PC - Item 4C - Municipal Code Amendment 11-01 Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries0 •,
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: MARCH 7, 2011
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING
ITEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSAR
SUMMARY
At the City Council meeting of June 30, 2009, and after hearing and considering public
testimony, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 877 establishing an interim urgency
ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries for a period of forty -five days. As
the Government Code allows the City to extend Ordinance 877 for a period of 10
months and 15 days, the City Council did so at its meeting of August 11, 2009 by
adopting Ordinance No. 879 after hearing and considering further public testimony.
Thus, Ordinance No. 879 was made valid until June 25, 2010.
The Government code allowed the City Council one final extension to the interim
urgency ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries for the period of one
year. On May 11, 2010 the City Council adopted its last and final extension of the
urgency ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries by adopting Ordinance
No. 895. This final extension is set to expire on May 10, 2011. Therefore, staff is
coming forward with a permanent Medical Marijuana Dispensary ban ordinance for the
Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed
ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Municipal Code Amendment 11 -01 is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -04 (Exhibit
"A "), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 910
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2011
Paae 2 of 3
(Exhibit "B "), amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the City's Municipal Code adding Chapter
17.106 prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries citywide.
ANALYSIS
The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the "CUA "), adopted by the voters as Proposition
215, provided "qualified patients" and "primary caregivers" who possess and /or cultivate
marijuana with immunity from prosecution under specific criminal statutes. In the
ensuing years following its passage, the CUA generated significant confusion regarding
a number of issues related to the use and distribution of medical marijuana. In 2003,
the Legislature enacted a follow -up statute known as the Medical Marijuana Program
Act of 2003 (the "MMPA "). The MMPA, among other things, stated that qualified
patients and primary caregivers who associate within the State of California in order
collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely
on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under specific state
statutes. This language regarding the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical
marijuana has created further confusion and ongoing litigation on the extent to which a
public agency may regulate or prohibit storefront medical marijuana dispensaries.
Thus far, the appellate courts have not decided a case involving an express ban on
medical marijuana dispensaries. However, in City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) and City
of Claremont v. Kruse (2009), appellate courts upheld the application of municipal
zoning regulations against medical marijuana dispensaries and affirmed permanent
injunctions against the dispensary operators. In both cases, the cities had "permissive"
zoning schemes, under which any land use that was not expressly permitted or
conditionally permitted was deemed prohibited. Medical marijuana dispensaries were
not listed specifically in either city's zoning code; therefore, the operation of a medical
marijuana dispensary was a zoning violation, a nuisance per se, and subject to
injunction.
In Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim (2010), a medical marijuana
dispensary operator challenged Anaheim's expressly- stated ban on medical marijuana
dispensaries, which also imposed criminal penalties on operators. The trial court
dismissed the suit on multiple grounds, including the ground that federal law preempted
the CUA and MMPA. The Court of Appeal reversed on the limited ground that federal
law did not preempt the CUA and MMPA. The Court of Appeal did not decide the issue
of whether the City's ordinance was permissible under the MMPA, but the opinion
suggested that the legality of such an express ban was an open question. Dispensary
operators have cited this language in numerous trial court cases to support their
position that cities cannot ban dispensaries completely. For the most part, trial courts
across the state continue to rule in favor of cities in these cases.
Naulls and Kruse remain the only controlling appellate cases on the scope of
permissible regulation of storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. Although these
cases clearly favor a city's ability to ban dispensaries, the exact scope of municipal
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2011
Pape 3 of 3
regulation of medical marijuana continues to be the subject of litigation and debate.
Further, appellate court guidance will be needed to fully resolve this issue. Although
appellate courts have not decided directly whether an expressly- stated "blanket ban" is
consistent with the MMPA, there is precedent at the trial court level upholding such a
regulation.
Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
The proposed ordinance expressly prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones
of the City. Further, medical marijuana dispensaries may not be established or
operated which is defined to mean the conversion of an existing business or the
addition of a medical marijuana dispensary to an existing use. The City will not issue
any kind of permit, business license, or any other applicable approval for a medical
marijuana dispensary. Any violation of this ordinance will be a public nuisance and the
City may initiate an action for injunctive relief.
The term "medical marijuana dispensary" is defined in such a way as to ensure that the
ban does not prohibit a qualified patient's ability to possess, cultivate, or use medical
marijuana in his or her own residence or to prohibit a primary caregiver from providing
medical marijuana to his or her qualified patient.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the
regular agenda notification process for Municipal Code Amendments, pursuant to
Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which includes publication in the
San Gabriel Valley Tribune and posting of the notice at the six (6) public locations.
Prepared by:
AQ
Lily Trinh
Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 11 -04
B. Draft Ordinance No. 910
C. Ordinance 877
D. Ordinance 879
E. Ordinance 895
EXHIBIT "A"
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development;
and
WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code amendments
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Code), does
not address or regulate in any manner the existence or location of medical marijuana
dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 910 is a City initiated amendment to revise Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to address
the siting of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215,
which was codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 and following, and entitled
the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the "Act'); and
WHEREAS, the intent of Proposition 215 was to enable seriously ill Californians to
legally possess, use, and cultivate marijuana under limited, specified circumstances; and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2004, Senate Bill ( "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. These new
regulations and rules became known as the Medical Marijuana Program which, among other
things, enhanced the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through
collective, cooperative cultivation projects; and
WHEREAS, neither Proposition 215 nor SB 420 authorizes medical marijuana
dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, a number of cities in Los Angeles County have prohibited or imposed
moratoria on medical marijuana dispensaries. This situation creates a substantially
increased likelihood persons will seek to locate such establishments within the City of
Rosemead, thus creating a potential current and immediate threat to the public health, safety,
or welfare; and
WHEREAS, in April 2009, the California Police Chiefs Association Task Force on
Marijuana Dispensaries published a White Paper discussing the negative secondary effects
of medical marijuana dispensaries on the health, safety, and welfare of the communities
where they have been established. The report analyzes several negative secondary effects
including armed robberies, murders, burglaries, drug dealing, money laundering, and
organized crime. The report states, "Because they are repositories of valuable marijuana
crops and large amounts of cash, several operators of dispensaries have been attacked and
murdered by armed robbers both at their storefronts and homes, and such places have been
regularly burglarized. Drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in
retail areas, increased noise, and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries are also
common ancillary byproducts of their operations. To repel store invasions, firearms are often
kept on hand inside dispensaries, and firearms are used to hold up their proprietors."
(California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries White Paper at
page V.); and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States V. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Gonzales v. Raich
(2005) 545 U.S. 1, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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 medicinal marijuana laws; and
WHEREAS, based upon its concerns regarding the adverse impacts on those
communities where medical marijuana dispensaries have been established, and until the
inconsistency between federal and state law is finally resolved, and until additional
information regarding the impacts of medical marijuana dispensing is considered, it is in the
best interests of the City of Rosemead to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries within the
City; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2011 notices were posted in six (6) public locations
and a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune specifying the public
comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and
7
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Ordinance No.
910; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission finds that these regulations are is enacted in
order to mitigate the threat posed to the public peace, health, or safety by medical marijuana
dispensaries. In this regard, the findings set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution are
incorporated herein by reference. This Resolution provides for zoning regulations which are
specifically applicable to medical marijuana dispensaries and 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.
SECTION 2 . Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead hereby
incorporates the foregoing recitals as findings of fact and further finds and declares that:
(a) California courts have not decided any case involving an express ban on
medical marijuana dispensaries. However, in City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) and City of
Claremont v. Kruse (2009), appellate courts upheld the application of municipal zoning
regulations against medical marijuana dispensaries and affirmed permanent injunctions
against the dispensary operators.
(b) In Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim ( 2010), the awaited
appellate outcome of which formed a basis for the City's previous medical marijuana
dispensary moratorium, a medical marijuana dispensary operator challenged Anaheim's
expressly- stated ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, which also imposed criminal
penalties on operators. The trial court dismissed the suit on multiple grounds, including the
ground that federal law preempted the CUA and MMPA. The Court of Appeal reversed on
the limited ground that federal law did not preempt the CUA and MMPA. The Court of
Appeal did not decide the issue of whether the City's ordinance was permissible under the
MMPA, but the opinion suggested that the legality of such an express ban was an open
question.
(c) Naulls and Kruse remain the only controlling cases on the permissible scope
of regulation of storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. While these cases favor the
ability to ban dispensaries, the scope of municipal regulation of medical marijuana
continues to be the subject of litigation. Further court guidance will be needed to resolve
this issue.
(d) Ordinance No. 910 would expressly prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries
in all zones of the City. Further, medical marijuana dispensaries could not be established
or operated, which is defined to mean the conversion of an existing business or the
addition of a medical marijuana dispensary to an existing use.
(e) The term "medical marijuana dispensary" is defined in Ordinance No. 910 in
such a way as to ensure that the ban does not prohibit a qualified patient's ability to
possess, cultivate, or use medical marijuana in his or her own residence or to prohibit a
primary caregiver from providing medical marijuana to his or her qualified patient.
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
Ordinance 910 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good
city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed amendment, in that the change
to the Rosemead Municipal Code will provide a superior level of planning and protection to
the quality and character of the City.
SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission FINDS AND DETERMINES that Ordinance
910 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows:
FINDING: The medical marijuana prohibition is consistent with General Plan Land
Use Goal 2, which elaborates on expanded opportunities for concentrated commercial and
industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. Prohibiting
medical marijuana in the City will create attractive and dynamic pedestrian - friendly activity
nodes and commercial centers, encourage continued development of self sustaining
commercial uses within centers located at strategic intersections, and rigorously enforce
property maintenance standards for commercial and industrial properties.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission does HEREBY RECOMMEND that Chapter
17.106 (Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) of the Rosemead Municipal Code be added to
read as provided in Ordinance 910.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL of Ordinance 910 amending regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries
within the City of Rosemead.
SECTION 7. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on March 7, 2011 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2011.
William Alarcon, Chairman
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on 7 day of March,
2011, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Stan Wong, Secretary
bi
ei • 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17
"ZONING" OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING
CHAPTER 17.106 PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES CITYWIDE.
WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215,
which was codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 and following, and entitled
the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the "Act ").
WHEREAS, the intent of Proposition 215 was to enable seriously ill Californians to
legally possess, use, and cultivate marijuana under limited, specified circumstances.
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2004, Senate Bill ( "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.
These new regulations and rules became known as the Medical Marijuana Program
which, among other things, enhanced the access of patients and caregivers to medical
marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects.
WHEREAS, neither Proposition 215 nor SB 420 authorizes medical marijuana
dispensaries.
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Code), does
not address or regulate in any manner the existence or location of medical marijuana
dispensaries.
WHEREAS, many California cities and counties have adopted ordinances
prohibiting or heavily regulating such dispensaries.
WHEREAS, 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.
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice's California Medical Marijuana
Information Report advised that large -scale drug traffickers have been posing as
"caregivers" to obtain and sell marijuana, thus increasing the likelihood that such traffickers
in illegal drugs in the City, thereby endangering the public health, safety and welfare.
WHEREAS, a number of cities in Los Angeles County have prohibited or imposed
moratoria on medical marijuana dispensaries. This situation creates a substantially
increased likelihood persons will seek to locate such establishments within the City of
1
Rosemead, thus creating a potential current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare.
WHEREAS, in April 2009, the California Police Chiefs Association Task Force on
Marijuana Dispensaries published a White Paper discussing the negative secondary
effects of medical marijuana dispensaries on the health, safety, and welfare of the
communities where they have been established. The report analyzes several negative
secondary effects including armed robberies, murders, burglaries, drug dealing, money
laundering and organized crime. The report states, "Because they are repositories of
valuable marijuana crops and large amounts of cash, several operators of dispensaries
have been attacked and murdered by armed robbers both at their storefronts and homes,
and such places have been regularly burglarized. Drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering,
heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise, and robberies of customers
just outside dispensaries are also common ancillary byproducts of their operations. To
repel store invasions, firearms are often kept on hand inside dispensaries, and firearms
are used to hold up their proprietors." (California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force
on Marijuana Dispensaries White Paper at page V.)
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that events in other cities
and counties have demonstrated that substantial harmful secondary effects have arisen
from the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, including but not limited to
increased crime rates that place additional burdens on law enforcement resources.
WHEREAS, marijuana presently is categorized as a Schedule I controlled
substance by the Federal Government. Schedule I drugs are classified as having a "high
potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use."
WHEREAS, the Controlled Substance Act, a Federal law codified as 21 United
States Code Section 841, makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, distribute, or
dispense marijuana, or to possess marijuana with the intent to manufacture, distribute, or
dispense this drug. Marijuana used for medical purposes is not exempt from the Controlled
Substances Act, and therefore, persons choosing to follow the provisions of California laws
are subject to prosecution under Federal laws for possession and use of an unlawful
controlled substance.
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 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
(2005) 545 U.S. 1, 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, 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 medicinal marijuana laws.
WHEREAS, this ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's police power granted
by the Constitution of the State of California, in order to promote the health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the City of Rosemead.
WHEREAS, in enacting this ordinance, it is the Council's intention that nothing
contained herein be construed to allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers
others or causes a public nuisance, nor to allow any activity related to the cultivation,
distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is illegal.
WHEREAS, in light of these findings and facts, the City Council finds that it is
contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare to permit the operation of medical
marijuana dispensaries, as defined herein, within the City of Rosemead.
WHEREAS, based upon its concerns regarding the adverse impacts on those
communities where medical marijuana dispensaries have been established, and until the
inconsistency between federal and state law is finally resolved, and until additional
information regarding the impacts of medical marijuana dispensing is considered, it is the
intent of the City Council of the City of Rosemead to prohibit medical marijuana
dispensaries within the City.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Amendment to Title 17 . An amendment adding Chapter 17.106 to
Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code entitled "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries," as
shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is here by adopted.
SECTION 2: Compliance With CEQA 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.
SECTION 3: Severability The City Council hereby declares that, should any
provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this
Ordinance or any part thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any
final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, such decision or action shall not affect the validity of the remaining section or
portions of the Ordinance or part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that any
3
one or more provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases,
or words may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and shall cause the same to be
published according to law.
SECTION 5. Prior Ordinance: Interim moratorium Ordinance No. 895 shall be of
no further force and affect upon the effective date of this Ordinance No. 910
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2011.
STEVEN LY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney
In
1, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 910 was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rosemead held on the 22nd day of March 2011, and was duly passed, approved and
adopted by said Council at the regular meeting held on April 12, 2011 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
5
11 17.106 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
A, Definitions:
(1) "Establish" or "Operate" a medical marijuana dispensary (as defined in this
Section) means and includes any of the following:
(a) The opening or commencement of the operation of a medical
marijuana dispensary;
(b) The conversion of an existing business, facility, use establishment,
or location to a medical marijuana dispensary;
-(c) The addition of a medical marijuana dispensary to any other
existing business, facility, use, establishment, or location.
(2) "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not;
the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. It
includes Marijuana infused in foodstuff. It does not include the mature stalks of the
plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any
other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature
stalks (except resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seeds of the
plant that are incapable of germination.
(3) "Medical Marijuana" is Marijuana used for medical purposes where that
medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who
has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of Marijuana in the
treatment of acquire immune deficiency syndrome ( "AIDS "), anorexia, arthritis, cancer,
chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, spasticity, or any other serious medical condition for
which Marijuana is deemed to provide relief as defined in subsection (h) of Health and
Safety Code Section 11362.7.
IN
(4) "Medical Marijuana Dispensary" means any business, facility, use,
establishment, or location, whether fixed or mobile, where Medical Marijuana is made
available to, delivered to and /or distributed by or to, three or more of the following a
"primary caregiver," "a qualified patient," or a person with an "identification card,' as
these terms are defined in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and
following. A "Medical Marijuana Dispensary" does not include the following uses, as
long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by this code or applicable law:
a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a
health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety
Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life- threatening illness licensed
pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care
facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and
Safety Code, a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to
Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, as long as any such use
complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code
section 11362.5 and following.
B. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Prohibited.
1. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones in the City and
shall not be established or operated anywhere in the City.
2. No person may own, establish, open, operate, conduct, or manage a
Medical Marijuana Dispensary in the City, or be the lessor of property where a Medical
Marijuana Dispensary is located. No person may participate as an employee,
contractor, agent, volunteer, or in any manner or capacity in any Medical Marijuana
Dispensary in the City.
3. No use permit, site development permit, tentative map, parcel map,
variance, grading permit, building permit, building plans, zone change, business license,
7
certificate of occupancy, or other applicable approval will be accepted, approved, or
issued for the establishment or operation of a Medical Marijuana Dispensary.
4. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to permit or authorize
any use or activity which is otherwise prohibited by any state or federal law.
(c) Civil Injunction.
The violation of this Section shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and
contrary to the public interest and shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause of
action for injunctive relief.
9
ORDINANCE NO. 877
• •
THE CITY • • • -. r •
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, FINDINGS. Based on information contained in the record, the City
Council makes the following findings:
A. California has adopted laws regarding the use, possession and cultivation
of medical marijuana.
1. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition
215 (the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 — the "Act "), which was codified as
Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. The intent of the Act was to enable
seriously ill Californians to legally possess, use, and cultivate marijuana under
very limited circumstances.
2. in 2003, Senate Bill No. 420 ( "SB 420 ") was enacted 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, but also permitted patients and
caregivers to form collectives or cooperatives for the cultivation of their medical
marijuana. The Act and SB 420, together with applicable rules and regulations,
are often known as the Medical Marijuana Program.
3. The establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries
are not authorized under the Act or SB 420.
B. Many California cities have responded to the Act and SB 420 by regulating
or prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries.
C. Many California cities and counties have adopted ordinances prohibiting
or heavily regulating such dispensaries.
1. 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.
2. The United States Department of .Justice's California Medical
Marijuana Information Report advised that large -scale drug traffickers have been
posing as "caregivers" to obtain and sell marijuana, thus increasing the likelihood
that such traffickers in illegal drugs in the City, thereby endangering the public
health, safety and welfare.
3. A number of cities in Los Angeles County have prohibited or
imposed moratoria on medical marijuana dispensaries. Rosemead's Municipal
Code does not currently expressly permit or prohibit medical marijuana
dispensaries. This situation creates a substantially increased likelihood persons
will seek to locate in such establishments within the City of Rosemead, thus
creating a potential current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare.
D. The law regarding medical marijuana dispensaries is in a state of conflict
and flux,
1. The United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483 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.
2. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich
(2005) 545 U.S. 1 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.
3. It is not clear what position the federal government will take in
enforcing or changing existing laws regarding the use, possession and cultivation
of marijuana for medical purposes.
(a) In the wake of the Gonzales decision, the federal
government continued to enforce its anti -drug laws against medical
marijuana dispensary operators. However, on February 25, 2009, U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder suggested a shift in the federal government's
position on the prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries by stating
that the actions of federal law enforcement agencies would be consistent
with the President's campaign statement that he would allow states to
regulate medical marijuana without interference from the federal
government.
(b) Subsequently, on March 18, 2009, U.S. Department of Justice,
Attorney General Holder stated the current administration's stance on the
prosecution of medical marijuana distributors operating under enabling
state laws as "The policy is to go after those people who violate both
federal and state law." Furthermore, Holder stated that law enforcement
officers will target those who attempt to "use medical marijuana laws as a
shield for other illegal activity."
(c) Members of U.S. Congress have stated that they anticipate
introduction of bills which would, among other things, have the effect of
legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana in California, or impose
moratoriums on all federal government enforcement against users of
marijuana for medical purposes.
(d) Both the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration have
not provided any guidance as to what types of facilities dispensing medical
marijuana, if any, are consistent under both California and federal laws.
4. On February 23, 2009, California Assembly Member Ammiano
introduced Assembly Bill 390, which could remove marijuana and its derivatives
from statutes defining and regulating controlled substances. This bill would also
remove all civil and criminal penalties for adults 21 years of age or older who
cultivate, possess, transport, sell or use marijuana.
5. Despite clear direction from the United States Supreme Court that
medical marijuana dispensaries violate federal law, such facilities continue to
operate throughout California and the power of cities and counties to regulate
them is the subject of ongoing litigation. For example, the City of Anaheim's
prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries was challenged and is currently
being considered by the Court of Appeal.
6. Oral arguments in the Anaheim case — properly titled Qualified
Patients Association et al. v. City of Anaheim — are expected to be heard in
August before the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Division
Three. The resulting decision may uphold or reject the rights to cities to prohibit
the ownership, management, and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries
within their boundaries. This matter was not before the Court of Appeal when the
City last adopted a moratorium on the subject of medical marijuana dispensaries.
7. The potential for change in Federal enforcement of the Controlled
Substances Act and the Court of Appeal decision on the subject of medical
marijuana dispensaries create a new level of legal uncertainty that requires City
Staff to again study the potential impacts of medical marijuana dispensaries in
the City.
E. It is necessary for the City to study the appropriate type of local regulation
required for medical marijuana dispensaries together with the potential impact medical
marijuana dispensaries may have on the public's health, safety and welfare.
1. Currently the City's Municipal Code does not expressly permit or
prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries but
applicants could require a use determination from the City pursuant to Section
17.12.030 of the City's Municipal Code, thus allowing the potential for the
establishment or prohibition of such uses within the City on a case by case basis.
2. There exists a potential for inconsistent project review in that
absence of clear policy direction based upon a thorough review of the City's land
use goals and policies as well as information obtained from other cities and
counties regarding the potentially positive and negative impacts that operation of
such facilities may have on the community.
3. The current status of the state and federal law is fraught with
inherent inconsistencies and pending judicial and administrative interpretations
and the status of existing litigation and proposed legislation indicates a high level
of community and statewide concerns regarding the establishment of medicinal
marijuana dispensaries, warrants further review and consideration by the City in
the establishment of appropriate local regulation for medical marijuana
dispensaries.
4. The United States Supreme Court in Tahoe - Sierra Preservation
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) 535 U.S. 302 has
upheld interim planning processes and determined that they are an essential tool
of successful development.
F. The City finds that an interim prohibition on such uses and the issuance of
any such applicable entitlements is necessary for a period of 45 days.
1. Based on the foregoing, permitting the ownership, establishment or
operation of medical marijuana dispensaries prior to resolution of the currently
pending lawsuits challenging local regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries,
would result in the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
2. An initial period of 45 days will permit City Staff to undertake an
initial investigation of these mattes and recommend a course of action to the City
Council.
3. Government Code § 65858 authorizes the City Council to adopt, as
an urgency measure, an Interim Ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in
conflict with its existing or proposed General Plan, Zoning Ordinance or land use
policies and which the City is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council finds that:
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; rather it prevents
changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Municipal
Code review.
SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF MORATORIUM The City Council orders as follows:
A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Rosemead under
Government Code § 65858(a), and pursuant to the findings stated herein, for a period of
45 days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance:
1. No medical marijuana dispensary may be established or operated
in any zone of the City.
2. No use permit, site development permit, tentative map, parcel map,
variance, grading permit, building permit, building plans, zone change, business
license or other applicable approval will be accepted, approved or issued for the
establishment or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary,
B. As used in this Ordinance, the following definitions apply:
1. "Establish" or `operate" a medical marijuana dispensary (as defined
in this Ordinance) means and includes any of the following:
(a) The opening or commencement of the operation of a
medical marijuana dispensary;
(b) The conversion of an existing business, facility, use
establishment, or location to a medical marijuana dispensary;
(c) The addition of a medical marijuana dispensary to any other
existing business, facility, use, establishment or location.
2. ' "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing
or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every
compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its
seeds or resin. It includes marijuana infused in foodstuff. It does not include the
mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from
the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except resin extracted therefrom),
fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seeds of the plant that are incapable of
germination.
3. "Medical marijuana dispensary" means any business, facility, use,
establishment or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is
made available to and/or distributed by or to one or more of the following: a
"primary caregiver," "a qualified patient," or a person with an "identification card,"
as these terms are defined in California Health and Safety Code § 11362.5 and
following. A "medical marijuana dispensary" does not include the following uses,
as long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by this code or
applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health
and Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division
2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with
chronic life- threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of
the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed
pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential
hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of
the Health and Safety Code, as long as any such use complies strictly with
applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code § 11362.5
and following.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 65858(a) this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately but shall be of no further force and effect forty -five (45) days from its date
of adoption, unless the City Council, after notice and public hearing as provided under
Government Code § 65858(a) and adoption of the findings required by Government
Code § 65858(c), subsequently extends this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. REPORT ON INTERIM MORATORIUM
Pursuant to Government Code § 65858(d), 10 days prior to the expiration or any
extension of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council will issue a written report
describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of
this Interim Ordinance.
SECTION 6. PUBLICATION
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the
provisions of law in that regard and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately and
shall be in effect for a period of 45 days.
INTRODUCED at the special meeting of Rosemead City Council on June 30, 2009.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ji1 (\e✓ , 2009.
..:�?
0.
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City
rl�
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
To on s, ity Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD }
1, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, California do hereby
certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. 877 was duly adopted by the Rosemead
City Council on the 30 of June 2009. Said Ordinance shall be in effect immediately and
shall be in effect for a period of 45 days. Ordinance No. 877 was duly adopted by the
following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
. - - -• •
,. *7 • • .-
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Based on information contained in the record, the City
Council makes the following findings:
A. At a duly noticed public meeting on June 30, 2009, and after hearing and
considering public testimony, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 877, an interim
urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in the
City for a period of 45 days pending a resolution of the conflict in Federal and State law
on this issue.
B. Government Code Section 65858(a) authorizes the City Council to
continue the effect of Ordinance No. 877 for a period of 10 months and 15 days.
C. The findings made in Ordinance No. 877 are herby reaffirmed, readopted
and incorporated by reference as though they were fully restated herein.
D. There have been no substantive changes the conflict between Federal
and State law regarding medical marijuana ,dispensaries in the 45 days since the
adoption of Ordinance No. 877.
E. The immediate threat to and specific adverse impacts upon the public
health safety and welfare that would result from unregulated development of Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries justifies extension of the interim urgency moratorium
F. It remains necessary for the City to complete its study of the appropriate
type of local regulation required for medical marijuana dispensaries together with the
potential impact medical marijuana dispensaries may have on the public's health, safety
and welfare.
1. Currently the City's Municipal Code does not expressly permit or
prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries but
applicants could require a use determination from the City pursuant to Section
17.12.030 of the City's Municipal Code, thus allowing the potential for the
establishment or prohibition of such uses within the City on a case by case basis.
2. There exists a potential for inconsistent project review in that
absence of clear policy direction based upon a thorough review of the City's land
use goals and policies as well as information obtained from other cities and
LA 44829.5013.4020 v 1
counties regarding the potentially positive and negative impacts that operation of
such facilities may have on the community.
3. The current status of the state and federal law is fraught with
inherent inconsistencies and pending judicial and administrative interpretations
and the status of existing litigation and proposed legislation indicates a high level
of community and statewide concerns regarding the establishment of medicinal
marijuana dispensaries, warrants further review and consideration by the City in'
the establishment of appropriate local regulation for medical marijuana
dispensaries.
4. The United States Supreme Court in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) 535 U.S. 302 has
upheld interim planning processes and determined that they are an essential tool
of successful development.
G. The City finds that an interim prohibition on medical marijuana
dispensaries and the issuance of any such applicable entitlements is necessary for an
additional period of 10 months and 15 days.
1. An additional period of 10 months and 15 days will permit City Staff
to complete its investigation of these matters' and recommend a course of action
to the City Council.
3. Government Code § 65858 authorizes the City Council to extend,
as an urgency measure, an Interim Ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be
in conflict with its existing or proposed General Plan, Zoning Ordinance or land
use policies and which the City is considering or studying or intends to study
within a reasonable time.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council finds that
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; rather it prevents
changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Municipal
Code review.
SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF MORATORIUM The City Council orders as follows:
A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Rosemead under
Government Code § 65858(a), and pursuant to the findings stated herein, Ordinance
No. 877 is hereby extended and the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, as
LA #4829- 50134020 v 1
set forth fully in Ordinance No. 877, shall remain in effect for an additional period of 10
months and 15 days.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 65858(a) this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately but shall be of no further force and effect 10 months and 15 days from its
date of adoption.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the
provisions of law in that regard and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately and
shall be in effect for a period of 10 months and 15 days.
INTRODUCED at the regular meeting of Rosemead City Council on &--11 2009.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 day of 1 2009.
Margaret C�v a k, mayor
A EST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Josep Mane , ity Attorney
LA #4829 - 5013 -4020 vl
1 6M
On June 30, 2009, pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the Rosemead City
Council enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 877, which imposed a moratorium on the
approval of applications for land use entitlements for medical marijuana dispensaries for
a period of 45 days (the "Initial Ordinance "). This report is submitted in compliance with
subsection (d) of Government Code section 65858, which requires the issuance of "a
written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the
adoption of the ordinance."
1. In the limited time allotted under the 45 day Initial Ordinance, City staff has
begun to compile and study the substantial health and safety issues, as well as the
inconsistencies between State law and Federal law, regarding the approval of and
location of medical marijuana dispensaries. This includes but is not limited to a review
of the Qualified Patients Association et al. v. City of Anaheim lawsuit currently pending
before the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District.
2. Staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, has identified the Qualified
Patients case as key to determining the ultimate legality of commercial operation of
medical marijuana dispensaries. In addition to analyzing the impact of the Qualified
Patients decision on the City's future regulation of dispensaries, City staff has identified
immediate health and safety concerns related to the siting of medical marijuana
dispensaries, including but not limited to burglaries, robberies, and sales of illegal drugs
in the areas surrounding dispensaries. Staff has determined that these concerns
represent an immediate threat to the safety and health of the neighborhood which would
be located close to medical marijuana dispensaries.
Due to the on -going Qualified Patients case and to the health and safety concerns
noted in this report, staff recommends adoption of the Extension Ordinance. If adopted
by the City Council, the Extension Ordinance would extend the moratorium on the
approval of applications for land use entitlements for medical marijuana dispensaries for
a period of 10 months 15 days,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD }
.I Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, California do hereby
certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. 879 was duly adopted by the Rosemead
City Council on the 1 I `h day of August 2009. Said Ordinance shall be in effect
immediately and shall be in effect for a period of 10 months and 15 days. Ordinance No.
879 was duly adopted by the following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
• • • ' • a ] . •...
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Based on information contained in the record, the City
Council makes the following findings:
A. At a duly noticed public meeting on June 30, 2009, and after hearing and
considering public testimony, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 877, an interim
urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in the
City for a period of 45 days pending a resolution of the conflict in Federal and State law
on this issue.
B. At a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2009, and after hearing and
considering public testimony, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 879 extending the
moratorium for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, or until June 25, 2010.
C. Government Code Section 65858(a) authorizes the City Council to
continue the effect of Ordinance Nos. 877 and 879 for an additional period of one (1)
year.
D. The findings made in Ordinance Nos. 877 and 879 are herby reaffirmed,
readopted and incorporated by reference as though they were fully restated herein.
E. Pursuant to Government Code § 65858(d), 10 days prior to the expiration
of Ordinance No. 879, the City Council issued a written report describing the measures
taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 877 and
879.
F. The immediate threat to and specific adverse impacts upon the public
health safety and welfare that would result from unregulated development of Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries justifies an additional extension of the interim urgency
moratorium.
G. It remains necessary for the City to complete its study of the appropriate
type of local regulation required for medical marijuana dispensaries together with the
potential impact medical marijuana dispensaries may have on the public's health, safety
and welfare.
LA #4830- 6519 -0149 v1
1. Currently the City's Municipal Code does not expressly permit or
prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries but
applicants could require a use determination from the City pursuant to Section
17.12.030 of the City's Municipal Code, thus allowing the potential for the
establishment or prohibition of such uses within the City on a case by case basis.
2. There exists a potential for inconsistent project review in that
absence of clear policy direction based upon a thorough review of the City's land
use goals and policies as well as information obtained from other cities and
counties regarding the potentially positive and negative impacts that operation of
such facilities may have on the community.
3. The current status of the state and federal law is fraught with
inherent inconsistencies and pending judicial and administrative interpretations
and the status of existing litigation and proposed legislation indicates a high level
of community and statewide concerns regarding the establishment of medicinal
marijuana dispensaries, warrants further review and consideration by the City in
the establishment of appropriate local regulation for medical marijuana
dispensaries.
4. The United States Supreme Court in Tahoe - Sierra Preservation
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) 535 U.S. 302 has
upheld interim planning processes and determined that they are an essential tool
of successful development.
H. The City finds that an interim prohibition on medical marijuana
dispensaries and the issuance of any such applicable entitlements is necessary for an
additional period of one (1) year.
1. The inconsistencies between state and federal law continue to
require study before thorough regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries is
possible. In addition, there remains no definitive judicial or administrative
analysis of medical marijuana dispensaries on which the City can base any
regulation of that use. Specifically, the appellate decision in Qualified Patients
Association v. City of Anaheim has been delayed due to the appellate court
seeking additional briefing on the matter. This case turns on whether medical
marijuana dispensaries are required by or protected by the Compassionate Use
Act and/or Senate Bill 420 and the decision is expected to resolve whether
municipalities have the authority to prohibit dispensaries. A decision in the
matter had been anticipated before the end of calendar year 2009 but will now
not be issued until after the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 879 has expired.
Thus, there remains substantial uncertainty about the extent to which the City
may regulate medical marijuana dispensaries and that uncertainty will remain
until the decision is issued.
2. An additional period of one (1) year will permit City Staff to
complete its investigation of matters relating to medical marijuana dispensaries,
including but not limited to the Qualified Patients decision, and recommend a
course of action to the City Council.
3. Government Code § 65858 authorizes the City Council to extend,
as an urgency measure, an Interim Ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be
in conflict with its existing or proposed General Plan, Zoning Ordinance or land
use policies and which the City is considering or studying or intends to study
within a reasonable time.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council finds that:
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; rather it prevents
changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Municipal
Code review.
SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF MORATORIUM The City Council orders as follows:
A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Rosemead under
Government Code § 65858(a), and pursuant to the findings stated herein, Ordinance
No. 877 is hereby extended and the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, as
set forth fully in Ordinance No. 877, shall remain in effect for an additional period of one
(1) year (May 10, 2010).
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 65858(a) this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately but shall be of no further force and effect one (1) year from its date of
adoption.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the
provisions of law in that regard and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately and
shall be in effect for a period of one (1) year (May 10, 2011).
i .A 4A970 -6i 19 -0149 V1
INTRODUCED at the regular meeting of Rosemead City Council on May 11, 2010.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 day of May, 2010.
ary T r, Mayo
ATTEST:
I f--tda
Gloria Mol eda, City Clerl
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Josep ' o tey` City Attorney
I,...o'„«,�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. 895 was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the City
Council on the11 m of May, 2010 by the following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk