Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/7/2009 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. Page t of 1 Cindy Berardi From: Investmentsintl@cs.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:20 PM c,p ?. 40 2U09 X N _3 0 !t Q. To: cityclerk@palmsprings-ca.gov G JVtOG, Subject: On council meeting Jan.7 J^, i'TT ' ' .i'HJ`i C � January 7, 2009. 1 watched with interest the City Counsel hearing on MMJ (medical marijuana) dispensaries in Palm Springs. I would like to address several aspects that were brought up during the meeting. 1. The City Counsel just told every bad guy watching that it is safe to rob MMJ dispensaries. Why? Because they can't have firearms on there premises by Council edict. Most of the people running MMJ dispensaries don't what firearms on there property but the bad guys don't know that. If firearms are outlawed on private property (NRA?) the bad guys will know who is unarmed. When bad guys don't know who is armed, they tend to leave everyone alone. When they know you can't have a gun you're the first business/home/office/coop they are going to rob. 2. If a regular pharmacy, such as we have everywhere in Palm Springs, were placed in an industrial area the chances of it being rob would go up astronomically. When you consider that the people using these faculties are the most vulnerable in our society, the risk to them is multiplied may times over. Everyone wants to keep these pharmacies open, clean, safe, organic and with no problems. This is a medical issue. Our city holds an awesome responsibility to the sick of this entire nation to do this right. We are one of the first cities to have the honor to be able to help so many people in this nation take control of their health and medical rights. I really do suggest you not banish pharmacies to the outback. Interesting all this would be happening here! Palm Springs always does seems to have a weird history like none other. No wonder so many people come here. 3. The question came up about only allowing people in Palm Springs to have access to needed medicine. Do you know how much we spend on humanitarian aid to nations that aren't even our friends? If we can give medicine to people in foreign nations that would just as soon kill us as look at us then don't you think we should at least help our own people with access to the medicine they need no matter what city they live in? Who among us has the right to say to a sick person, "you aren't of my city, suffer." Are we a nation of cities or a county of Americans? 4. As to the number of MMJ pharmacies, three would seem to me the least you can have if you are to properly serve the patients at "minimal" level care. It is also true that in a capitalist system the more choice the better the price. Competition breeds discounts. I don't know if it matters but that is the American way. MMJ varies in strength and ability of solve physical problems_ Having at least three places to find the medicine that best solves your need would seem prudent if not far too conservative. This is for the benefit of the patients. Thanks, Atson Reeder Palm Springs r l7/Dg 1/8/2009 Page 1 of 1 Dolores Strickstein r' Ets`'''V, i' � l ,,c Pf,L;'f 5�r; '' From: Mark Annonymous [palmspringstech@g mail.com]2099 ,JAN —5 i,, I'D 29 Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:09 AM To: cityclerk@palmsprings-ca.gov CITY cl-[:''' Subject: Medical Cannabis Cooperatives and Collectives For the consideration of the City Council members: I am a medical marijuana patient and would like to recommend that you continue to allow cooperatives to operate in Palm Springs. I am a systems administrator working in Palnr Springs. I own my own home with my Wife, and was bona and raised in Southern California. I have also spent most of my life battling with bouts of depression and anxiety. I have seen several psychologists over the years for my depression but have been reluctant to take anti-depressants or other pharmaceuticals since they have unwanted sexual side effects and need to be taken daily for long periods (over a year) to be effective. In my case my depression hits me about once a month making my life difficult for several days at a time. I am reluctant to talce long term pharmaceuticals for these occasional flare ups and have just managed to get through them in the past. Recently my depression has been deeper and harder for me to get through and I had heard about the possibility of medical marijuana. I did some research on my own before deciding to try medical marijuana and found that many of the sources seem to be in conflict. Some studies suggested that Cannabis could make depression worse, which obviously would not be a desired outcome; while other studies claimed that medical camnabis was exceptional at alleviating the depression and actually had an emotional balancing effect on the users. Further research seemed to indicate a possible source of this confusion: most medical testing of cannabis has been done with the sativa family of cannabis. Sativa varieties tend to be more energizing and can cause a depression after the uplifting effects. Indica strains, on the other hand, tend to be more stabilizing and calming. Still reluctant I decided to give medical marijuana a try. It tools me a few trials to find a dosage level that was appropriate for me, but I found that my moods were more normal and there was no depression side effects with the Indica. After medicating I found that I felt more normal than I have felt prior to the beginning of my depression symptoms over 20 years ago and this normality remained for several days after medicating. My wife feels that the cannabis has made positive changes in my moods. I feel that cannabis has really been beneficial in my treatment and hope that Palm Springs will continue to allow access to the medication that patients like myself find so useful. If Palm Springs decides to disallow cooperatives patients like myself will need to drive to Los Angeles for our medication. Please continue to allow cooperatives to operate in Pahn Springs, they are good for the patients and the taxes are good for the city. Thank you for your consideration. Mark (last name withheld) ii� it 1/5/2009 Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat[gfinla@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:21 PM To: Jay Thompson Subject: FW: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Please include in packets Thanks, Ginny From: Ginny Foat [mailto:Ginny.Foat@palmspririgs-ca.gov] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:31 PM To: Gfinla@msn.com Subject: FW: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries From: Hank Batcs, the Corridor, the Amado Center[SMTP:RESIGAAQ@VERIZON.NET] Sent: Monday,January 05,2009 5:30:40 PM To: Lee Weigel; Chris Mills;Rack Hutcheson; Ginny Feat; Steve Pougnet Subject: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mayor Pougnet,Mayor-Pro-Tem Ginny Foat and City Council Members, i will not be able to attend the Wednesday Night Council Meeting as I am teaching a class. However,I would like to voice my support for the Community Caregivers Dispensary located at the Amado Center,both as a business manager and as the Pastor of the Desert Cities Conununity Church. The owners of this dispensary have created a very professional presence at the Amado Center. Without being asked to do so,they have provided security personnel during all hours that they are open for business. Additionally,this security has been a great benefit in patrolling our west-end parking lot and reducing the vandalism in the center.i do not believe the community will benefit if they are forced to move into an industrial area or forced to close. As a minister,evert though I am opposed to drug use,I believe it is far better to have these dispensaries where marijuana use is medically prescribed and regulated then it is for these people to be forced to buy it in back alleys and from drug dealers who may also sell other,more dangerous,illegal drugs. 1 believe compassion,with wisdom,should be taken into consideration in regards to the patients of these dispensaries. Best regards, Harik Bates I O -7 Z�Q a.k.a.Reverend Henry Lee Bates / No virus found in this outgoing message. 1/G/2009 01/02/09 City Clerk: J 'cir cL�Z Please, enclosed you will find a proposal to open a Medical Marijuana collective, could you please give each Council member a copy of this proposal as well as City Attorney, the Major and yourself, before the Jan.7th city council meeting. Thank You for you cooperation. Jim Camper President Organic Solutions of the Desert rt 1 �j,le 7/ZO6 9 1 ? &-� ��E"-K Proposal to Open A Non Profit Medical Marijuana Collective In The City of Palm Springs LJ 6,,, Introduction: My name is Jim Camper, I am the director of a honprofct medical marijuana collective, Organic Solutions of the Desert now located at 560 S Williams Rd. in Palm Springs. I have completed 3 % years of higher education at Cal State San Bernardino in Psychology. I have worked 2 years at the Betty Ford Center as a substance abuse specialist now dedicated to bringing safe access to medical marijuana patients-members while serving the needs of the community in a positive way. I am currently not operating at this time but am ready to open at such time the city ordinance is passed. We have obtained a building located in the industrial zone of the city and more than 500 feet from any school, church or private residents and in compliance per guidelines of.S.A. Brown. This proposal has been submitted to the city council two tinges in the last year but only recently did we obtain a location, 560 S Williams Rd. Palm Springs 92264 zoned ml industrial. Organic Solutions is a small, non-profit collective. We are self regulated, and both staff and patients follow very strict guidelines of conduct. All prospective patient- members must be referred by at least one current inembe,, be a qual f ed patient with a verified physician's a•yc-,; ?yne,d ation and proper I.D. Patients must also meet with Board of Directors prior to being granted o1/0 7/2-00 9 membership, at which time if accepted all patients must then obtain A State issued card. Members must agree'to abide by our strict rules of conduct and lawful medical Marijuana requirements. We require full membership before distributing medical cannabis to any patient, regardless of documentation alone. Organic Solutions has set up stringent guidelines concerning the amount of medication that can be obtained by a qualified patient or caregiver of I ounce per visit We also limit the number of visits per day to one, and limit the quantity of multiple visits to total no more than 2 ounces per week. We understand that to lawfully operate a medical marijuana collective, it is necessary to have a good working relationship with the City Council and Police Department and to fully comply with established guidelines set up by the city and State Attorney. Organic Solutions would very much like to offer our services to the Palm Springs community, where patients will not only have safe access to their medicine, we will provide massages, aromatherapy and other farms of alternate medicine that may provide relief to our patients. We feel we can add to the quality of life of the seriously ill residents of Palm Springs suffering from Cancer, HIVIAIDS, symptoms of advanced aging, or any other illness or condition for which their physicians have recommended medical marijuana, by working hand in hand with city officials and police, and together, we can make a difference. r Page 1 of 1 Dolores Strickstein From: Irivestmentsintl@cs.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:14 PM To: cityclerk@palmsprings-ca.gov Subject: on MMJ meeting tonight. Hi Jim. A second letter about my first letter. Thanks, Atson From a well know attorney in Northern California on the letter I sent you about the City Council meeting tonight: Neal Sanders. As you say, the police should be following the law not ignoring it. And my opinion: When the police hire heavily from the military the people of our nation become not citizens but posable enemies. That is what the military is trained for. Does anyone ever think about this stuff? Thanks. v , I t ` tV I W 1/7/2009 Page 1 of 1 Cindy Berardi _ =`E CE I T7 From: Investmentsintl@cs.com Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:49 PM ry 5v• 13 To: cityclerk@palmsprings-ea.gov 1' ' I „ ,(" y,- CITY Ci_cfth Subject: For the meeting of Jan 7 on MMJ. Thanks. A For the record: On January 7, 2009 the City Council will have a police organization come before them asking for the City Councils help in the abuse of the sick, the lame and the injured. Perhaps I am not the one that should speak on this issue because quite frankly I don't like cops. Let me explain. I grew up in Newport Beach where my father was one of only two doctors practicing when he and my mother arrived there in the 1930s. At that time being a cop was a terrible job as it paid almost nothing. My father was a friend of the Chief of police and out of kindness took care of all the cops and their families for free since they couldn't afford medical care. As a little kid I even remember being given my own Newport Beach police badge as thanks for what my dad had done. 30 years later I went to the Newport Beach police department and asked for a concealed weapons permit because I have had over half a dozen attempts on my life dealing with intelligence agencies. They told me they would only consider my request after I had come up with a huge bribe for the Sheriff/Police Chiefs reelection campaign. The cost of my fathers sons life was a huge bribe to the cops. I have been told that the police backed organization that is to speak to the City Council is backed,and supported with tax payers money. The tax payers never gave their consent to have their tax money used in this manner. Using taxpayers money to manipulate and control the laws of the land without the consent of the people is a technique used to overthrow nations. To an intelligence agency this is like weaving a torch around in a powder magazine. Do these people really not understand what they are doing? If they are this stupid keep that in mind. To use tax money to lobby for a change in the law putting sick people in jail for using their doctors prescribed medications is a crime against humanity! I can only say that this is the sleaziest, most un-American, most totalitarian and subversive group that I can imagine and I have seen a lot. In the old days cops where different then they are today. They were regular people without the overbearing aspect of military type of control. People in town were their friends and the cops were not their keepers but there helpers. Now, two many laws, to much hiring from military back grounds and so on has made cops something less then our friends. Cops don't trust the people and as such we shouldn't trust them. This group brings sham on all cops. I wish I could have come to the City Council Chambers myself to speak on this but I am afraid at the moment I am not up to it. I hope you don't mind me telling you what I think but I believe it needed to be said. Thanks, Atson Reeder. Palm Springs, CA. 1/b/2009 Dolores Strickstein From: Sandra Garratt [sandragarrattdesign@mae.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:23 AM To: cityclerk@palmsprings-ca.gov Subject: Re: Collective/Dispensary Ordinate meeting Wed, Jan 7 at 6PM Hello, I am a cancer patient and I use CAPS for my medical cannabis. Through my doctors I have tried many Rx for my nausea & pain but medical cannabis is unique in that it actually helps me handle my nausea for less cost and virtually no negative side effects, and allows me to work & function in a normal way- CAPS has been a true God send for me. It is safe, clean and the proprietors are professional and very helpful. I urge the city of Palm Springs to @11ow CAPS to continue their important work for the community. Thank you very much for hearing my opinion. Sincerely, Sandra Garrat't r.� rR� 'I l^I Jay Thompson From: Jay Thompson Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:56 PM To: 'Stephen P. Pougnet; 'Chris Mills'; 'Ginny Foat'; 'Rick Hutcheson'; 'weigelps@aol.com' Cc: David Ready; 'Douglas C. Holland', Douglas C. Holland; Craig Ewing Subject: 01-07 Meeting Item 1.A. Medical Marijuana Mayor and Members of the City Council: Attached PDF File is the Attorney General Guidelines for the Medical Marijuana as referenced in the staff report. Additionally, since we have received several items of public testimony related to such, I have attached a second PDF with the public testimony received thus far, for your advance review for the public hearing. All of these documents will be printed in the Additional Materials folders for reference at the meeting. Jay James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California TEL (760) 3234205 1/6/2009 EDMUND G.BROWN JR. nrTe DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Attorney General 04 Kee. N"F'' State of California c, moo. 4 �.Wrriyi r A _ uixrLw w T � of �FfA RTMI! GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE August 2008 In 1996, California voters approved an initiative that exempted certain patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. in 2003,the Legislature enacted additional legislation relating to medical marijuana. One of those statutes requires the Attorney General to adopt"guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana brown for medical use" (I Iealth & Saf Code, § 11362.81(d).') To fulfill this mandate, this Office is issuing the following guidelines to (1) ensure that marijuana grown for medical purposes remains secure and does not find its way to non-patients or illicit markets, (2) help law enforcement agencies perform their duties effectively and in accordance with California law, and (3) help patients and primary caregivers understand how they may cultivate,transport, possess, and use medical marijuana under California law. L SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW A. California Penal Provisions Relating to Marijuana. The possession, sale, cultivation, or transportation of marijuana is ordinarily a crime under California law. (See, c.g., § 11357 [possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor]; § 11358 [Cultivation of marijuana is a felony]; Veh. Code, § 23222 [possession of less than 1 oz. of marijuana while driving is a misdemeanor]; § 11359 [possession with intent to sell any amount of marijuana is a felony]; § 11360 [transporting, selling, or giving away marijuana in California is a felony; under 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor]; § 11361 [selling or distributing marijuana to minors, or using a minor to transport, sell, or give away marijuana, is a felony].) B. Proposition 215 -The Compassionate Use Act of 1996. On November 5, 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which decriminalized the cultivation and use of marijuana by seriously ill individuals upon a physician's recommendation. (§ 11362.5.) Proposition 215 was enacted to "ensure 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 who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana,"and to "ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for Unless otherwise noted,all statutory references are to the Health&Safety Code. 1 Pl/,2 dO 7:7;7-7-M / /A, medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction." (§ I1362.5(b)(1)(A)-(B).) The Act further states that"Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or verbal recommendation or approval of a physician." (§ 11362.5(d).) Courts have found an implied defense to the transportation of medical marijuana when the "quantity transported and the method, timing and distance of the transportation are reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs." (People v. Trippet(1997) 56 Cal.AppAth 1532, 1551.) C. Senate Bill 420 -The Medical Marijuana Program Act. On January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP), became law. (§§ 11362.7-11362.83_) The MMP, among other things, requires the California Department of Public Health (DPH)to establish and maintain a program for the voluntary registration of qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers through a statewide identification card system. Medical marijuana identification cards are intended to help law enforcement officers identify and verify that cardholders are able to cultivate, possess, and transport certain amounts of marijuana without being subject to arrest under specific conditions. (§§ 11362.71(c), 11362.78.) It is mandatory that all counties participate in the identification card program by (a) providing applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program; (b) processing completed applications; (c) maintaining certain records; (d) following state implementation protocols; and (e) issuing DPW identification cards to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers. (§ 11362.71(b).) Participation by patients and primary caregivers in the identification card program is voluntary_ However, because identification cards offer the holder protection from arrest, are issued only after verification of the cardholder's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, and are immediately verifiable online or via telephone, they represent one of the best ways to ensure the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use_ In addition to establishing the identification card program,the MMP also defines certain tenns, sets possession guidelines for cardholders, and recognizes a qualified right to collective and cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana. (§§ 11362.7, 11362.77, 11362.775.) D. Taxability of Medical Marijuana Transactions. In February 2007,the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) issued a Special Notice confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well as its requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller's Permit. (http://www.boe_ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdr.) According to the Notice, having a Seller's Permit does not allow individuals to make unlawful sales, but instead merely provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. BOE further clarified its policy in a - 2 - June 2007 Special Notice that addressed several frequently asked questions concerning taxation of medical marijuana transactions. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/i73.pdf.) F. Medical Board of California. The Medical Board of California licenses, investigates, and disciplines California physicians. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2000, et seq.) Although state law prohibits punishing a physician simply for recommending marijuana for treatment of a serious medical condition (§ 11362.5(c)),the Medical Board can and does take disciplinary action against physicians who fail to comply with accepted medical standards when recommending marijuana. In a May 13, 2004 press release, the Medical Board clarified that these accepted standards are the same ones that a reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving any medication. They include the following: I. Taking a history and conducting a good faith examination of the patient; 2. Developing a treatment plan with objectives; 3. Providing informed consent, including discussion of side effects; 4. Periodically reviewing the treatment's efficacy; 5. Consultations, as necessary; and 6. Keeping proper records supporting the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana. (http://www.mbc.ca.gov/board/media/rcleases 2004 05-13m arij uana.htm I.) Complaints about physicians should be addressed to the Medical Board (1-800-633-2322 or www.mbe.ca.gov), which investigates and prosecutes alleged licensing violations in conjunction with the Attorney General's Office- F. The Federal Controlled Substances Act. Adopted in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act(CSA) established a federal regulatory system designed to combat recreational drug abuse by making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance. (21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq.; Gonzales v. Oregon(2006) 546 U.S. 243, 271-273.) The CSA reflects the federal government's view that marijuana is a drug with "no currently accepted medical use." (21 U.S-C. § 812(b)(1).) Accordingly, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is a federal criminal offense. (Id. at §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a).) The incongruity between federal and state law has given rise to understandable confusion, but no legal conflict exists merely because state law and federal law treat marijuana differently. Indeed, California's medical marijuana laws have been challenged unsuccessfully in court on the ground that they are preempted by the CSA. (County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (July 31, 2008) ---Cal.Aptir.3d---, 2008 WL 2930117.) Congress has provided that states are free to regulate in the area of controlled substances, including marijuana, provided that state law does not positively conflict with the CSA. (21 U.S.C. § 903.) Neither Proposition 215, nor the MMP, conflict with the CSA because, in adopting these laws, California did not"legalize' medical marijuana, but instead exercised the state's reserved powers to not punish certain marijuana offenses understate law when a physician has recommended its use to treat a serious medical condition. (See City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court(Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 371-373, 381-382.) - 3 - In light of California's decision to remove the use and cultivation of physician- recommended marijuana from the scope of the state's drug laws, this Office recommends that state and local law enforcement officers not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law when the officer determines from the facts available that the cultivation, possession, or transportation is permitted under California's medical marijuana laws. II. DEFINITIONS A. Physician's Recommendation: Physicians may not prescribe marijuana because the federal Food and Drug Administration regulates prescription drugs and, under the CSA, marijuana is a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no recognized medical use. Physicians may, however, lawfully issue a verbal or written recommendation under California law indicating that marijuana would be a beneficial treatment for a serious medical condition. (§ I I362.5(d); Conant v. Walters (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 632.) B. Primary Caregiver: A primary caregiver is a person who is designated by a qualified patient and "has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety"of the patient. (§ 11362.5(e).) California courts have emphasized the consistency element of the patient-caregiver relationship. Although a"primary caregiver who consistently grows and supplies . . . medicinal marijuana for a section 11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the patient,"someone who merely maintains a source of marijuana does not automatically become the party "who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety"of that purchaser. (People ex rel. Lzingren v. Peron(1997) 59 Cal.AppAth 1383, 1390, 1400.) A person may serve as primary caregiver to"more Than one" patient, provided that the patients and caregiver all reside in the same city or county. (§ 11362.7(d)(2).) Primary caregivers also may receive certain compensation for their services. (§ 11362.765(c) ["A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided . . .to enable [a patient] to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both. . . . shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution"for possessing or transporting marijuana].) C. Qualified Patient: A qualified patient is a person whose physician has recommended the use of marijuana to treat a serious illness, including cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief (§ I I 362.5(b)(1)(A).) D. Recommending Physician: A recommending physician is a person who (1) possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine in California; (2) has taken responsibility for some aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient; and (3) has complied with accepted medical standards (as described by the Medical Board of California in its May 13, 2004 press release)that a reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving medical marijuana for the treatment of his or her patient. -4 - III. GUIDELINES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL QUALIFIED PATIENTS AND PRIMARY CAREGIVERS A. State Law Compliance Guidelines. I. Physician Recommendation: Patients must have a written or verbal recommendation for medical marijuana from a licensed physician. (§ I I362.5(d).) 2. State of California Medical Marijuana Identification Card: Under the MMP, qualified patients and their primary caregivers may voluntarily apply for a card issued by DPH identifying them as a person who is authorized to use, possess, or transport marijuana grown for medical purposes. To help law enforcement officers verify the cardholder's identity, each card bears a unique identification number, and a verification database is available online (www.calmmp.ca.gov). In addition, the cards contain the name of the county health department that approved the application, a 24-hour verification telephone number, and an expiration date. (§§ 11362.71(a); 11362.735(a)(3)-(4); 11362.745.) 3. Proof of Qualified Patient Status: Althoubh verbal recommendations are technically permitted under Proposition 215, patients should obtain and carry written proof of their physician recommendations to help them avoid arrest. A state identification card is the best form of proof, because it is easily verifiable and provides immunity from arrest if certain conditions are met(see section 111.13A, below). The next best forms of proof are a city-or county-issued patient identification card, or a written recommendation from a physician. 4. Possession Guidelines: a) MMP:Z Qualified patients and primary caregivers who possess a state- issued identification card may possess 8 oz. of dried marijuana, and may maintain no more than 6 mature or 12 immature plants per qualified patient. (§ 1 I362.77(a).) But, if"a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient's medical needs,the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs." (§ 11362.77(b).) Only the dried mature processed flowers or buds of the female cannabis plant should be considered when determining allowable quantities of medical marijuana for purposes of the MMP. (§ 11362.77(d)_) b) Local Possession Guidelines: Counties and cities may adopt regulations that allow qualified patients or primary caregivers to possess On May 22,2008,California's Second District Court of Appeal severed Health&Safety Code§ 11362.77 froin the MMP on the ground that the statute's possession guidelines were an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 215,which does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. (See People n. Kelly(2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 124,77 Cal.Rptr.3d 390.) The Third District Court of Appeal recently reached a similar conclusion in People n Phoniphokdy(July 31,2008)---Cal.Rptr.3d---,2008 WL 2931369. The California Suprcmc Court has Wanted review in Kelly and the Attorney General intends to seek review in Phomphakdy. - 5 - medical marijuana in amounts that exceed the MMP's possession guidelines. (§ 11362.77(c).) c) Proposition 215: Qualified patients claiming protection under Proposition 215 may possess an amount of marijuana that is"reasonably related to [their] current medical needs." (People v. Trippei (1997) 56 Cal.App_4th 1532, 1549.) B. Enforcement Guidelines. 1. Location of Use: Medical marijuana may not be smoked (a) where smoking is prohibited by law, (b) at or within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center(unless the medical use occurs within a residence), (c) on a school bus, or(d) in a moving motor vehicle or boat. (§ 11362.79.) 2. Use of Medical Marijuana in the Workplace or at Correctional Facilities: The medical use of marijuana need not be accommodated in the workplace, during work hours, or at any jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution. (§ I I362.785(a); .toss v. RagingWire Teleconnns., Inc. (2008) 42 CalAth 920, 933 [under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer may terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana use].) 3. Criminal Defendants,Probationers, and Parolees: Criminal defendants and probationers may request court approval to use medical marijuana while they are released on bail or probation. The court's decision and reasoning must be stated on the record and in the minutes of the court. Likewise, parolees who are eligible to use medical marijuana may request that they be allowed to continue such use during the period of parole. The written conditions of parole must reflect whether the request was granted or denied. (§ It 362.795.) 4. State of California Medical Marijuana Identification Cardholders: When a person invokes the protections of Proposition 215 or the MMP and he or she possesses a state medical marijuana identification card, officers should: a) .Review the identification card and verify its validity either by calling the telephone number printed on the card, or by accessing DPH's card verification website(http://www.calmrnp.ca.gov)-, and b) Ifthe card is valid and not being used fraudulently, there are no other indicia of illegal activity(weapons, illicit drugs, or excessive amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession guidelines, the individual should be released and the marijuana should not be seized_ Under the MMP, "no person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid state medical marijuana identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana." (§ 11362.71(e).) Further, a"state or local law enforcement agency or officer shall not refuse to accept an identification card issued by the department unless the state or local law enforcement agency or officer - 6 - has reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, or the card is being used fraudulently." (§ 11362.78.) 5. Non-Cardholders: When a person claims protection under Proposition 215 or the MMP and only has a locally-issued (i.e., non-state) patient identification card, or a written (or verbal) recommendation from a licensed physician, officers should use their sound professional judgment to assess the validity of the person's medical-use claim: a) Officers need not abandon their search or investigation. The standard search and seizure rules apply to the enforcement of marijuana-related violations. Reasonable suspicion is required for detention, while probable cause is required for search, seizure, and arrest. b) Officers should review any written documentation for validity. It may contain the physician's name, telephone number, address, and license number. c) If the officer reasonably believes that the medical-use claim is valid based upon the totality of the circumstances(including the quantity of marijuana, packaging for sale, the presence of weapons, illicit drugs, or large amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession guidelines or has an amount consistent with their current medical needs,the person should be released and the marijuana should not be seized_ d) Alternatively, if the officer has probable cause to doubt the validity of a person's medical marijuana claim based upon the facts and circumstances, the person may be arrested and the marijuana may be seized. It will then be up to the person to establish his or her medical marijuana defense in court. e) Officers are not obligated to accept a person's claim of having a verbal physician's recommendation that cannot be readily verified with the physician at the time of detention. 6. Exceeding Possession Guidelines: If a person has what appears to be valid medical marijuana documentation, but exceeds the applicable possession guidelines identified above, all marijuana may be seized. 7. Return of Seized Medical Marijuana: If a person whose marijuana is seized by law enforcement successfully establishes a medical marijuana defense in court, or the case is not prosecuted, he or she may file a motion for return of the marijuana. If a court grants the motion and orders the return of marijuana seized incident to an arrest,the individual or entity subject to the order must return the property. State law enforcement officers who handle controlled substances in the course of their official duties are immune from liability under the CSA. (21 U.S.C. § 885(d).) Once the marijuana is returned, federal authorities are free to exercise jurisdiction over it. (21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c)(10), 844(a); City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court(Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 369, 386, 391.) - 7 - IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may"associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes." (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana. A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so. 1. Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a"cooperative" (or"'co- op") unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are"democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons." (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities"since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers." (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead,they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members. 2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as"a business, farm, etc.,jointly owned and operated by the members of a group." (Random Hoarse Unabridged Dictionmy; Random I°louse, Inc- ©2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members— including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members- - 8 - B. Guidelines for the Lawful Operation of a Cooperative or Collective: Collectives and cooperatives should be organized with Sufficient Structure to ensure security, non-diversion of marijuana to illicit markets, and compliance with all state and local laws. The following are some suggested guidelines and practices for operating collective growing operations to help ensure lawful operation. 1. Non-Profit Operation: Nothing in Proposition 215 or the MMP authorizes collectives, cooperatives, or individuals to profit from the sale or distribution of marijuana. (See, e.g., § 11362.765(a) ["nothing in this section shall authorize . . . any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit"]. 2. Business Licenses, Sales Tax,and Seller's Permits: The State Board of Equalization has detennined that medical marijuana transactions are subject to sales tax, regardless of whether the individual or group makes a profit, and those engaging in transactions involving medical marijuana must obtain a Seller's Permit. Some cities and counties also require dispensing collectives and cooperatives to obtain business licenses. 3_ Membership Application and Verification: When a patient or primary caregiver wishes to join a collective or cooperative, the group can help prevent the diversion of marijuana for non-medical use by having potential members complete a written membership application. The following application guidelines should be followed to help ensure that marijuana grown for medical use is not diverted to illicit markets: a) Verify the individual's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver. Unless he or she has a valid state medical marijuana identification card, this should involve personal contact with the recommending physician (or his or her agent), verification of the physician's identity, as well as his or her state licensing status_ Verification of primary caregiver status should include contact with the qualified patient, as well as validation of the patient's recommendation. Copies should be made of the physician's recommendation or identification card, if any; b Have the individual agree not to distribute marijuana to non-members; g c) Have the individual agree not to use the marijuana for other than medical purposes; d) Maintain membership records on-site or have them reasonably available; e) Track when members' medical marijuana recommendation and/or identification cards expire; and f) Enforce conditions of membership by excluding members whose identification card or physician recommendation are invalid or have expired, or who are caught diverting marijuana for non-medical use. - 9 - 4. Collectives Should Acquire,Possess, and Distribute Only Lawfully Cultivated Marijuana: Collectives and cooperatives should acquire marijuana only from their constituent members, because only marijuana grown by a qualified patient or his or her primary caregiver may lawfully be transported by, or distributed to, other members of a collective or cooperative. (§§ 11362.765, 11362.775.) The collective or cooperative may then allocate it to other members of the group. Nothing allows marijuana to be purchased from outside the collective or cooperative for distribution to its members. Instead, the cycle should be a closed- circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members. To help prevent diversion of medical marijuana to non- medical markets, collectives and cooperatives should document each member's contribution of labor, resources, or money to the enterprise. They also should track and record the source of their marijuana. 5. Distribution and Sales to Non-Members are Prohibited: State law allows primary caregivers to be reimbursed for certain services (including marijuana cultivation), but nothing allows individuals or groups to sell or distribute marijuana to non-members. Accordingly, a collective or cooperative may not distribute medical marijuana to any person who is not a member in good standing of the organization. A dispensing collective or cooperative may credit its members for marijuana they provide to the collective, which it may then allocate to other members. (§ 11362.765(c).) Members also may reimburse the collective or cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them. Any monetary reimbursement that members provide to the collective or cooperative should only be an amount necessary to cover overhead costs and operating expenses. 6. Permissible Reimbursements and Allocations: Marijuana grown at a collective or cooperative for medical purposes may be: a) Provided free to qualified patients and primary caregivers who are members of the collective or cooperative; b) provided in exchange for services rendered to the entity; c) Allocated based on fees that are reasonably calculated to cover overhead costs and operating expenses; or d) Any combination of the above. 7. Possession and Cultivation Guidelines: If a person is acting as primary caregiver to more than one patient under section I I362.7(d)(2), he or she may aggregate the possession and cultivation limits for each patient. For example, applying the MMP's basic possession guidelines, if a caregiver is responsible for three patients, he or she may possess up to 24 oz. of marijuana(8 oz. per patient) and may grow 18 mature or 36 immature plants. Similarly, collectives and cooperatives may cultivate and transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its membership numbers. Any patient or primary caregiver exceeding individual possession guidelines should have supporting records readily available when: a) Operating a location for cultivation; b) Transporting the group's medical marijuana; and c) Operating a location for distribution to members of the collective or cooperative. - 10 - 8. Security: Collectives and cooperatives should provide adequate security to ensure that patients are safe and that the surrounding homes or businesses are not negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime_ Further, to maintain security, prevent fraud, and deter robberies, collectives and cooperatives should keep accurate records and follow accepted cash handling practices, including regular bank runs and cash drops, and maintain a general ledger of cash transactions. C. Enforcement Guidelines: Depending upon the facts and circumstances, deviations from the guidelines outlined above, or other indicia that marijuana is not for medical use, may give rise to probable cause for arrest and seizure. The following are additional guidelines to help identify medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives that are operating outside of state law. 1. Storefront Dispensaries: Although medical marijuana"dispensaries" have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not recognized under the law. As noted above, the only recognized group entities are cooperatives and collectives. (§ 11362.775.) It is the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law, but that dispensaries that do not substantially comply with the guidelines set forth in sections IV(A) and (B), above, are likely operating outside the protections of Proposition 215 and the MMP, and that the individuals operating such entities may be subject to arrest and criminal prosecution under California law. For example, dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating the business owner as their primary caregiver—and then offering marijuana in exchange for cash "donations"—are likely unlawful. (Peron,supra, 59 Cal.AppAth at p. 1400 [cannabis club owner was not the primary caregiver to thousands of patients where he did not consistently assume responsibility for their housing, health, or safety].) 2. Indicia of Unlawful Operation: When investigating collectives or cooperatives, law enforcement officers should be alert for signs of mass production or illegal sales, including(a) excessive amounts of marijuana, (b) excessive amounts of cash, (c) failure to follow local and state laws applicable to similar businesses, such as maintenance of any required licenses and payment of any required taxes, including sales taxes, (d) weapons, (c) illicit drugs, (1) purchases from, or sales or distribution to, non-members, or(g) distribution outside of California_ _ 11 _ ALM Sp4 A. iZ ° U N 'H �M CplwMrtv[ k c'`'k°aNXP CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT era • o1, a$ DATE: Dece _ ei' 2008 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: CASE NO. 5.1218 — ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT, AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS TO AMEND THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATING TO THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager VIA: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services SUMMARY On October 1, 2008, the City Council initiated a Zone Text Amendment to consider standards and regulations for the establishment of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives. On November 12, 2008 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered a draft ordinance and adopted a recommendation on the matter. A public hearing has been noticed for this item. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Waive the reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and read by title only; and 3. Introduce on first reading ordinance no. _, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 91.00.10-B, 92.17.01-A, AND 92.17.1.01 OF, AND ADDING SUBSECTION N TO SECTION 92.17.03 AND SUBSECTION N TO SECTION 92.17.1.03 OF, THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE, RELATING TO MEDICAL CANNABIS COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE M-1 AND M-2 ZONES." ANALYSIS: In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, an initiate measure that exempted qualified patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. Codified as Health and. Safety Code section ITEM NO. City Council Staff Report December 3, 2008 Case No. 5.1218—ZTA—Medical Marijuana Page 2 of 6 11362.5 et seq. and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" (the "Compassionate Use Act"), the purpose of the initiative was to allow patients suffering from a number of serious illnesses the opportunity to find relief through the use of doctor recommended marijuana. (See the attached Commission staff report for additional background information.) Against a backdrop of opinions and judicial rulings since passage of the Proposition 215, the State Attorney General in August of 2008 adopted the "Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use" (A copy of the Guidelines is attached to this Staff Report.) Pages 8 — 11 of the Guidelines set forth the Attorney General's recommendations for the general regulation of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives. On October 1, 2008, the City Council considered several options for the treatment of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives: 1. Adopt Medical Marijuana Cooperative / Collective regulatory permit regulations (allow by Conditional Use Permit) 2. Allow collectives / cooperatives in certain zones subject to certain land use standards (allow "by right" or with a land use permit). 3. Declare that Collectives and Cooperatives are not permitted in the City. The Council initiated a zone text amendment including a draft ordinance which implemented option 2 (above) for the M-1 and M-2 industrial zones, and directed the matter to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. On November 12, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the draft ordinance. The Commission adopted a recommendation that included the Council's draft ordinance, but also included the following additional provisions: 1. That the use be allowed by right in the P (Professional) zone, and 2. That the use be allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in all other non-residential zones. A final Commission resolution will be adopted at their meeting of December 3, 2008 and will be reported to the Council at its meeting. Staff believes the P (Professional) zone deserves the Council's consideration since the zone is generally developed with one- and two-story office buildings which often house medical uses. However, staff has concerns regarding the broader recommendation regarding CUP'S. If approved, the recommendation opens up substantially more of the L' 4 City Council Staff Report December 3, 2008 Case No. 5.1218—ZTA—Medical Marijuana Page 3 of 6 City to medical marijuana establishments, subject to case-by-case review, including the following additional zones: C-B-D Central Business District H-C Highway Commercial C-D-N Designed N'hood Shopping Center M-1-P Planned Research and Dev't C-S-C Community Shopping Center E-1 Energy Industrial C-1 Retail Business W Watercourse C-1AA Large Scale Retail Commercial O Open Space C-2 General Commercial A Airport C-M Commercial Manufacturing CC Civic Center District Opening the use to all non-residential zones provides more flexibility to future applicants. However, staff remains uncertain over how inoffensive such collectives and cooperatives will be to the neighborhood over the long run.' It is clear that from the both the federal and state perspective, the City is addressing the distribution of an illegal substance2. The potential for loitering, burglaries, assaults and other problems should not be dismissed. Consequently, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt its initial draft ordinance limiting the use to M-1 and M-2 zones, by right, and consider the Commission's recommendation regarding the P (Professional) zone. Staff is not recommending the broader authorization suggested by the Commission. Over time, the use may prove to be a benign activity with no adverse affects on the neighborhood. If the Council allows the use in the M-1, M-2, and possibly the P zones now, it may revisit allowing the use in commercial or other zones — via a CUP or by right -- at any time in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL: Staff has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment and determined that it is Categorically Exempt under Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed amendment to allow medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives does not increase land use intensity in any significant way. FISCAL IMPACT: None. 'Staff notes that a CUP is not an easy undertaking. The fee is nearly $2000, notice would be provided to all surrounding property owners, additional conditions may be imposed by the Commission, and there is no certainty of a favorable outcome. When compared to a "by right" status in the M-1 and M-2 (subject only to locational criteria) the CUP may not be a practical option for a non-profit collective / cooperative. 2 When marijuana is distributed outside the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, it is a violation of California law. City Council Staff Report December 3, 2008 Case No- 5,1218—ZTA--Medical Marijuana Page 4 of 6 ig ing, AICP, Tom Y. Wilsov Dir of Plannin S rvices Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready, City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance — Zone Text Amendment — Establishment of Medical Marijuana Cooperatives and Collectives in the M-1 and M-2 Zones 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. (draft) 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, excerpt (draft November 12, 2008) 4. Planning Commission Staff Report (November 12, 2008) L � ORDINANCE NO. (12.30.2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 91.00.10-B, 92.17.01-A, AND 92.17.1.01 OF, AND ADDING SUBSECTION N TO SECTION 92.17.03 AND SUBSECTION N TO SECTION 92.17.1.03 OF, THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE, RELATING TO MEDICAL CANNABIS COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE M-1 AND M-2 ZONES City Attorney Summary This Ordinance establishes that medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives that comply with the Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use issued by the Attorney General of the State of California in August 2008 are permitted uses in the M-1 (service and manufacturing) and M-2 (manufacturing) Zones. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 01.00.10 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code is amended to add the following definition to subsection 8: "Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective" means five or more qualified patients and caregivers who collectively or cooperatively cultivate and share physician-recommended cannabis or marijuana in a manner strictly consistent with the Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use issued August 2008, by the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, as may be amended from time to time, on file in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 2. Section 92.17.01 of Chapter 92.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code is amended to add the following to subsection A: 12. Medical Marijuana Cooperative or Collective, subject to the property development standards contained in Section 97.17.03 of this Code. SECTION 3. Subsection N is added to Section 92.17.03 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code to read: N. Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective Special Standards. No Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective shall be established, developed, or operated within five hundred (500) feet of a school, public playground or park, or any residential zone property, youth center, or church, or within one thousand (1000) feet of any other Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective. s- E. 0 SECTION 4. Section 92.17.1.01 of Chapter 92.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code is hereby amended to add the following to sub-section A: 6. Medical Marijuana Cooperative or Collective. SECTION 5. Subsection N is added to Section 92.17.1.03 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code to read: N. Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective Special Standards- 1- No Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective shall be established, developed, or operated within five hundred (500) feet of a school, public playground or park, or any residential zone property, youth center, or church, or within one thousand (1000) feet of any other Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective, and shall not be located on any property that is occupied with a commercial retail use 2. On-site smoking, ingestion, or consumption of cannabis or alcohol shall be prohibited on the premises of the cooperative or collective. 3. All windows on the building that houses the cooperative or collective shall be barred and all marijuana securely stored, and a reliable, commercial alarm system shall be installed and maintained. 4. Cannabis shall only be grown within a fully enclosed building. 5. No one under 18 years of age shall be a member of a cooperative or a collective without written authorization of a parent or legal guardian. 6. Cooperatives and collectives shall distribute only medical cannabis and no retail sales of any kind shall be allowed. SECTION 6. The distance of separation required by Sections 3 and 5 of this Ordinance shall be made using a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the property line of the lot on which the medical cannabis cooperative or collective shall be located to the nearest property line of the lot upon which is located a residential use, playground, park or school. SECTION 7. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that pursuant to public testimony, reports from staff, and written or documentary evidence provided to this Council, this Ordinance and the standards contained herein are appropriate and warranted for various reasons as stated therein, including without limitation: A. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, known as the "Compassionate Use Act" ("Act') (codified as Health and Safety (H&S) Code § 11362.5 et seq.), which creates a limited exception from criminal liability' under California law as opposed to federal law for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances. B. In 2004, Senate Bill 420, known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act, became law (codified as H&S Code § 11362.7 et seq.) which established a statewide identification card program for qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers and recognized a qualified right to collective and cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana. C. In August 2008, the Attorney General of the State of California set forth Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use ("Guidelines") which Guidelines affirm the legality of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives under California law, but make clear that such entities cannot be operated for profit, may not purchase marijuana from unlawful sources and must have a defined organizational structure that includes detailed records proving that members are legitimate patients. D. The City Council determines that it is in the best interest-of the residents of the City to allow cooperatives and collectives that comply with the Guidelines to be established and operated as permitted uses within specified manufacturing and industrial zones. SECTION 8. No use, business, or activity of any kind which distributed marijuana prior to the enactment of this Ordinance shall be deemed to have been a legally established use under the provisions of the Zoning Code and such use shall not be entitled to claim legal nonconforming status. SECTION 9. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, then the provisions of Section 1 through 6, inclusive, of this Ordinance shall be deemed invalid and unenforceable and the dispensing of cannabis for any reason in any zone shall be deemed a prohibited use under the City's Zoning Code. The City Council hereby declares that it would not have adopted this Ordinance if any of the sections or provisions thereof may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. SECTION 10. By regulating Medical Cannabis Cooperatives and Collectives, the City of Palm Springs is only assuming an undertaking to preserve the general welfare through the provision of a method of implementing the Compassionate Use Act. The City Council is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for which a breach thereof would expose the City to a liability in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City shall assume no liability whatsoever, and expressly does not waive sovereign immunity, with respect to any provision of this Ordinance or for the activities of any Medical Cannabis Cooperative or Collective. To the fullest extent permitted by law, any actions taken by a public officer or employee under the provisions of this Chapter shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the City. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed or L considered in any respects to constitute authorization to violate any state or federal law. SECTION 10. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 12009. STEPHEN P. POUGNET MAYOR ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Douglas Holland, City Attorney 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 introduced at a regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE M-1 AND M-2 ZONES, AND IN OTHER NOW RESIDENTIAL ZONES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHEREAS, on October 1, 2008, the City Council voted unanimously to direct staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Case No. 5.1218) to consider the establishment of standards and procedures for the establishment of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives, including a draft ordinance allowing such uses by right in the M-1 and M 2 zones, subject to certain location standards; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment, at which hearing the Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the project, including but not limited to the staff report and all written and oral testimony presented, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment and determined that it is Categorically Exempt under Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed amendment does not result in any significant increase land use density. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, AS FOLLOWS; Section 1: The Planning Commission hereby finds that adoption of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would: a. Provide opportunities for residents and others to obtain medical marijuana as allowed by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, b. Allow for the development and placement of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in a manner that would provide adequate oversight of, and protection for such uses and the surrounding neighborhood, and c. Assure that medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives are located sufficient distances from each other and from potentially sensitive land uses. Planning Commission Resolution December, 2008 5.1218—ZTA—Medical Marijuana Cooperatives and Collectives Page 2 of 2 Section 2: The adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's General Plan because it provides for the establishment of medical marijuana cooperatives through reasonable standards and regulation, and provides an opportunity for those seeking the benefits of medical marijuana to do so in a safe and secure manner. LU 1.4 Encourage the expansion of existing facilities or the introduction of new uses that are considered to be of significant importance and contribute exceptional benefits to the City. Section 3: Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council amendment of the Palm Springs Zoning Code to establish standards and regulations for medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives, as described in the draft ordinance, attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as Exhibit A, in which the use is allowed by right in the M-1 and M-2 zones; and also recommends the following additional provisions: 1. That the use is allowed by right in the P (Professional) zone, and 2. That the use may be allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit in other non-residential zones. ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services �o�pA6MgA� iy V N C,qt'F°a�,�P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: November 12, 2008 Case No.: 5.1218 Type: Zone Text Amendment Location: City-wide Applicant: City of Palm Springs To: Planning Commission From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Relating to Medical Cannabis Cooperatives and Collectives as Permitted Uses in the M-1 and M-2 Zones SUMMARY Recent court decisions regarding the Compassionate Use Act and the Attorney General's adoption of Guidelines relating to marijuana grown for medical use have provided the City with guidance regarding the range of options for regulating the cultivation and dispensing of medical cannabis to qualified patients. On October 1, 2008, the City Council initiated a Zone Text Amendment to set standards for the establishment of cooperatives and collectives for medical marijuana. The proposed ordinance is an amendment to the City's zoning Code and would allow cooperatives and collectives in the M-1 and M-2 Zones of the City. With the exception of certain distance requirements would be imposed as development standards, no other local regulatory program would be imposed. The Police Department would enforce traditional penal and health and safety state laws consistent with the Attorney General's Guidelines. As a Zoning Code text amendment, the ordinance is required to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. A public hearing has been noticed for this item. Palm Springs Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Case No. 5 1218—ZTA Medical Marijuana Page 2 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Open the public hearing and receive any testimony. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution and draft ordinance to return to the Commission for final action. STAFF ANALYSIS The Compassionate Use Act. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, which exempted qualified patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. Codified as Health and. Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq. and known as "The Compassionate Use Act", the initiative's purpose was to allow patients suffering from a number of serious illnesses the opportunity to find relief through the use of doctor recommended marijuana. As enacted, the Compassionate Use Act did not define how much a patient could legally possess or cultivate. In addition, the definition of "primary caregiver" was vague, resulting in the creation of numerous storefront marijuana dispensaries throughout the state operating without standards or local control. In response to these issues, the California legislature enacted SB 420, known as the Medical Marijuana Program ("MMP"), which did the following: • Refined the definition of"caregiver" and clarified the expenses for which a primary caregiver could be reimbursed; • Set out a maximum amount of marijuana a patient or caregiver could possess and cultivate (8 oz. of marijuana plus 6 mature or 12 immature plants); • Required the State Department of Health, working with county health departments, to set up a voluntary statewide identification program to protect qualified patients and their primary caregiver from arrest and prosecution of certain marijuana related crimes. Orange County has set up such a program. • Extended protection from criminal prosecution beyond possession and cultivation to related activities (e.g., transportation, delivery, storage for qualified patients and their primary caregivers); • Permitted patients and primary caregivers to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes; • Prohibited the use of marijuana near schools or recreation centers, on school buses, while in an operating car, or while operating a boat; and • Allowed cities to adopt and enforce laws consistent with the MMP. l070Rfi� Palm Springs Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Case No. 6.1218—ZTA Medical Marijuana Page 3 of 6 The MMP requires that the primary caregiver and the patient live in the same city or county if the primary caregiver has more than one patient. Conversely, if the primary caregiver and patient do not live in the same city or county, the primary caregiver may only have one qualified patient. Although qualified patients and their primary caregivers may collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, the MMP is silent as to dispensaries, neither permitting nor forbidding them. What constitutes a cop-op or collective, which is permitted, versus a dispensary, and whether a dispensary would be considered a co-op/collective or a store under the MMP remain unclear. Nor have the courts provided much guidance on that issue. To staffs knowledge, no local agency has been sued for regulating the location and / or operation of the MMDs; however, there are a number of lawsuits involving cities and counties who have adopted blanket dispensary bans. Judicial and the Administrative Guidance In 2005 the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, ruled that the application of the federal Controlled Substance Act to the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana to intrastate growers and users of marijuana for medical purposes is not a violation of the US Constitution. The Controlled Substance Act established a federal regulatory system designed to combat recreational drug abuse by making it illegal to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance. Under the Controlled Substance Act, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is a federal criminal offense. Thus, even though certain activities may not be a criminal act under California law, the same activities may still violate federal laws and the federal government has the authority to regulate and criminalize such activity. The case did not hold that Proposition 215 is unconstitutional or pre-empted by federal law; nor did the case prohibit California from continuing to honor the procedures and protections set forth in Prop. 215. What the case does say, however, is that compliance with California law will not protect a person from prosecution under federal laws. This situation where one can be prosecuted under federal laws for doing something that is legal under California law arguably defies common sense and creates a great deal of confusion for the general public and especially for qualified medical patients. Nevertheless, there are two worlds that involve the regulation of marijuana: 1) The absolute prohibition on the manufacture, cultivation, distribution, and possession under the Controlled Substance Act, and 2) the not-so-absolute prohibition on manufacture, cultivation, distribution, and possession that contains a limited exception for medical purposes under California law. It should be emphasized that the Compassionate Use Act does not establish marijuana use by a qualified medical patient as a right or privilege protect under law. The California Supreme held earlier this year in Ross v. Ragingwire that an employer has not engaged in impermissible disability based discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act when that employer requires a pre-employment drug test and takes illegal drug use Ep305C I �'j Palm Springs Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Case No. 5.1218—ZTA Medical Marijuana Page 4 of 6 into consideration in making employment decisions. Simply stated, the Compassionate Use Act only provides a defense to certain state criminal charges for state law violations involving marijuana for a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes on a physician's recommendation. These exceptions do not include a local government's Zoning Code. There is nothing in the Compassionate Use Act or the MMP that provides that the defense is applicable to violations of local land use laws or any local regulatory program. As discussed above, there is nothing in the law that establishes any rights beyond the defense; thus, there is no right to establish a collective or cooperative that dispenses marijuana in contravention of local laws. The decision of the California Court of Appeals in August of this year in Corona v. Naulls confirms and supports this conclusion. Against this backdrop of opinions and judicial rulings, the State Attorney General in August of 2008 adopted the "Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use" which attempts to: 1) Ensure that marijuana grown for medical purposes remains secure and does not find its way to non-patients or illicit market; 2) Help law enforcement agencies perform their duties effectively and in accordance with California law; and 3) Help patients and primary caregivers understand how they may cultivate, transport, posses, and use medical marijuana under California law. A copy of the Guidelines is attached to this Staff Report. Staff would specifically call your attention to pages 8 — 11 for the basic rules that the attorney General is recommending as embracing the general regulation of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives. The Local Approach In a poll conducted by the City of Anaheim in the winter of this year, 63 California cities had banned medical marijuana dispensaries in their jurisdictions and 29 had adopted ordinances permitting and regulating dispensaries to varying degrees. A number of cities have also adopted temporary moratoriums on new dispensaries as they draft either regulations or permanent prohibitions. Although Palm Springs' moratorium expired in early 2008, medical marijuana dispensaries are not permitted uses in any zone in the City and is therefore deemed a prohibited use. Thus, unless the City adopts an ordinance that allows such uses, marijuana cultivation and dispensing, regardless of whether it is described as a dispensary, cooperative, or collective, is not a legal land use in the City. The City has several options in addressing the medical marijuana issue: 60}O56 1 J Palm Springs Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Case No. 5.1218—ZTA Medical Marijuana Page 5 of 6 1. Adopt Medical Marijuana Cooperative/Collective regulatory permit regulations The City may amend the zoning code to allow cooperatives or collectives in certain zoning districts with a Condition Use Permit. In addition, it could adopt regulations that address the location of medical marijuana dispensaries and provisions governing their operation. The actual permit process would be implemented and monitored by Planning, Building, and Police Departments. Specific regulations or conditions could include the following requirements: ■ Limitations on the amount of marijuana that can be kept in the facility and the amount of cultivation. • Limitations on the age of persons allowed on site. • A requirement for a safety and security plan. • Limitations on hours of operation. ■ Prohibitions on the sale or consumption of alcohol. ■ Requirements for outdoor maintenance, including monitoring the conditions around the site regular removal of litter, as necessary. • Prohibitions on the consumption of marijuana on the premises and surroundings. The City could also consider impose even more stringent permit conditions. The City of Laguna Woods recently adopted a regulatory program that includes one or more of these components. These restrictions are unusual; however, due to the unique nature of the product being dispensed, its unusual status under federal and state law, and the potential secondary effects each collective or cooperative may have on its environment, these restrictions may be appropriate and justified: • Requirements that marijuana transactions be done by credit card or personal check only; no cash transaction allowed. • Requirements for background checks and permits for employees, volunteers and all persons providing services at the collective/ cooperative. • Prohibitions on any retail sales other than marijuana. • A limitation that patients using the collective / cooperative be city residents. ■ Restrictions on the number of collectives/cooperatives that could operate in the City at any one time. 2. An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code to allow collectives/cooperatives in certain Zones subject to certain land use standards or a land use permit. The draft ordinance initiated by the City Council is consistent with Option 2. It provides that cooperatives and collectives are permitted in the M-1 and M-2 Zones "by right", subject to special location development standards. These standards include a 500-foot minimum separation between any collective / cooperative and any school, park, playground, or property zoned for residential uses. This approach is predicated on the assumption that the Attorney General Guidelines will be adequate in the oversight and 601086 1 1� Palm Springs Planning Commission November 12, 2008 Case No 5.1218—ZTA Medical Marijuana Page 6 of 6 regulation of the operation of the collectives and cooperatives and that additional local regulations are not necessary or desirable (see Option 1 for additional regulations). 3. An Ordinance declaring that Collectives and Cooperatives are not permitted in the City. The City may choose to expressly prohibits collectives and cooperatives within the City limits. Although we believe that this is the current status of such uses in the City, a clear statement ratifying the City's intent would reaffirm the Zoning Code intent and application. We recommend that the Commission consider the draft ordinance establishing medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives as permitted uses in the M-1 and M-2 Zones and the other options identified in this memo. Following a public hearing, the Commission may adopt any recommendation it considers appropriate on the issue. Staff will return at 'a future meeting with a resolution reflecting the Commission's recommendation. NOTICE Notice was provided by advertisement in the Desert Sun. No written communications have been received at the writing of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL: Staff has reviewed the draft ordinance under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt under Section 15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations - of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The proposed amendment does not result in any significant change in land use or density. ai A. ing AI Dir of Pla In Services cc: Draft ' ance ca3os� i - � 6 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION 2) CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk Meeting Date: December 3, 2008 Subject: APPLICATION TO AMEND THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATING TO THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Desert Sun on November 22, 2008. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Dolores Strickstein, Secretary, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the City Clerk on November 20, 2008. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dolores Strickstein Secretary NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case 5.1218 ZTA MR PETE MORUZZI Medical Cannabil Coop. &Collec. MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 12.03.08 HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE 5.1218 ZTA VERIFICATION NOTICE I I I ATTN SECRETARY MRS. JOANNE BRUGGEMANS PO BOX 2743 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS 11 I I 1 1 777 E.TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,#F301 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 SPONSORS I I I = NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1218 -APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO MEDICAL CANNABIS COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of December 3, 2008. 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 Case 5.1218, an application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the Palm Springs zoning Code relating to the location and operation of medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Palm Springs, in its capacity as the lead agency for this project, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is Categorically Exempt under Section 15305 m Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The proposed amendments do not result in any significant changes in land use or density. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also 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 (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: 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 City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede__hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. /J mes Thompson, City Clerk � 'q �A Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition www.ivdfc.org Serving Riverside and San Bernardino County youth.parents•schools•law enforcement.health care.media•businesses.government non profits•community groups.religious entitles.fraternal and service organizations November 25lh 2008 City of Palm Springs City Council 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear City Council Members: On December 3rd, you will vote on an item referenced in 1 B, which in short, will send a shockwave throughout the Inland Empire by allowing medical marijuana to establish a footing in Palm Springs. Our Coalition encourages you to vote "No" on any item which brings pot/drugs into a community. We are parents, teachers, cops, youth, business leaders, health care providers, and others who are helping the Inland Empire push back against a pro-marijuana movement that has set its sights on Palm Springs after losing battles everywhere else in the region. Within the last two-years, over a dozen cities in the Inland Empire have taken up the issue of medical pot dispensaries, co-ops, etc, and 100% have voted them down. They did so only after they learned of the fallacies with so-called medical pot. Pot shops are common on the streets of San Francisco and West Los Angeles and that is because a pro-drug legalization movement has succeeded in those neighborhoods. Just last week, Fox News Oreilly Factor reported on the ruse that medical marijuana has become in California. He cited children being sold pot from those who possess medical marijuana ID cards. In fact, there are now more pot shops on the streets of S.F. and West L.A. than Starbucks. If Palm Springs allows any type of pot store to exist within its boundaries, it will, without a doubt, open the door to yet another way for children to find drugs; through the hands of someone holding a marijuana ID card who purchase pot at a Palm Spring Pot Non- Profit. Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 4 But this is just the beginning. Palm Springs/Palm Desert area is known around the region as a headquarters for the most outspoken pro-marijuana organization in the area. It's no surprise that you will see them in your council chambers touting the benefits of marijuana use. Let's remember: Prop 215 was passed in 1996 by a marginal 55% of the vote. And those who voted for it thought the marijuana would be given only to the most seriously/terminally ill. It was a ruse. The small print of that law, as described by pro- drug groups (who funded but failed to convince the electorate this November to pass Prop 5 — another pro drug effort) allows anybody to get pot for any condition, whatsoever. Before you vote for this effort, take a tour of the West Los Angeles and San Francisco. By opening to the door to just one shop (cc-op) will be enough for the pro-drug movement to come crashing through as they have in other areas—and when that happens, it's virtually impossible to turn back (again, look at S.F and West L.A). Palm Springs is a beautiful city and doing anything other than voting down pot will immediately tarnish the city. We understand that initially, this may have seemed confusing. You want to do the right thing. you want to help patients in need of medicine. But smoked marijuana is not medicine, and it's against Federal law. What you should consider is a law mandating that all businesses that operate within the city must abide by local, state and federal laws. As such, never again would you be harassed by pro-drugs wanting to set up a marijuana shop. Meds like marinol already exist in pill form, which is approved by the FDA (and is not a violation of Federal law and not sought after by youth for abuse). Clearly, the residents of Palm Springs need your help. This issue requires the utmost attention. We implore you to vote no on item #1 B and all other related marijuana articles. Our Coalition has grown over 200% in the last 4-years and we are working towards the creation of Palm Springs Drug Free, Inc., which will work with the community in building 12-sectors (including local elected officials) to push back against drug legalization efforts while educating youth to remain drug free. Yours truly, //s// Roger Anderson Coalition Chair Cc: Coalition Members, Palms Springs Chamber of Commerce, Board of Education, The Desert Sun, Palm Springs Police Officers Association, Palm Springs Fireman's Association, Palm Springs Teachers Association— Executive Board Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 L � What's Wrong With Permitting the Use of Smoked Marijuana? "we created Prop. 215 se that • Simply put, the smoked form or marijuana is not considered modern medicine. On April 20th, 2006, the FDA issued an patients would have deal with black market profiteeerr s. advisory concluding that no sound scientific studies have But today it is all about the supported medical use of smoked marijuana for treatment in the money. Most of the United States, and no animal or human data support the safety dispensaries operating in or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use. California are little more than • A number of states have passed voter referenda or legislative dope dealers with store fronts" actions making smoked marijuana available for a variety of _Rev Scott Imler CC-Founder of Prop medical conditions upon a dOCtor'S recommendation. According 215, calr(crnia's Medroal Marijuana to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these measures are caw inconsistent with efforts to ensure medications undergo the Source Alternatives Magazine Fall, rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process and are 20061ssue 3s proven safe and effective under the standards of the FD&C Act. • While smoking marijuana may allow patients to temporarily Feel better, the medical community makes an important distinction between inebriation and the controlled delivery of pure pharmaceutical medication. The raw (leaf) form of marijuana contains a complex mixture of compounds in uncertain concentrations, the majority of which have unknown pharmacological effects. • The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for any long-term medical use, and a subsequent IOM report declared that, "marijuana is not modern medicine."Additionally, the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society do not support the smoked form of marijuana as medicine. Smoking Marijuana May Unintentionally Cause Serious Harm to Patients • The delicate immune systems of seriously ill patients may become compromised by the smoking of marijuana. Additionally, the daily use of marijuana compromises lung function and increases the risk For respiratory diseases, similar to those associated with nicotine cigarettes. • Marijuana has a high potential for abuse and can incur addiction. Frequent use of marijuana leads to tolerance to the psychoactive effects and smokers compensate by smoking more often or seeking higher potency marijuana. • In people with psychotic or other problems, the use of marijuana can precipitate severe emotional . disorders. Chronic use of marijuana may increase the risk of psychotic symptoms in people with a past history of schizophrenia. Marijuana smoking by young people may lead to severe impairment of higher brain function and neuropsychiatric disorders, as well as a higher risk for addiction and polydrug abuse problems. Existing Legal Drugs Provide Superior Treatment for Serious Medical Conditions • The FDA has approved safe and effective medication for the treatment of glaucoma, nausea, wasting syndrome, cancer, and multiple sclerosis. • Marino], the synthetic form of THC (the psychoactive ingredient contained in marijuana), is already legally available for prescription by physicians whose patients suffer from pain and chronic illness. "Medical marijuana was supposed to be for the truly ill cancer victims and AIDS patients who could use the drug to relieve pain or restore their appetites. Yet the number of dispensaries has skyrocketed from five in 2005 to 143 by the end of 2006. In North Hollywood alone,there are more pot clinics than Starbucks." -Pasadena Star-News,January 21s1,2007 Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)467.4229 GM In Their Words: What the Experts Say: The American Academy of Ophthalmology: "Based on reviews by the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the Institute of Medicine and on available scientific evidence, the Task Force on Complementary Therapies believes that no scientific evidence has been found that demonstrates increased benefits and/or diminished risks of marijuana use to treat glaucoma compared with the wide variety of pharmaceutical agents now available." Complementary Therapy Assessment Marijuana in the Treatment of Glaucoma American Academy of Ophthalmology, May 2003 The American Medical Association: "...AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act...AMA believes that the NIH should use its resources and influence to support the development of a smoke- free inhaled delivery system for marijuana or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to reduce the health hazards associated with the combustion and Inhalation of marijuana..." Policy Statement H-95.952,American Medical Association,htto.1/www.ama-assn.oro The National Multiple Sclerosis Society: "Studies completed thus far have not provided convincing evidence that marijuana or its derivatives provide substantiated benefits for symptoms of MS." The MS Information Sourcehook Marijuana(Cannabis) National Multiple Sclerosis Society,September 18th 2006 The Institute of Medicine (TOM): "Because of the health risks associated with smoking, smoked marijuana Should generally not be recommended for long-term medical use." Marijuana and Medicine Assessing the Science Base Institute of Medicine 1999 The Marijuana Vending Machine and Legalizing Pot Under the Guise of Medicine t i tlllf>*i A few years ago, the FDA issued an Interagency Advisory asserting that claims of marijuana as "medicine" are inconsistent with efforts to ensure the safety and efficacy of medial treatment. The Oakland Press has now posted video of Direcior Walters' public remarks in Southfield, Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 7 7� Michigan regarding the state's smoked medical marijuana ballot initiative. Also in the video: the so-called marijuana "vending machine" that was seized recently in California. The vending machine illustrates how smoked medical marijuana ballot initiatives are not about medicine, but instead about legalizing marijuana. By BILL O'REILLY March 23. 2007 IT seemed like a good idea at the time,the Compassionate Use Act of 1996,which allowed Californians to use marijuana with a doctors permission to alleviate pain Golden State voters passed the ballot measure into law by 56 percent to 44 percent. The biggest bankroller of the referendum was George Soros,the billionaire who champions drug legalization. We pumped about$350,000 into pro-medpot ads,according to published reports. Since the act was passed into law,thousands of pot"clinics"have opened across the state. In San Francisco, things got se out of control that Mayor Gavin Newsom a very liberal guy, had to close many of the"clinics" because drug addicts were clustering around them, causing fear among city residents. In San Diego,there's another problem: Some high school kids have found a loophole in the Compassion Act. Incredibly, there is no age requirement to secure medical marijuana in California-and no physical exam needed, either.So some kids tell a doctor they have a headache, pay him$150 for a card, and then buy all the pot they want. Unbelievable, but true. Catherine Martin,a school official in San Diego, actually sent letters to parents in the Grossmont Union School District warning that some students are getting the medical-MJ cards and then selling them to other students. The result:an increasing number of kids arriving at school stoned. Martin warned parents to supervise their children. San Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis told me that some"clinics"are even marketing medical marijuana under names like"Reefer's Peanut Butter Cup,"and"Baby Jane."Cheech and Chong would be proud. . Now, I'm sure George Soros doesn't give a hoot about this, but the unintended consequence of non- prescription medical-marijuana legalization is that some kids are making an industry out of it. Sure, pot is available illegally in most places, but now children have a legal option. Why work at Burger King when you can sell pot cards? Of course,there is nothing"compassionate"about kids being intoxicated. It changes them forever. Once a child alters himself with chemicals,childhood vanishes.A national study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse says more teens are in rehab for marijuana than any other intoxicant, including alcohol. Society needs to rethink its strategy on intoxicants in general. If marijuana can help those suffering with debilitating diseases,then doctors should have the power to prescribe it and licensed pharmacies should carry it. But storefront"clinics"run by irresponsible adults who are aided by corrupt doctors are a joke only a confirmed stoner would find funny. Bottom line. Be careful what you vote for. Compassion can easily turn into chaos. Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 G� Downtown San Francisco- Dispensaries:71 rl Starbucks Coffee:66 _ - - r - P 511r r-,F_ �`. sIT To Yr.�.- ..uu"�' .. F noaco' ��° ,. -PJfY`• V. a^ 41 - _ 1•rn i — r my Did You Know? There Are More "Medical' Pot Shops in San Francisco Than There Are Starbucks As we've noted previously, state "medical" marijuana laws breed confusion, abuse, and violence in neighborhoods and communities- Here's our latest analysis of this phenomenon. In downtown San Francisco alone, there are 71 marijuana dispensaries, compared to 66 Starbucks Coffee shops: The Use of Marijuana as a Medicine California Narcotic Officers Association There currently exists some controversy concerning smoking marijuana as a medicine. Many well- intentioned leaders and members of the public have been misled by the well-financed and organized pro- drug legalization lobby into believing there is merit to their argument that smoking marijuana is a safe and effective medicine A review of the scientific research, expert medical testimony, and government agency findings shows this to be erroneous.There is no justification for using marijuana as a medicine The California Narcotic Officers'Association consists of over 7,000 criminal justice professionals who are dedicated to protecting the public from the devastating effects of substance abuse, whether cocaine, methamphetamine, or marijuana. We have seen first hand the debilitating and often tragic results, both psychologically and physically, of those who choose intoxication as part of their lifestyle. We have studied the medicinal use of marijuana issue, compiling information from medical experts to present to those we are sworn to protect. It is our firm belief that any movement that liberalizes or legalizes substance abuse Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 laws would set us back to the days of the'70s when we experienced this country's worst drug problem and the subsequent consequences. In the'80s,through the combined and concerted efforts of law enforcement, prevention and treatment professionals, illicit drug use was reduced by 50 percent. Teenagers graduating from the class of 1992 had a 50 percent less likely chance of using drugs than those who graduated in the class of 1979. Substance abuse rises whenever public attitude is more tolerant toward drugs, i.e., they are safe and harmless. Other factors that contribute to a rise in use include increased availability, reduced risk associated with using or selling, and lower prices. In 1993. for the first time after 12 years of steady decline, illicit drug use rose and continues to climb.A major contributing factor is a message that drugs "aren't so bad."To counter this"just say yes" campaign,we feel compelled to provide the facts on the use of smoking marijuana as a medicine. These well-documented facts will prove beyond a doubt that MARIJUANA IS NOT A MEDICINE.FACT:The movement to legitimize smoking marijuana as a medicine is NOT encouraged by the pharmaceutical companies, Federal Food and Drug Administration, health and medical associations, or medical experts, but instead by groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws(NORML) and the Drug Policy Foundation (DPF).These organizations have little medical expertise and favor various forms of legalizing illicit drugs FACT: Pro-legalization organizations have admitted that their strategy to legalize marijuana begins with legitimizing smoking marijuana as a medicine.As reported in High Times magazine,the Director of NORML expressly stated that the medicinal use of marijuana is an integral part of the strategy to legalize marijuana. Tony Serra, a criminal defense attorney associated with the pro-legalization groups, stated that medicinal marijuana is the"chink in the administration's armor"that will lead to society seeing pot's mystical effects of peace, sisterhood and brotherhood. He is also the one who said, "If you kill a cop, I'll pay to take the case;"and"My sustenance is drugs and murder."A former director of NORML, Keith Stroup, told an Emory University audience that NORML would be using the issue of medicinal marijuana as a red herring to give marijuana a good name.The director of NORML, Dick Cowan, is quoted, "The key is medical access. Because once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana under medical supervision,the whole scam is going to be brought up---then we will get medical, then we will get full legalization." Is there any doubt about their true motive while they play this cruel hoax on people with legitimate illnesses? FACT:A leader of the medicinal use of marijuana movement, Dr Lester Grinspoon, is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard as well as chairman of the board of NORML. He has made absurd claims such as marijuana, like aspirin, is"unusually safe;" using cocaine two or three times a week "creates no serious problems;" and"Chronic cocaine abuse usually does not appear as a medical problem." He wrote a book called Marihuana The Forbidden Medicine, which is the bible for pro- marijuana advocates. FACT:The studies cited by the marijuana advocates have been found to be either unscientific, poorly researched, or involved pharmaceutical THC, not marijuana. One of their"experts"who testified at the 1937 federal hearings to reschedule marijuana was a wellness counselor at a health spa who admitted under oath to using every illegal mind-altering drug he ever studied.Another"expert"admitted he had not kept up with new medical or scientific information on marijuana for over 18 years. Another doctor claimed there was voluminous medical research on the effectiveness of marijuana but under oath, when asked to cite the number of the studies, he replied, "I would doubt very few."The fact is that there is not one reliable scientific study that shows smoking marijuana to be a safe and effective drug. FACT:The majority of the marijuana advocates"'evidence" comes from unscientific, non-scrutinized or analyzed anecdotal statements from people with a variety of illnesses. It is unknown whether these individuals used marijuana prior to their illness or are using marijuana in combination with other medicines. It is also unknown whether they have had recent medical examinations, are justifying their use of marijuana, experiencing a placebo effect, or experiencing the intoxicating effect of smoking marijuana. Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 G� FACT:The main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana (THC) is already legally available in pharmaceutical capsule form by prescription from medical doctors This drug, Marino], is less often prescribed because of the potential adverse effects, and there are more effective new medicines currently available. Marino)differs from the crude plant marijuana because it consists of one pure, well- studied, FDA-approved pharmaceutical in stable known dosages. Marijuana is an unstable mixture of over 400 chemicals including many toxic psychoactive chemicals which are largely unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths. FACT:The manufacturers of MarinDI, Roxane Laboratories Incorporated, do not agree with the pro- marijuana advocates that THC is safe and harmless. In the Physician's Desk Reference, a good portion of the description of Marino] includes warnings about the adverse effects FACT: Common sense dictates that it is not good medical practice to allow a substance to be used as a medicine if that product is • not FDA-approved • ingested by smoking • made up of hundreds of different chemicals • not subject to product liability regulations • exempt from quality control standards • not governed by daily dose criteria • offered in unknown strengths(THC)from 1 to 10+percent • self-prescribed and self-administered by the patient. FACT: The federal government, over the last 20 years involving a number of administrations from both political parties, has determined that smoking marijuana has no redeeming medicinal value, and is in fact harmful to health.These governmental agencies include the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Public Health Service.Their latest finding, as recently as 1994, was affirmed in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. FACT: Since the pro-marijuana lobby has been unsuccessful in dealing with the federal government,they have targeted state and local governments to legitimize smoking marijuana as a medicine.A careful examination of their legislative and/or ballot proposals reveals they are written to effectively neutralize the enforcement of most marijuana laws. Crude, intoxicating marijuana under their proposals would be easier to obtain and use than even the most harmless, low-level prescription drug. FACT: Major medical and health organizations, as well as the vast majority of nationally recognized expert medical doctors, scientists and researchers, have not accepted smoking marijuana as a safe and effective medicine.These organizations include:the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, National Sclerosis Association,the American Glaucoma Association,American Academy of Ophthalmology, National Eye Institute, National Cancer Institute, National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Dental Research, and the National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases. FACT:There are thousands of studies available documenting the harmful physical and psychological effects of smoking marijuana.The harmful consequences include but are not limited to premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggressiveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, impairment to the immune system, numerous airway injuries, and other general problems associated with intoxication. FACT: The medicinal marijuana movement and its media campaign have helped contribute to the Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave#106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 4 t changing attitude among our youth that marijuana is harmless, therefore contributing to the increase of marijuana use among our young people after 12 years of steady decline The overriding objective behind this movement is to allow a minority(less than five percent) of our society to get"stoned"with impunity.This small minority is willing to put our citizens at risk from all the negative and disastrous effects caused to and by those who are intoxicated. What we don't need in this society is more intoxicated people on our highways, in workplaces, schools, colleges, or in our homes. If you would like more information, call the CNOA office at(661) 775-6960 By: Dr. Kevin A_ Sabet, Ph.D. 909.457.4229// info(aivdfc.or; MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS BAD FOR OUR COMMUNITIES A native of Southern California, KcVin.4 Sabel PIr.D. n an Advisor to the Inland 6 n LY llrng h,ree Comnnrnily Coalition(in nr.vc fc org)and has bec n reseurclying and ronsitlling on drug abuse niauer.s fnu over fourteen ymi s A Marshall S'cholur, be is a former Off,v of Aa11W7ul D'71Y., ('01711r01 Police senior nfcial under the Clinlwi and Bush Achninisiraiiom and A c urrrcodp%vurking on a bunk amid}sing drug pnhri By Kevin A. Sabel, Ph.D. RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA- May 21, 2008-With all of the talk about medical marijuana dispensaries in California, it is hard to separate truth and science from ideology and dogma. In recent years, marijuana activists in the state have donned white coats and exclaimed a new found concern for the seriously ill,while legislators and judges have been left to wrestle with the consequences of a poorly written referendum, Proposition 215. Unfortunately;Proposition 215 has nothing to do with the sick and dying, as a simple read of its text reveals that marijuana can be legally recommended for"any illness for which marijuana provides relief." This has led to a multi-million dollar, state sanctioned drug distribution industry, resulting in a substantial increase in medical fraud (the drug has been recommended for everything from hangnails to fatigue to reduced sex drive), "medical marijuana" use by minors, and increased local crime. That is why scores of California localities, like the northern cities of San Pablo, San Rafael, Concord, Dublin, Fremont, Livermore, Newark, Pleasanton, and the southern cities of San Diego, San Marcos,Anaheim, Oxnard, Rancho Cucamonga, Norco, Hemet, Fontana, Murrieta,Temecula, Colton, Chino(among others), and after thoroughly studying the issue, have come out with a ban on such dispensaries. They should be commended. A recent article in the Las Angeles Times, "This bud's for you, and you, and you" by Joel Stein and a 2007 expose by 60 Minutes have revealed just how easy it is to obtain marijuana—"sick"or not. So it is also not surprising that the Food and Drug Administration, American Medical Association, and the renowned Mayo Clinic have come out against smoked marijuana as a so-called"medicine."A landmark study almost ten years ago, conducted by the Institute of Medicine, stated that". .smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for.. medical use." Smoked Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave #106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 marijuana(smoked anything) has never passed basic medical standards of safety and efficacy. Medical marijuana dispensaries mask as havens for the sick, when in reality they serve as city condoned centers for drug use. Of course there may be some people who genuinely use it to"feel better"from their illness, but smoking a drug as volatile and unstable as marijuana is like chewing on willow bark to partake in the benefits of aspirin. For those whose doctors think that some components of the cannabis plant may be therapeutic, Marina/, derived from the plant's most active ingredient,THC, already exists. Though it's not often prescribed, doctors have the right to prescribe this drug if they feel it would best serve their patient(though non-cannabis based drugs are almost always chosen as a first resort). Other isolated components in marijuana—delivered in aerosol sprays or patches—are currently being studied and research in this area is important. Cannabis-based drugs could indeed open new pathways to fight obesity, nausea, multiple sclerosis, and other illnesses, but,just as someone should not inject heroin to gain the therapeutic effects of morphine,these drugs need to be used in the proper context and setting. Legalizing smoked marijuana under the guise of medicine is irresponsible and contradictory to basic scientific standards for therapeutic drugs. Even if smoking marijuana might make someone"feel better,"that is not enough to call it a medicine If that was the case,then tobacco cigarettes or vodka shots could be called medicine because they are often attributed to making one"feel better." Furthermore, it is contrary to common sense and established law to have the electorate, influenced by big spending from pro-marijuana interest groups, decide what medicine is. Serious loopholes exist in Proposition 215 that permit the abuse of current drug laws, and allow drug dealers to avoid arrest and prosecution.These are key reasons why a large, growing number of local city and county governments have moved toward banning medical marijuana identification cards and dispensaries. Other California communities should follow suit. Science needs to be the basis of both our legal and illegal drug policies, not political ploys designed to legalize smoked marijuana for any reason. Concerned communities, parents, educators and youth can learn more about the dangers of marijuana at www.ivdfc.orc.The Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition is committed to strengthening community action for the safety of our children Strengthening community action for the safety of our children 12223 Highland Ave ##106-305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 info@ivdfc.org (909)457-4229 RESOLUTION NO- 7184 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE M-1 AND M-2 ZONES, AND IN OTHER NOW RESIDENTIAL ZONES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHEREAS, on October 1, 2008, the City Council voted unanimously to direct staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Case No. 5.1218) to consider the establishment of standards and procedures for the establishment of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives, including a draft ordinance allowing such uses by right in the M-1 and M-2 zones, subject to certain location standards; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment, at which hearing the Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the project, including but not limited to the staff report and all written and oral testimony presented, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment and determined that it is Categorically Exempt under Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations — of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed amendment does not result in any significant increase land use density. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS; Section 1: The Planning Commission hereby finds that adoption of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would: a. Provide opportunities for residents and others to obtain medical marijuana as allowed by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, b. Allow for the development and placement of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in a manner that would provide adequate oversight of, and protection for such uses and the surrounding neighborhood, and c- Assure that medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives are located sufficient distances from each other and from potentially sensitive land uses. G � -L %c/L7 /,Q- ,�? Planning Commission Resolution December,2008 5A218—ZTA—Medical Marijuana Cooperatives and Collectives Page 2 of 2 Section 2: The adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's General Plan because it provides for the establishment of medical marijuana cooperatives through reasonable standards and regulation, and provides an opportunity for those seeking the benefits of medical marijuana to do so in a safe and secure manner: LU 1.4 Encourage the expansion of existing facilities or the introduction of new uses that are considered to be of significant importance and contribute exceptional benefits to the City. Section 3: Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council amendment of the Palm Springs Zoning Code to establish standards and regulations for medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives, as described in the draft ordinance, attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as Exhibit A, in which the use is allowed by right in the M-1 and M-2 zones; and also recommends the following additional provisions: 1. That the use is allowed by right in the P (Professional) zone, and 2. That the use may be allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit in other non-residential zones. ADOPTED this 3'd day of December, 2008. AYES: 6, Conrad, Cohen, Ringlein, CafFery, Scott and Donenfeld NOES: None_ ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: 1, Hochanadel ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA r A. win , AICP Di r of a if Services � I eALM y� UF V^ APi City ®f Palm SpJL}— ingsU v Office of she City Clerk C k 37-00 L Tahquirz Canyon Way • Palm Sprm¢s, California 92262 C-441 p0 RN\P Tcl. (760) ;23-8�04 • Filx: (760) 322-8332 • Web: www.p;ilmsprings-ca.gov NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting of December 3, 2008, Public Hearing Item No. 1.B. APPLICATION TO AMEND THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATING TO THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS COOPERATIVES AND COLLECTIVES By a unanimous vote of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs the public hearing was continued to Wednesday, January 7, 2009, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING State of California ) County of Riverside ) ss. City of Palm Springs ) I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certiry this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., December 4, 2008, as required by established policies and procedures. James Thompson City Clerk J NOTICE OF CONT-Cannabis Coops and Coll 1.07.09 7 '1 Pose Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 u�