Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/21/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.E. U.S, Department of Justice office of Legislative Affairs Office Of tht A9oIRME AMW yOman] FFwhfn�/un,DC 20570 FEB 2 6 2007 The Honorable Mary Bono U,S. House of Representatives Washiugton,D.C. 20515 Nar Congresswoman Bono: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General on behalf of your constituent, Michael McCulloch,who wrote to you concerning his request for assistance regarding the full parameters of the federal Controlled Substances Act, Assistant Umted States Attorney(AUSA) Thom s O'Brien, the Crimbral Division Chief for the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California,was invited to speak to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments'Public Safety Committee on Monday, January 8, 2007. We are told that the Public Safety Committee is staffed by council members from seyeral'cities in Riverside County,which is within the Central District of California. The Public Safety Coinmititec had asked AUSA O'Brien to adtuess one issue: 'what is the federal government's position on the legality of the medical marijuana distribution centers located within the district?"AUSA b'Brien explained to-the codiatiitee tba't'under'tlie Controlled Substances Act,marijuana is classified as a Schedule l controlled substance. JiLISA O']3rie rich an to tell the group that ai i Schedule 1 controlled substance, it is a violation of Title 21 of the United States Cozie for anyone to knowingly or intentionally rttaanfacture, distribute,cultivate, transport, or sell marijuana,tegardfess of any provision captained within any state law, as California's Proposition 215. We are told that AUSA O'Brien was asked numerous other questions by several council members and a number of medical marijuana supporters, such as whether California Proposition 215 was constitutional,how much money the Department of Justice(DOJ) and its component, the Drug Enforcernent Admiitistration'(DEA), spent on marijuana cases,and wh} tine federal govenutieni bad outlawed marijuana,all of which he declined to-answer: When AUSA O'Brien was asked by'a city vouncilman whether or not a city was exposed tb any crirrlinal liabiliiyif it issued permii5 to niedicdl ilratijuana establislnnents, tie also declined to aniswerihat'46l tion and told the members of tlie'audience that he bould'not give ad'vis&l opiriidns or comment on any hypothetical situati'ohs. When AUUSA O'Brien 4 a pressed on the specific issue of aidirig and ah'etting fie explained that the federal aiding and abetting-law was similar to that used in file State of Califomia,which is to say that anyone who knowingly aids and abetd'thc commission of a 7 d.3�ZflZbo The Honorable Mary Bono Page 2 crime is liable for prosecution. AUSA O'Brien specifically declined to answer whether or not the Department of Justice would prosecute any particular city or city council member who opted to issue these permits. As a general matter of statutory definitions,we can tell you that under the:Federal Controlled Substances Act(Tide 21,United States Code) a Schedule 1 controlled substance is a drug which has a high potential for abuse, currently has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and for whicb there is a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A-C). Congress lias defined marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 121 S.Ct_ 1711, 1718 (2001). In Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's authority to regulate marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act,holding that a state taedical marijuana law could not circumscribe Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the intrastate and non-commercial manufacture,possession, and distribution of marijuana. Id. At 2213. As we are sure you can appreciate,considerations of law and ethics preclude us from providing legal advice or assistance to individuals or organizations seeking legal recourse. The issues raised by Mr. McCulloch seek legal advice and interpretations which can best be given by private counsel. If Mr. McCulloch seeks answers to the questions posed in his letter,we encourage him to consult an attorney who can appropriately represent his interest. We can, however, say that anyone who violates the Controlled Substances Act is subject to federal prosecution. We appreciate your interest in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact the Department if we can be of assistance in other matters. Sincerely, A"U � • A-r-� Richard A.Hertling Acting Assistant Attorney General January 10, 2007 Honorable Mary Bono Member of the Ignited States Congress 104 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: California City Councils and Medical Marijuana Laws Dear Congresswoman Bono: California City Councils are faced with a difficult dilemma. Federal law prohibits the sale, possession, and use of marijuana without exception. California,however, through a voter approved initiative measure called the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and SB 420,the Medical Marijuana Program Act, adopted in 2003, provided that "seriously ill Californians [have] the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician . _ ." Many California cities have adopted ordinances that allow medical marijuana dispensaries under certain specific operational restrictions to operate in their Commtinities_ I will emphasize that these local ordinances do not attempt to "legalize" marijuana. These local ordinances are intended to simply provide appropriate land use and regulatory programs that will ensure that the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act are complied with in a manner that is consistent with local concerns and needs. An Assistant United States Attorney based in Los Angeles, Thomas O'Brien, in a meeting with local government officials (CVAG Public Safety Committee) on January 8, indicated that cities and the members of their city councils could be prosecuted under federal law for aiding and abetting the violation of federal drug laws if cities adopt ordinances that are intended to implement the state's Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act. I attended this meeting and heard Mr. O'Brien's comments. I was the member who asked if I was at risk of federal prosecution. Mr. O'Brien told me "I cannot comment on current investigations". I must say, that was a comment that chilled me to the bone. I have attached a copy of an article from today's edition of the Desert Sun that describes this incident for your inl•'ormation. This article accurately describes Mr. O'Brien's comments. 526107.1 t Congresswoman Mary Bono January 10, 2007 ,Page 2 This threat from the United States Attorney's Office places all local officials in California in serious jeopardy. As 1 understand it, the federal and state courts have not ruled that Federal laws relating to marijuana have pre-empted state laws, nor has any court struck down California's medical marijuana laws as invalid or unconstitutional. Thus, local officials, who have swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and the State of California, are required to balance these laws take reasonable steps to ensure that all laws are upheld and enforced. Local government officials who in good faith adopt and implement local ordinances designed and intended to ensure compliance with lawful state laws should not be subject to criminal prosecution or liability,for doing so_ Your assistance in formulating appropriate legislation or administrative rules that will assuage the concerns of local government officials will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Michael R. McCulloch Palm Springs City Council enclosure 526107 1 MaP21-2007 04:31pn From-SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 91$3240384 T-605 P 002/003 F-887 a r STATE CAP/TQL ROOM 2I9: `vr �• SACRAMEW0,CA 0 re 5 1A SM vlc��R QriifarulELKINS ALC4IST V 1914191�-099M1 PAk GJL ERT❑EDILLD DD PETER SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH 0R huJSE"S LABEL AVE MAL COX I GLORIA NEGRETEry i.EOP MARK RIDLEY•THDMAS co6EYLiavis ARK P R DARRELL STEIN11MC SHEILA JAME5 KUEHI— OGER N MARK WY AND CHAIR URIC PARK Kff"Y PA ry LE.AND YE6 CONC13POON TAPED CCNMRTliA WnGTAN1I CAROLTMOMA9 STEPHANIE HINEW NE February 28, 2007 Rodney Lilyquist, Senior Assistant Attorney General Opinion Unit P. O. Box 85266-5299 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 am requesting an Attorney General's opinion to answer some important questions related to the,Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215 of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act. I am asking about the potential legal consequences for members of the governing bodies of cities, a combined city and county, and counties as a result of marijuana dispensaries operating within their jurisdictions. 1. Is it possible for a store front medical marijuana dispensary to be legally operated , under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act? 2. if the governing body of a city, city and county, or county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act., can the individual board or council member be found to be acting illegally and be subject to federal criminal charges, including aiding and abetting, and/or state criminal charges? 3- It the governing body of a city, city and county, or county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act and subsequently a particular dispensary is found to be violating state law regarding sales and trafficking of marijuana, could an elected official on the governing body be guilty of state criminal charges? 4. Dees approval of such an ordinance open the jurisdictions themselves to criminal and/or civil liability? 5. Does the issuance of a business license involve any additional civil or criminal,liability for a city or county and Its elected governing body? There are many marijuana dispensaries throughout 08111emia. Their purpose Is to supply medical marijuana for those eligible under the Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215 of 4o. 1 Q3�ZI�ZGv "� 1 �T�� 1 M ii r-21-2007 04:31pm From-SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES g1632403L4 T-605 P 003/603 F^867 r Rodney Lilyquist, Senior Assistant Attorney General February 28. 20097 Page Two 1996. The status of these dispensaries has created considerable controversy. Despite the state law authoriaing use of marijuana in specfed circumstances, under federal law marijuana remains a controlled substance and its only permissible use is In federally approved research. My understanding is that the state law has not created an exception or defense against applicable federal laws. This could lead to the conclusion that these dispensaries Violate federal law. In fact, as you know, there have been a number of Drug Enforcement Agency raids of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state. State law does not appear to be very helpful in establishing the legal status of dispensaries. It appears that dispensaries can be operated in a manner that complies with state law, especially it they are cooperatives or collectives as envisioned by Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775 and meet the legal definition of a primary caregiVer. However,there have been Instances where dispensaries have been found to violate state law. I would be very grateful to receive your opinion on these matters. Please contact Roger Dunstan of my staff at 916-651-4111 if there are questions or to schedule a meeting if you wish to discuss a verbal opinion. Thank you_ Sheila James Kuehl Chair iwar /i ur uz:ldp l nny -oat 760-327-9883 p 1 City of Palm Springs " l Ginny Frat, Councilmembcr 3200:.- T:;hcp.,Lr,C:mvun\V;n ' Palm Spy Ong+:CaLfirr..::, LPG! �F{rFpRNA" TJ (- 0)3';-ti?[P) - Fax l7G0)92i•43ti? Wrb;.vu•w.palm prrvtis-�a•soe January 19, 2007 Senator Sheila Kuehl State Capitol, Room 5108 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Sheila- Always good to hear your voice. As I mentioned on the phone I will be in Sacramento on February a and !OP. I would love to see you both formally and maybe Thursday evening informally. I am emailing my request for a formal meeting to Monica. Enclosed is the information I mentioned about the situation faced by all of the California cities that have condoned in some way or another use of medical marijuana. As you are aware I became familiar wrath the effects of medical marijuana in my work with HIV/AIDS- I have seen first hand how beneficial its use can be in pain management and food retention. Recently the DEA along with some focal DA's have been closing dispensaries- Most recently in Palm Desert, Palm Springs and West Hollywood. It is important as outlined in the enclosed letter that we get clarification from the California Attorney General on the two issues t mention formally in the letter. It is my understanding that clarification must be requested by an elected state official. Thank you for your assistance on this- I have enclosed my card if your staff needs to contact me for further information. Looking forward to seeing you. Posr Office Bos 2743 ' Pala) Sprin,,s, Cal&vnia 92263-27 i? • �3�2��zggO � ��rrl�'� I •G' Mar 21 0( 02:13p Ginny Fcat 760„327-9883 p2 City of Palm Springy s Ginn• ruac, Cuuncilmembcr 3200C 710hgnir<(•dn,nc Ni, P.i6n Aivinti.,•f:;JiPv-iin `�_'SL' AI:('h0197;.Lq';)O rrx (7G)) i_!-R),q,' WWII AMV l+dniyl•ni,;a January 19. 2007 Hon. Sheila Kuehl Member of the California State Senate State Capitol, Room 5108 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: The Legal Status of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Dear Senator Kuehl: California City Councils are faced with a difficult dilemma, Federal law prohibits the sale, possession, and use of marijuana without exception. California, however, through a voter approved initiative measure called the Compassionate Use Act of 1995 and St3 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act,adopted in 2003, provided that"seriously ill Californians [have]the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician . . .." Many California cities have adopted ordinances that allow medical marijuana dispensaries under certain specific operational restrictions to operate in their communities. As I am sure you are aware, recently there have been several raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in several cities in California including West Hollywood, Palm Desert and Palm Springs to name a few- The Riverside County District Attorney has recently issued a "white paper regarding medical marijuana use, concluding that"store-front medical marijuana dispensaries'are not legal under federal or state law and that cities and city council members who approve such facilities may be aiding and abetting the violation of the federal laws that prohibit the sale, possession, and use of marijuana- A copy of the"While paper"is attached for your information. I would ask that you request the California Attorney General to answer two direct and fundamentar questions: 1. "is a store front medical marijuana dispensary lawful under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act? POSE OffiCC Licx 27Z PILIM Cpringa. CAllfnuda 7-'-6i__174 Nlar 21 Ur vz-�Jp tinny h0at f5u-�321-9W p3 2. Can a member of a city council, acting in good faith in the preparation and adoption of an ordinance that implements the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, be found liable for aiding and abetting the violation of federal drug laws?" This is an issue that affects all city officials throughout the state_ I have included a copy of an article from the January 9, 2007 Desert Sun where an assistant United State Attorney based in Los Angeles stated that cities could be found liable for aiding and abetting violations of law by allowing medical marijuana dispensaries. Your assistance to help us clarity these issues would be greatly appreciated. Since y i (Gin y Foa?be Councilm Enc: 2 N M EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Stare of California Attorney Genera! DEPARTMENT OF JUST.TCE 110 WEST A STREET,SUITE 1100 SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 P.O.B0X 85266 SAN➢IEGO,CA 92186-5266 Public:(619)645-2400 Facsimile: (619)645-2489 Direct Dial: (619)645-2210 E-Mail:Rodney.Lilyquist c@i doj.ca.gov March 9,2007 Douglas Holland City Attorney MAR 19 200F P.O. Sox 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 RE: Opinion No._07_306 Dear Mr. Holland: We have received a request from Senator Sheila James Kuehl for an opinion of the Attorney General on the following questions: 1, is it possible for a store front medical marijuana dispensary to be legally operated under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996(Health& Saf. Code, § 1 ]362.5)and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health&Saf. Code, §§ 11362.7-) 1362.83)? 2. If the governing body of a city,city and county,or county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act,can an individual board or council member be found to be acting illegally and be subject to federal criminal charges,including aiding and abetting,or state criminal charges? 3. if the governing body of a city,city and county,or county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, and subsequently a particular dispensary is Pound to be violating state law regarding sales and trafficking of marijuana, could an elected official on the governing body be guilty of state criminal charges? h. Does approval of such an ordinance open the jurisdictions themselves to civil or criminal liability? 5. Does the issuance of a business license involve any additional civil or criminal liability for a city or county and its elected governing body? Opinion NO. 07-306 March 9,2007 Page 2 It is the policy of our office to solicit the views of all interested parties prior to issuing an opinion_ If you would like to submit comments, a response by May 8,2007,would be most helpful; materials received after such date will nonetheless be considered. Views submitted will be treated by our office as public records under the Public Records Act. Please address your views to: Deputy Attorney General Marc Nolan, 300 S. Spring Street,Los Angeles, CA 90013; telephone(213) 897-2255; or via e-mail Marc.Nolan(@doi.ca_gQv, Information regarding the status of this opinion request and a copy of the opinion when it is issued,as well as opinion research materials and a description of our opinion writing policies, are available on the Opinion Unit's Internet website.www.caag.state.ca.us/opinions. Sincerely, ctt. RODNFY O. 1.1I.YQUIST Senior Assistant Attorney General Chief Opinion Unit For EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General ROL jdy °��ALMSp4 iy c V N { 4 r FM C oq.n `" P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 21, 2007 SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NOS. 1687 AND 1688 RE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Douglas Holland, City Attorney SUMMARY On March 29, 2006, the City council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1687, which imposed a 45 day moratorium on the establishment of new medical marijuana dispensaries with the City. This initial Interim Urgency Ordinance prohibited the issuance of permits for medical marijuana dispensary uses during this interim period pending the formation of the City Manager committee to study, review, and prepare comments and suggestions for Council consideration in the formulation and consideration of potential land use regulations that may be necessary or desirable for the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. On May 3, 2006, the City Council extended the initial moratorium for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days to provide an opportunity for the committee to continue its work. Additional time is necessary to complete the work and draft an appropriate ordinance that would allow for bona fide collectives or cooperatives. The City Council may extend the current moratorium one last time for up to one year if approved by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. During this time it is anticipated that the City Manager committee can complete its work and prepare a comprehensive set of regulations and potential code amendments relating to the establishment and operation of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives in the City. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony 2. Adopt this staff report by minute motion as the written report required pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. 3. Waive the reading of the Ordinance text in its entirety and adopt by title only. ITFnn n10. k� City Council Staff Report March 21, 2007 — Page 2 Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 4. Adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance No. , "AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1687 AND 1688, A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS PENDING COMPLETION OF A STUDY OF ,ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED TO ALLEVIATE A CURRENT AND ACTUAL THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE." (Four-fifths affirmative vote is required for passage) STAFF ANALYSIS; On March 29, 2006, and subsequently on May 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance Nos. 1687 and 1688, imposing a moratorium on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Palm Springs. In the staff reports presented to the Council on March 29 and May 3, 2006, the staff reported to the Council that existing City codes, including the Zoning Ordinance, do not specifically address or regulate the location or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. There was and is a concern that the City's central and accessible location, coupled with its unique downtown commercial district, could make the City attractive for such businesses. To determine how to deal with the medical marijuana dispensaries and the potential negative effects on the public heath, safety, and welfare, that could be caused by allowing a proliferation of unregulated marijuana establishments, staff recommended that the Council adopt the moratorium and direct Staff to study the issue further with the understanding that the moratorium would allow the Council time to determine an appropriate course of action. In adopting the interim urgency ordinances, the City Council expressly authorized the City Manager to form a committee to study, consider and formulate a proposed regulatory program that would govern the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. The City Council also authorized the two existing medical marijuana dispensaries that were operating in the City (333 N. Palm Canyon, Suite 18, Palm Springs, California and 2100 N, Palm Canyon, Suites 104 and 105B, Palm Springs, California) could remain in operation during the interim urgency period. The two existing dispensaries would therefore not be subject to zoning code enforcement notwithstanding the fact that the City's Zoning Ordinance does not expressly authorize medical marijuana dispensaries in any zone district in the City. The City Manager organized a committee to study marijuana dispensaries and potential regulations that could govern the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. The committee met on several occasions to review and comment on various drafts of a proposed ordinance. City staff had undertaken fact gathering efforts including contacting other agencies to determine the effects of the dispensaries and to determine options that may be available to permit and/or regulate such uses. City Council Staff Report March 21, 2007 -- Page 3 Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries During this interim urgency period, two significant events occurred. The first involved the Riverside District Attorney's publication of a "White Paper" on medical marijuana dispensaries, where the District Attorney's office opined that the Compassionate Use Act does not protect or include "storefront marijuana dispensaries" and that any city council approving a "storefront marijuana dispensary" could possibly be prosecuted for aiding and abetting illegal activity. Subsequent to the publication of this "White Paper," a United States Attorney, meeting with local government representatives in the Coachella Valley, made similar remarks, suggesting that approval of marijuana dispensaries could subject city council members to criminal liability. In order to minimize this potential exposure, the City Attorney's Office is preparing revised approaches to the proposed ordinance that would allow collectives/cooperatives in industrial zones, but would prohibit storefront dispensaries in commercial zones. Additional time is necessary to complete this work and allow the committee to review and comment on this revised approach. The initial moratorium and the first extension "grandfathered" the two dispensaries that were operating in the City at the time these ordinances were adopted. Both of these dispensaries closed during the last extension. A new dispensary has opened at one of the two locations; however, this new dispensary is not affiliated with the operator of the grandfathered business nor has this new dispensary secured a business license from the City. The Police Department and the City Attorney's Office are recommending that the grandfather provisions that protected the prior dispensaries from land use code enforcement not be renewed and that no new dispensary be allowed to open or continue in business during the one year extension provided in the proposed extension ordinance. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE EXTENSION Adoption of the Interim Urgency Ordinance would extend the Ordinance Nos. 1687 and 1688 for a period of one year pending the completion of the study and recommendation of the City Manager committee regarding potential code amendments to the City's codes, including potential code amendments to the City's land use regulations that may be needed to reasonably allow the establishment and operation of medical marijuana collectives and/or cooperatives in the City and reduce the potential for adverse secondary effects. The City Attorney's office prepared the Interim Urgency Ordinance and has approved the form and content of the proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance extending the provisions of the initial moratorium is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant City Council Staff Report March 21, 2007 -- Page 4 Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, 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) 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 written report described above- FISCAL IMPACT: IFinance Director Review- The proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance is a City-initiated project. There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the written report or the proposed Ordinance. There will be minor, indirect costs associated with City staff participation in the work of the City Manager committee. Dougl, s Holland, City Attorney Assistant City Yanager David H- Ready, Ci MO r Attachment: Draft Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. _ AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1687 AND 1688, A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS PENDING COMPLETION OF A STUDY OF ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED TO ALLEVIATE A CURRENT AND ACTUAL THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED.) The City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, ordains: SECTION 1. This interim urgency ordinance, extending previous interim urgency ordinances, is adopted pursuant to Section 312 of the Charter of the City of Palm Springs. This interim urgency ordinance is also adopted pursuant to Section 65858 of the California Government Code. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this interim urgency ordinance is necessary because: A. In 1996 the voters of the state of California approved Proposition 215 (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996"). B. The intent of Proposition 215 was to enable seriously ill Californians to legally possess, use, and cultivate marijuana for medical use under state law- C. As a result of Proposition 215, individuals have established medical marijuana dispensaries in various cities. D. The experiences of California cities in the regulation and policing of medical marijuana dispensaries have varied from city to city. Some California cities have claimed that they have experienced an increase in crime, such as burglary, robbery, loitering around the dispensaries, increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic and noise, and the sale of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding such medical marijuana dispensaries. Other California cities have permitted the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries without any significant problems. The City of Oakland, which licenses and regulates medical marijuana dispensaries, has issued a report recognizing the importance of dispensaries in providing medicinal marijuana to patients and that dispensaries provide significant community benefits in a manner that produces no problems and that there are no drains on police or community resources as a result of dispensary operations. Ordinance No. _ Page 2 E. In October 2005, the state Board of Equalization instituted a policy that allows marijuana dispensaries to obtain a seller's permit thus enabling the state to collect sales tax on medical marijuana sales. F. Two medical marijuana dispensaries have previously opened in the City and the Police Department has observed an increase in adverse secondary effects in the vicinity of the establishment, including loitering and complaints from adjoining businesses and the patrons and customers of these businesses. G. Subsequent to the City Council's adoption of the most recent interim urgency ordinance, the two existing medical marijuana dispensaries operating in the City closed and are no longer in operation. Notwithstanding the closure of these facilities, the Police Department has received reliable information that one or more new medical marijuana dispensaries may open in the City. H. The City has not adopted appropriate rules and regulations specifically applicable to the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the lack of such controls may lead to a proliferation of such establishments and the inability to regulate such establishments in a manner that will protect the general public, homes and businesses adjacent and near such businesses, and the patients or clients of such establishments. I. Based on the lack of any consistent experience of cities statewide and the lack of any regulatory program in the City in the review of the establishment and operation of medical dispensaries, it is reasonable to conclude that negative effects on the public health, safety, and welfare may occur in Palm Springs as a result of the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the lack of appropriate regulations governing the establishment and operation of such facilities. J. On June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005). The Court found there to be no legally recognizable medical necessity exception under Federal Law to the prohibition of possession, use, manufacture or distribution of marijuana under federal law. K. Although the medicinal use of marijuana is illegal under federal law, Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically states that an agency of the state does not have the power: "To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations." I. On March 29, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1687, an initial interim urgency ordinance, and found that medical marijuana dispensaries are not permitted uses in any zoning district in the City and expressly prohibited establishment of any medical marijuana dispensary in the City for 45 days pending commencement of appropriate studies and consideration of alternative land uses approaches for addressing the health, safety, and welfare issues associated with the regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City, subject to express conditional exceptions as provided in Ordinance No. Page 3 Ordinance No. 1687. On May 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1688 extending the temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries to March 28, 2007. J. During the period established by City Ordinance Nos. 1687 and 1688, the City Council and its Planning Staff have commenced studies and reviews described in the report filed with the City Council and the City Manager has formed a City Manager committee as directed by the City Council. SECTION 3. For purposes of this ordinance, "medical marijuana dispensary" means any for profit or not-for-profit facility or location, whether permanent or temporary, where the owner(s) or operator(s) intends to or does possess and distribute marijuana for any commercial purpose. A "medical marijuana dispensary" includes a marijuana club as described in People v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1383. A "medical marijuana dispensary" shall not include the following uses, as long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by the City's Municipal Code: a "collective" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775; a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health & Safety Code; a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health & 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 & Safety Code; a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health & Safety Code; a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Health & Safety Code, as long as any such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. SECTION 4. A medical marijuana dispensary currently is not an expressly permitted use or a use permitted subject to a conditional use permit in any zoning district in the City of Palm Springs. However, such establishments may seek to locate in any zoning district disguised as a permitted use, or may seek to legalize this use. SECTION 5. The establishment of, or the issuance or approval of any permit, certificate of use and occupancy, or other entitlement for the legal establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary in the City may result in a threat to public health, safety and welfare in that the Palm Springs Municipal Code does not currently regulate the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and does not have a regulatory program in effect that will appropriately regulate the location, establishment, and operation of medical dispensaries in the City. SECTION 6. For the period of this ordinance, or any extension thereof, a medical marijuana dispensary shall be considered a prohibited use in any zoning district of the City, even if located within an otherwise permitted use, and neither the City Council nor City Staff shall approve any use interpretation, permit, certificate of use and occupancy, or Zoning Code or General Plan amendment allowing the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) Ordinance No. Page 4 (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) (Title 14, of the California Code of Regulations) 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 8. The City Manager or his designees shall: (1) review and consider options for the regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City, including, but not limited to the development of appropriate rules and regulations governing the location and operation such establishments in the City; (2) coordinate the efforts of a task force in the preparation of a draft ordinance regulating the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries consisting of a Council subcommittee, medical patients, advocates, law enforcement representatives, and other interested parties appointed by the City Manager; and (3) shall file a written report describing the measures which the City has taken to address the conditions which led to the adoption of this ordinance with the City Council ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this interim urgency ordinance, and any extension thereof, and such report shall be made available to the public. SECTION 9. This interim urgency ordinance shall be deemed an extension of Ordinance Nos. 1687 and 1688 and shall extend the interim urgency regulations as provided in Sections 1 through 9 of Ordinance Nos. 1687 and 1688 and this interim urgency ordinance for an additional twelve (12) months. This interim urgency ordinance shall therefore continue in effect until March 28, 2008 and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect. SECTION 10. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction such decision shall not affect the validity of effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. ADOPTED this 21 st day of March, 2007. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk Ordinance No Page 5 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. is a full, true, and correct copy, and was adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on March 21, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California PROOF OF PUBLICATION This Is space for County Clerk's Filing Stump (2015.5.C.C.P) No, 0773 NOTICE OF PUDLIC HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE STATE Adopting Interim Urgency Requisitions fol'the Ea, OF CALIFORNIA tablishment and Operation of Medical Marijuana y Dispensaries wi{hln The CIN of Palm Springs Count of Riverside f and Notice vi Exemption dim the California Environmental quality Act Applicant: City of Palm Springs NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,Califpmis,will hold a Public Hearing at•I% mauling of March 21, 2006.the City Council meedria begins at 6.00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 'Ity all.5200 East Tah- I and A Citizen Of file United States and a resident of qultz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. the County aforesaid;I am over the age Of eighteen The purpose of the Hearing Is to consider the ex- Years, Tension of the Interim Urg racy Ordinance adopt- ycar5,and not a party to or interested in flit legg Interim urgencyragufateno for the Iagal es- above-entitled matter. 1 am tile '.aglrshment of medlCal marpuaoa_.tllsponeerlee principal clerk Ora within thge City of Palm springs pending a;turfy printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING of our�eot and Tactual th eatrtonthe public h to ealth COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, safety, and March 28 200?iThe pro prhacd and published in the city of Palm S rings, pposed extGrelan la for 12 months thereby ex. P tandmg the Interim Urgency Ordinance to March County of Riverside"and which newspaper has been 26, 200a, Adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Pursuant to the Initial interim urgency ordinance Superior Court of the Count of Riverside, and the first extonslon, the City Council found Y 5ta1L'Of that The current zoning stanl for the legal es- California under the date of March 24,1988.Case tablishment and operation of medical marijuana Number 191236,that dispensarieen of the City of Palm Spnn-V do not at the notice,of whicb the expressly provide for medical marivana dupensa- annexed is a printed Ce Ties u^ a permitted or a conditionally permitted copy(5M in type not small use In any zoning district In the City of Palm than non pariel,has been published in each regular iherlioeaiion antl operationaafoinn�calgmanjuan°s and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any dispensaries. supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit; For the period of the proposed extension of the Interim Urgency Ordlnanco.a medical marijuana dispense hall be considered a prohibited use March 8"',2007 In any xoning district of the City, uven'If located in an otherwise permitted use. The Ordinance -------•----•---- ' ••••• does net prohioit usoj and activities that are - "'----- clearly allowed by The State of California Compas- sionate Use Act,This Ordinance Is focused an —......�„� the sale of marlluana and Is Intended to regulate •-••-""-------....... and prohibit sales from.eornmereial.and retail All in the year 2007 6ucmesa to the genarnl public, The City of Palm Springs, In Its capa ItTy as the 1 CertifyIGad agency ter thi-: project under the California (Or declare)under Pen Of perjury that the Environmental Quali{v Act (CEQA, evaluated The foregoing is true and correct. potential envtronmental Imi12 ant C aA,�n Ordinance. to Section 152 nanee Is exempt from Environmental review whereas the Ordloacce authorizes the undartalkIng Dated at Palm Springs,California this--- TI' _ of feasibility and planning studies and any devcl- 8 , day oppmcnt which may occur pursuant to the interim rtandar& wit[ not be approved until a compl(te Of------ M Ch �• • environmental evaluation of the proposed project Ln 2007 has occurred. - D J REVIEW OF INFORMATION:The staff report and other supporting documents regardlinpp this mane- are avallable for public review.at Clty Hall be- _ `-�- tween the hours of 8.00 e.m and 5:00 p.m.,Man- day _ Iheou h Fnda Pl..ase contact the Office of p y _ ' - ••••---• - --_.••. the Clly L9erk at(760)32a-9204 O you would Ilko �— - -- Si attire Ip schedule an appointment to review these doe- _ _ uments. ""- i COMMENT ON THIS ORDINANCE:Response to - _ this notice may be made verbally at the, public - Hearing and/or Al writing before the hearing,Will- fen coinments may be made To the Palm Springs City Council in wntmg (mailed for hand delwerod) `~ James Thompson City Clerk ti 3200.E.Tshquitz bang Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 If any group challenges the action In court,issues maed mayy be limited to onlyy those rsues rained at the Public Hearing describctl In this notice or In written conosponeence at,or prior to the City Council Hearingq. An opportunity will lea given it h•'S r� said Hearin? for all interested persona Tc be ! G' 'v i I)eard: Questions regarding this case may be dl- rectotl to Craig Ewingq. Director of Planning Ser- vices at 760-323.826b. ieSI a Cwd its de Pal con rang carts.perfavor(lama I la Ciudad r Palm Springs y puedo hablar Can Nadlge Fiogcr ielefono 760-3 y3-e245. James Thomp-C,. City Cerk put" id:3/8/2007 No 0080 manuun.l dispensaries In the City.Including but not llmltod to the developmenT of appmplate rules and regulations ORDINANCE NO.1710 governing The locaton antl operation such estrabllehel In The City,(2)coordinate the efforts of a task Onto in the AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF preparation or i draft ordinance renulnting the location and THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,CALIFOR- ..mill.,of medical marijuana duppgsanea consisting of NIA, E)CTENDING OROINANCF NOS. Council eubcomminco, mcdicol pallents,advocures, law 16B7 AND l Firlics PROOF OF PUBLICATION TORIUM ON THE ET LEGAL ESTABLISH• appointed byARY MORA- enforcement e O City Manager and t13)shaher ll flo a written MENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL report dc.scribing the measures which the City had Taken To (2015.5.C.C.P) MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WITHIN addrea-the conditions which led to the adephon of This THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR AN ordinance with The City Council ten(10)days prior To The ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TWELVE expiration of Thla lnrrem urgency Ordnance,andanyaxlue- MONTHS PENDING COMPLETION OF A Open thereof,ago.uch Mpon shall be recto riaihble to the STUDY OF ZONING REGULATIONS THAT public ARE NEEDED TO ALLEVIATE A CUR- RENT AND ACTUAL THREAT TO THE SECTION 9 THIS InTanm urgLncy ordinance shall br PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND Will deemed an piers,,of Ordinance Nos.1687 and ISSE. FARE, (4[!EMS 1@IE REOUIREO.) antl shall Oncnd the interim urgency mguiatiorer is pmvid- •Ihe City Counotl or the City of Palm Springs,California, ad In SO;tlan,'1 ille ugh E of Ordinance Ned.16E7 and ordains 1663 and this Interim urponcy Ordinance for an additional STATE OF CALIFORNIA Turin,(12)months. This Interim urgency cellnance shall SECTION t This inlcrim urgency ordlnnncc,nx+,nding •hurdlers continue In effect untll March 28 2008 and shill County Of Riverside previous Interim uMl eminences,Is sdoplad pursuant therealTer be of no furl force and effect to Section 312 of the Charter of The City of Palm Stings SECTION 10. If any eectlon, subscctlon subdivision, This jntcnm5B of ThJ ordinance IS also adopted pursuant to pnn9mph sentence clause or pert in ffic Ordinance or Grcdon E5E5E o1 The California Government Cade any part thereof Is for any reason held to be unconsMution• SECTION 2 The City Councll hereby find- dLlenind e= al or Invalid,or InOf iwo by any coup of c,Mpaten!ryrb- daclarc:rest ILL=inlerlm um ency ordinance Is neces- d]ctlon such dacuion shall not afec[ih,validity of altc- snd nd beam, dueness of ter remaining pornons of this Ordinance or any saryp,nthemof The City Councll hereby do=Iame that It would I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of A In 1996 ilia voters of the state of California approved have Preset this Crdlnanec and seen section,subsection, the Count ,aforesaid;I sin over the age of eighteen hteen Pro oeltlon 215 (dodirieci as Health and Srfuty code .ubdvI2,an,sentence,chute end phrase thereof,Irrespec- Y g P live of the fact that any one,or more sections,svb vd,hons, Section 11362 5 Lf seq.and enihled"The:COmpaselonste years,and not a party to m•interested in the I Use Act o(1998 adddmisiona,acnfrn=es clauses or phmeos be declared )above-entitled mattes unconstitutional P I am the principal clerk of a - rinterofthe,DESERTSUNPUBLISHING 9.The Intent of PmpasinOn 215 was To enabie renou--ly ill Californians To legally peesess,use,and cult,iIi.mar- ADOPTED[his 2lst day of March zoos. COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, iJuana for medical u;e under state Isw printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, c A a result of Pmpormiee 215, Individuals frill �MnvDR County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been abblished medical marijuana dispensaries In v,neu& cities ATTEST: adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the , Superior Con rt of the County of Riverside,State of D.The uxpeaenced of Coll 0-L lei me regulation ai clerk California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case and policing of medical mnrdwaa di,perl have varied y from city to city. Same:C.U.mia titles have claimed tell Number 191236;that the notice,ofwhieh the they have experienced an Increase In alma,such'+-•burgh- CERTIFICATION annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller ry fall mlering around the dlsperv,n,., mcreasel- pedostrlon Ogd vehicular iraflc and noise. erd the sale of STATE CF CALIFORNIA I - than non pariel,has been published in each regular Illegal drugs In The areas imm,d,vrely surrounding ouch STATECOUN rV OF RIVERSIDC- ) as and entire labile or said newspaper and not in any have pl marijuana d eriabnaui_v Other Cnlliomia nLLe- CITY OF PALM SPRINGS) have pennlnod Ter:Opem[idn di medical marpv-inn dwpen- Supplement thereof on the fallowing dates,to wit: series WIThom any ege'lilcant problems. The City of I TAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the CIty of Palm Cohen which licenses and mgulmes medical madivang Springs Callfornia,do herebycent That Ordinance No W d,speocaries,has hsupd a report recognizing the Impor- 1T10s ofull,:rue and correct opy,and was adopted et an March 28 ,2007 tance of dlsperisori,..lei providing medlcIml mmguana to adjourned f regular meeting coof rrect City Council di the City Of _ _____ patients and that dispensmariver riesthat proviso significant coinis and Palm Spnngs on March 21,2007,by the following veto: .w. nlry, bcnohq in a manner that produ=c:no problems and thaT three are no drains on palld,or Community resource, AYES Councllmori Fear McCulloch,Mdls,Mayor. _—_ to a m•Lull of dispensary opentions. pro Tam P...eLL ,red Mayor Open All in the year 2007 E In October 2005,The state Bared or Equalization NOES: Nan, Instituted a policy that allows mmguana dlsparell to ABSENT.None obtain a sellers permit Thur enabling the elate To polled, ABSTAIN:None I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the -ales Tax on medical maequana sales foregoing is true and correct. P Two medical Mantuan,dupenearies have proNOvrq Jsmor Thompson City Clerk opened In The City and the Police Department no,oh:crved City el Palm Springs,California Dated at Palm S ran s,California this--28r1",_--da ap Increase in adverse secondary ef�cts n the vicinity Of Published;3/2B/z0m p g y the estahllrhment including hlloring end complains from odfoining businesses and the pdtrdme and CLISVOITI of .— those addresses i of-••••••"'-"Marc -"—"--� ,2007 G Subsequent to the City Council', adil of the MOST mwnt Interim urgency ordinance the Two existing medical marijuana dlsprn-arles operallnq In The City dosed and am no I,ngcein operation 1,Twill,neding the closure of n,-,.fael,ui,s the Police ---• Signal is 1-- --`yJYYY4_------_---_ adispensariesleimtion that on o Dn,new m nos received rob• p or ed i new medical ma d el the City I•I.The City has not adopted appropriate rules and ,On uhllonss ocltlwil Ileable realo tile andlocation k or uchc on __ ^f [ofinedlcalmarqunwdLpenearlesandchaiackOreucncon- trais may III to a proliferation of-uch establishments and �r _,C] the inability to raguiate,uch Ldtdbllshments In a manner -- ' that wlll prairie the general public,homes and huLinessce 01,Y ed)accre and near such buslnossOs and the patients or giimu.of such establlshmanis I Based on the lack of any conslinrt rxpenerrce of pitior rr tewide,and lire lack of any rcgulatry proplam In the City in The review of the car ebinhmenl and operation of medical dispensaries, tg reasonable lo conclude that neg- ative Effects on The public health safory,and wrlWre may V �� occurin P,lm Springs as a msulT ofrhi:peddr:rattendfined- i v� Ical rims,,na dispensaries and the lack or appropriate rx,- ulatiem governing the establishment and operation of such facilities. J On Juno 0,2005 the united States Supmmc Court 'deemed Gonelles V. Ralcn-l2S S-Cis 2195(2005) The Court found them To be no legally recognizable medial necessity ex=Lphon under Federal Law To the prohibition of possuOnion,uUe manufacture or dl5nibehon of marijuana IC Although:hr mrdlmn,l urc of midj ors : IIICO,I under fcde,ll law,Scotian 3 5 of the Cotiformv Con-titution speed Neatly states that On agency of the state does not Have the power To declare a statute umentorceable or in refuse to enforce a statuto on the basis that federal law or federal mgulmmm prohibit tho onfomemcnt of such rt-tulc Len-- an appellate court has made a deterh iwtlen that the enforcement of such sta ule Is prohibited by federal law or federal requlatlons" L On March 29 2006 Ihr Pty Daunnl conceit Ordinance No.1667 an Imflol Inledm urgency ordmanee end found that medical marijuana dispensaries are not pery mltmd uses in any zoning district In the City and expressly prohili caahli-hmrnt of any medial marijuana dlapen- sary in tba City for AS days pending commencement of appropriate studies and consideration of alternative land uses approaches for addressing the health safety and wel- fare hrucs,aociaod with the regulation of rr ichl marl- juanadicpen.anas in the City..ubjact to exprerr condmom al exceptions as provided In Ordinaries No.1687. On May 3, 2000, Tho City Council adapted Ordinance No 1653 extending the temporary moratorium an mcdieal manfuam dispensaries to M2mh 28 2007. M During the period established by City Ordinance me, 1637,nd 11388,111c Cary Council and its Plannlnq Staff have commenced swdiL- and review.:desc,bcd in Tho if filed with the City Council and the City Manager ha: formed a City Manager committee as directed by the City Council SECTION 3. For purposes of this ordinance "ali marijuana dispensary means any for profit or not-for-pmllt f,ctliry or location,whothor permanent or temporary,where Ind Cwncr(,)Cr operator(,)moods to or dons possess and distribute marijuana[Or any Cummemidl purpose. A"mCd" Ical marijuana dispensary" Includes a marijuana club as dr-cr@cd in PRaz v,Pomn(1007)be CalApp hth 1353.A medic if m,rgupnp disporsary"shall not Include the follow- mg uses as long as the location of!uch cj,rc oti ' re0uiatad by the Cltys Municipal Code.a collective"as dotlnrd In Health and Safety COTO Section 11362775, e Chnio licerend pur.o,nt TO Ch,ptcr 1 of Division 2 of the Health&Safety Cade,a health into facility hnm;ed pur• aught to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health&Safety Code;a resdential taro facility for persons with chmnlc Il1e- threulenmg illna-:heensed pusuant to Chapter 801 of Division 2 of the Hooth&Safely Codc r m.;idr:mwl eon, facility for the eiderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 22 of Division 2 of The Health&Safety Code,a residential hes- picn,or ahome health agency licensed p'ureuent to Chapter 6 of me He,lth A Sofrty,Coin,along as any such use CnelzILs..trmuy win,ppllc,blo law Including,but not IInn- led to Health is Safely CCdL.Sectjon 11262 5Ogre SECTION A medical marijuana dispensary currently isnot in axpersrly prrmited use or a fro permitted subject to a conditInrld use permit in,ny zoning th,trlet In tho City of Palm Springs However such O,tablthmcri m,y, ,k To jousts In any zoning dishict disguised as a permitted use, or m,y-rnkta legollzn this use. SECTION 5.The establishment of, or the 11.u:mw or approval of any permit cenl0cate of use and occup racy or other entitlement for ilia legal establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary In the City may result In a threat to public health,shoty and welfare In that the Palm Springs Munrtpal Cod,dof: at eurrhnhy regulate the location and operation Of medical mori)hana dopernane5 and due-not have a regulatory program In effect that will appropriately mguinte the location,establishment and operation of med- ic,l dirponSYICu In}file City SE01 JON 6. For me period of this ordinance or any o#vnsion thereof a medical marijuana dispensary shall be nsidnmd',prohibited u sit in any zoning dimnpt of the City,even if located within an Otherwise permited use and neither the City Councll nor City Stan shell approve any use Inomrotanon,permit,certlilcaty of use and occupancy,or Zoning Codc or Gonoml Plan amendment allowing the eUahlc bream or oponhon of n mrdienl m nqu,n,dirpaq, vary. SECTON 7. The City Council finds th,t thin sidle....le net subject to tire California Eaw,bnmental Ouahty Act (CEOA") pursuant to CEOA Culdellnes Sections 15000(c)(2)(the activity will not result in a dirom or mason- ably loreseeabl[ indirect physical change in the envlmn- mem)and 15050(c)(3)(the activity Is not a project as defined In Section 16376) (Tile 14, of the California Code of Osculations) because It has no potential for resulting In phri changa to the onvoonTnanl,directly or indinecily,it prevents Changes In the environment pending the Comple- tion or the contemplated Municipal Code review SEC110N 6 The City Manager or his designees shall:(1) view and consider options for thn mguiptmh of mndigl o� P A L/A Sp 4. city ® Palm Springs *� Once of the Cicy Clerk °eamao 3200 C.Tiliquirz Canyon Wny • Palm Springs, California 92262 C'q4/F0R��P Tel (760)32D-8204 • raY (760) 322-SD22 • Web; www.palmsprmgs-ca-gov AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to consider the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance adopting interim urgency regulations for the legal establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Palm Springs pending a study of zoning regulations that are needed to alleviate a current and actual threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on March 6, 2007, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm • Springs, California. (16 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. -Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 7t" day of March, 2007. YC STHOMPSON lerk /kdh H WSERSIC-CLn-leanng NoticesW fidavit-Urg Ord MedManivana doc Posc Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NEIGHBORHOOD'C(jALITION'REPS MS APRIL HILDNER MR JIM LUNDIN (TAHQUITZ RIVERS ESTATES, ) (DEEPWELL ESTATES) 241 EAST MESQUITE AVENUE 1243 SO. SAGEBRUSH PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MS ROXANN FLOSS MR JOHN HANSEN MS MALLIKA ALBERT (BEL DESIERTO NEIGHBORHOOD) (WARM SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD) (CHINO CANYON ORGANIZATION) 930 CHIA ROAD PO BOX 252 2241 NORTH LEONARD ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MS DIANE AHLSTROM MR BOB MAHLOWITZ MS PAULA AUBURN (MOVIE COLONY NEIGHBORHOOD) (SUNMOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP) (SUNRISENISTA CHINO AREA) 475 VALMON7E SUR 246 NORTH SYBIL ROAD 1369 CAMPEON CIRCLE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR BOB DICKINSON MR BILL SCOTT MR SEIMA MOLOI VISTA LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS (OLD LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD) (DESERT HIGHLAND GATEWAY EST) 755 WEST CRESCENT DRIVE 540 VIA LOLA 359 WEST SUNVIEW AVENUE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2459 MS LAURI AYLAIAN MR PETE MORUZZI HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB ORO MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE 377 WEST BARISTO ROAD HISTORIC SITE REP =0> PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 922634738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1108 PD 326 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS . . AT TN SECRETARY 506 W" SANTA CATALINA ROAD PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 VERIFICATION NOT,IC�, ',=9 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARE7 PARK AGUA CALIENTE'BAND,OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 7> INDIANS i 777 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, STE. 3 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR XCHAEBRAUN MR R4ER7 IDEYWESSLDINGS, LLCARCHI C�fS300 SANYON DRIVE 7585 IR E CENTER DRIVE PALS, CA 92262 IRVIN , CA 2618 HUNSSKER�SOCIA7ES THE C LABO, ATIVE WEST 3 HUG 100 AVE !,,#9MIRAMAR IRVINE N2618 SAN CLEM E, CA 92672 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE Adopting Interim Urgency Regulations for the Establishment and Operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City of Palm Springs and Notice of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act Applicant. City of Palm Springs NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a Public Hearing at its meeting of March 21, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the Hearing is to consider the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance adopting interim urgency regulations for the legal establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Palm Springs pending a study of zoning regulations that are needed to alleviate a current and actual threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. The current Interim Urgency Ordinance expires on March 28, 2007. The proposed extension is for 12 months, thereby extending the Interim Urgency Ordinance to March 28, 2008, Pursuant to the initial interim urgency ordinance and the first extension, the City Council found that the current zoning standards for the legal establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries of the City of Palm Springs do not expressly provide for medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted or a conditionally permitted use in any zoning district in the City of Palm Springs and do not provide for any regulation of the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. For the period of the proposed extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance, a medical marijuana dispensary shall be considered a prohibited use in any zoning district of the City, even if located in an otherwise permitted use. The Ordinance does not prohibit uses and activities that are clearly allowed by the State of California Compassionate Use Act. This Ordinance is focused on the sale of marijuana and is intended to regulate and prohibit sales from commercial and retail business to the general public. The City of Palm Springs, in its capacity as the lead agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 15262 of CEQA, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review whereas the Ordinance authorizes the undertaking of feasibility and planning studies and any development which may occur pursuant to the interim standards will not be approved until a complete environmental evaluation of the proposed project has occurred. REVIEW OF INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this matter are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS ORDINANCE. Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the Palm Springs City Council in writing (mailed for hand delivered) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the City Council Hearing. An opportunity will be given at said Hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions-regarding this case may be directed to Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, at 760-323-8245. Si necessita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono 760-323-8245, a es Thompson ity Clerk