HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC AMEND MEDICAL MARIJUANA (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
February 26, 2008
Patrick Leclair
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES CITYWIDE (MASTER CASE 07-016)
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct the public hearing and introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance
entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE 07-016, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 07-001, AMENDING CHAPTERS 12 AND 13 OF TITLE 17, OF THE
SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES CITYWIDE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION".
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2006, the City Council adopted a 45 -day urgency ordinance placing a moratorium
on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Santa Clarita. On
April 25, 2006, the City Council extended that urgency ordinance by 22 months and 15 days for a
total of two (2) years to allow adequate time for staff to research and prepare an ordinance
addressing medical marijuana dispensaries. The moratorium will expire on March 11, 2008.
Copies of the Urgency Ordinance and the extension of the Urgency Ordinance are attached as
Exhibit "B" and "C" for your reference.
On January 15, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P07-30, recommending that
the City Council approve a Unified Development Code Amendment prohibiting the
establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Santa Clarita.
Ordinance passed to
- Second reading
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action includes modifications to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to prohibit
the establishment of facilities that sell, distribute, give, or otherwise transmit marijuana for
medicinal purposes, or medical marijuana dispensaries. The modifications to the UDC include
the addition of a definition (Section 17.12.050.24), use type classification (Section
17.12.030.24), and use status prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in the City (Section
17.13.020.24). No other modifications to the City's UDC are proposed at this time.
ANALYSIS
Status of State of California Regulations
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. Proposition 215 intended to enable persons who are in need .of marijuana for medical
purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specified circumstances. On January 1, 2004, SB
420 went into effect 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. Neither Proposition 215, nor
SB 420 authorizes the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the State of
California.
Status of Federal Regulations
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 in
spite of 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
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 has
had up to 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.
Proposed Modifications
Currently, the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, including the Unified Development Code,
does not address or regulate in any manner, except via the moratorium, the existence or location
of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Santa Clarita. There currently is a conflict
between the federal regulations which prohibit the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, or
possession of marijuana, and the exemption created by the State of California Proposition 215
and SB 420 allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Staff is proposing that the
City uphold current federal regulations and continue to prohibit the establishment of medical
marijuana dispensaries within the City until this conflict is resolved.
Following the January 15, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, new information came to light
regarding the operation of vending machines as medical marijuana dispensaries. Staff has
therefore proposed a modification to the medical marijuana dispensary definition recommended
by the Planning Commission to address the use of vending machines.
Attached is a copy of the proposed changes (Exhibit "A") as amended by staff. Within Exhibit
"A", new additions to the Unified Development Code are indicated by being underlined.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and was posted for public review beginning January 28, 2008 until February 26, 2008.
The Initial Study determined that no significant impact on the environment is anticipated as a
result -of the approval of this UDC Amendment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA.
ALTERNATNE ACTIONS
Other direction as determined by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of the UDC Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
Exhibit A - Proposed Unified Development Code Modifications
Exhibit B - Ordinance 06-2
Exhibit C - Ordinance 06-3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1St Floor, Santa Clarita,
California, on the '26th day of February, 2008, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider the
approval of Master Case 07-016 including Unified Development Code Amendment 07-
001 to prohibit the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries citywide.
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project
and is available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department will receive comments, beginning at 12:00 p.m. on
January 28, 2008 and ending at 12:00 p.m. on February 26, 2008. During the public
review period a copy of the draft negative declaration and all supporting documents will
be located at the Planning Division public counter located in the City Hall Building at
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the draft
negative declaration (without all supporting documents) will be posted at the Los Angeles
County Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above.
Proponents; opponents and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Community
Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA
91355; (661) 255-4330, Patrick Leclair, Associate Planner.
If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public.hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council; at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: January 24, 2008
Sharon L-. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: January 26, 2008
S:\pbs\curtent\2007!\07-016\07-016 CC Notice
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER CASE 07-016, UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 07-001, AMENDING CHAPTERS 12 AND 13 OF
TITLE 17, OF THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES CITYWIDE AND ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, 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").
WHEREAS, 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.
WHEREAS, 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.
WHEREAS, 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.
WHEREAS, 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.
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, including the Unified
Development Code, does not currently address or regulate in any manner the existence or
location of medical marijuana dispensaries.
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2006, the City Council adopted a 45 -day urgency ordinance
(Ordinance 06-2) placing a temporary moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana
dispensaries in the City of Santa Clarita.
. WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 06-3)
to extended the urgency ordinance (Ordinance 06-02) prohibiting the establishment of medical
marijuana dispensaries in the City by 22 months and 15 days which expires on March 11, 2008.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
project on January 15, 2008, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was duly noticed in
accordance with Government Code 65090. At this meeting, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution P07-30, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Master
Case 07-016, Unified Development Code Amendment 07-001 and adopt the Negative
Declaration prepared for the project.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on February 26, 2008, at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was duly noticed in
accordance with Government Code 65090. At this meeting, the City Council considered the staff
report, staff presentation, and public testimony on the proposed modifications, introduced the
ordinance by the City Council to modify the Unified Development Code and passed the
ordinance to a second reading on March 11, 2008.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code
are consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.
SECTION 2. The proposed amendments to the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code
identified in Exhibit A are hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings in the Initial Study prepared for the project, the City
Council further finds, approves, and determines as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental
agencies and the public and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The
document was posted and advertised on January 28, 2008, in accordance with CEQA.
The public review period was open from January 28, 2008, through February 26, 2008.
C. Staff found that there were no impacts created as a result of the proposed project and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA.
The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita.
d. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is the Master Case 07-016
project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the
Director of Community Development.
2
SECTION 4. That if any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid, that portion shall
be stricken and severed, and the remaining portions shall be unaffected and remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its
passage and adoption.
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 11th day of March, 2008.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
3
MAYOR
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. 08- was regularly introduced and placed
upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of February, 2008.
That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 1 I th day of March, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
X1:1•
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No.
and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C.
1i
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. 08- , adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA on March 11, 2008, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this 11th day of March, 2008.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Caputo
Deputy City Clerk
E
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS
17.12.030 Listing of Use Type Classifications
24. Medical Marijuana Dispensary
17.12.050 Commercial Use Type Classifications
"Medical Marijuana Dispensary" shall mean any site, facility, location, use, cooperative or
business including vending machines, 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. Marijuana shall also mean cannabis and
all parts of that plant.
Chapter 17.13
PERMITTED USE CHART
Sections:
17.13.010
Residential Uses
17.13.020
Commercial Use Type Classifications
17.13.030
Industrial Use Type Classifications
17.13.040
Public and Semi -Public Use Type Classifications
17.13.050
Agricultural Use Type Classifications
17.13.060
Temporary Use Type Classifications
17.13.070
Accessory Structures and Uses Use Type classifications
17.13.080
Development Activities/Miscellaneous Use Type Classification
17.13.005 Generally.
Environmental clearance must be obtained prior to the installation, operation or
development of any use. All requirements for protection of significant ecological areas, flood
hazard areas and other areas of environmental concern identified by the Santa Clarita General
Plan shall be met.
This is not a complete list; the Director of Community Development may determine that
a use not listed below is similar to a listed use and process the proposal as the similar use would
be processed.
The following uses shall be permitted where the symbol "P" appears; subject to a
conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears; subject to a minor use permit where the
symbol "M" appears; and prohibited where the symbol "X" appears. Numbers contained in
parentheses identify applicable notes found at the end of the Chapter.
Page 1 of 2
UDC Changes 2007
Exhibit "A"
r
�I
Ir-
EXHIBIT B
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 otherthings,
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. 1.
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
K
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. -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;
c
(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 irrespect*e 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 28`h day of March, 2006.
1
AYOR
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. 06-2 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: COUNCII.MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY CLERK
5
I
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
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By.
Susan Coffman
Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT C
ORDINANCE NO. 06-3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA, 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. LFMS
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.
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�urgenay 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;
"(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.
J
4
r
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.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
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
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
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. 06-3, 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_,
r
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
By
Susan Coffman
Deputy City Clerk