary.
SECTION 2. IMPOSITION OF MORATORIUM. The City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita does hereby find as follows:
A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Santa Clarita under
Government Code Section 65858, and pursuant to the findings stated herein, from
and after the date of this ordinance, no use permit, variance, building permit,
business license or other applicable entitlement shall be approved or issued for the
establishment or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary for a period of
twenty two (22) months and fifteen (15) days.
B. "Medical marijuana dispensary" includes any site, facility, location, use,
cooperative or business which distributes, sells, exchanges, processes, delivers,
gives away, or cultivates marijuana for medical purposes to qualified patients,
health care providers, patients' primary caregivers, or physicians pursuant to
Proposition 215, Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 et seq. or any State regulations
adopted in furtherance thereof. Marijuana shall also mean cannabis and all parts
of that plant.
C. This ordinance is an extension of the existing forty-five (45) day interim urgency
ordinance, is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Santa Clarita
by Government Code Section 65858, and is for the immediate preservation of the
public health, safety, and welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are:
(1)_ California cities that have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana
dispensaries have found that such dispensaries have resulted in negative and
harmful secondary effects, such as an increase in crime, including robberies,
burglaries, and sales of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding
medical marijuana dispensaries;
(2) After receiving inquiries from persons interested in establishing medical
marijuana dispensaries, numerous other cities and counties in California,
including the County of Los Angeles, have adopted ordinances prohibiting
or heavily regulating such dispensaries, and because a significant portion of
the region has prohibited or heavily regulated medical marijuana
dispensaries, there is a substantially increased likelihood that such
~ establishments will seek to locate in the City of Santa Clarita;
I
(3) The City of Santa Clarita does not currently have standards in its Municipal
Code relating to the location, operation, and concentration of medical
marijuana dispensaries within the City;
(4) Absent the adoption of this interim urgency ordinance, the establishment
and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Santa Clarita
would result in the negative and harmful secondary effects other cities have
experienced, as identified above;
(5) Currently the state and federal laws relating to medical marijuana
dispensaries conflict, and federal legislation continues to be introduced
which, if passed, would substantially change the regulation of medical
marijuana facilities; and
(6) As a result of the conflict in state and federal laws on the matter, coupled
with negative and harmful secondary effects associated with medical
marijuana dispensaries, the current and immediate threat such secondary
effects pose to the public health, safety, and welfare, and the zoning
conflicts that would be created by the establishment and operation of a
medical marijuana dispensary, it is necessary to establish a temporary,
twenty-two (22) month and fifteen (15) day moratorium on the
establishment and operation of new medical marijuana dispensaries in the
City, pending resolution of the conflict of laws by the Congress of the
United States, completion of the City's study of the potential impacts of
medical marijuana dispensaries, and possible amendments to the City's
zoning ordinances.
SECTION 3. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby find as follows:
The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the
completion of the contemplated municipal code review.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby find as follows:
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
N
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby find as follows:
Consistent with Government Code 65858, this ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon adoption if adopted by at a least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in effect
for twenty-two (22) months and fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption unless extended by
the City Council as provided for in the Government Code.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2006.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 06-3 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 25th day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar, Ferry, Smyth, McLean, Weste
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. 06-3, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, CA on April 25, 2006, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of
20_.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Coffman
Deputy City Clerk