HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-28 - ORDINANCES - MEDICAL MARIJUANA MORATORIUM (2)ORDINANCE NO. 06-2
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
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. The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, including the Unified Development Code,
does not 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 Los Angeles County has
adopted an ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, there is a
substantially 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 consistently 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 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
2
-- 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. RAPOSITION OF MORATORIUM. 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 forty-five (45) days.
A. "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.
B. This ordinance is an interim urgency ordinance 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;
(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;
3
(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, forty-five (45) 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. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE.
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. 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.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 forty-five days from the date of adoption unless
extended by the City Council as provided for in the Government Code.
SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28h day of March, 2006.
ATTEST:
e�
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss'
CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 06-2 was duly passed and adopted as an interim urgency measure at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28`h day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry, Smyth, McLean, Kellar, Weste
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
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. 06-2, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, CA on March 28, 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