Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 13-456 <br />revenue from such operations. <br />On July 16, 2012, pursuant to an appellate court decision that prohibited local jurisdictions <br />from banning medical cannabis dispensary operations (County of Los Angeles v. <br />Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (July 2, 2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 601 (2d Distr., <br />Div. 1), the City Council decided that it would allow the moratorium to expire. The City Council <br />also directed the City Council Rules and Communications Committee to develop an ordinance <br />and amendments to the Zoning Code to allow a limited number of dispensaries to operate in <br />the City. That direction culminated in the draft proposed ordinance now before the City <br />Council. Recommended Zoning Code amendments that conform to the proposed ordinance <br />are also drafted, and would be presented, along with the proposed ordinance, to the City’s <br />Board of Zoning Adjustments for review and comment , and the Planning Commission for <br />review, comment, and recommendation to the City Council. <br />In early May, 2013, the California Supreme Court held, in the case of City of Riverside v. <br />Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., et al. (S198638), that cities and <br />counties may pass outright bans on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana <br />dispensaries within their jurisdictions. This case settled the issues called into question by <br />several appellate court decisions (including Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective) on <br />whether, notwithstanding the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program <br />Act, local agencies could enact land use and zoning regulations that could include an outright <br />ban on medical marijuana dispensary operations. The law is now clear that cities may ban <br />dispensaries, or regulate where, when, and how they operate. <br />To recap, the ordinance itself is modeled after the City of Oakland’s 2011 amendments to its <br />medical cannabis dispensary ordinance; the proposed ordinance also borrows from the City <br />and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health’s regulations related to edible <br />cannabis product handling, labeling, and distribution. The ordinance is in strict compliance <br />with the California Attorney General’s August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and <br />Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use. Staff also believes that the ordinance <br />complies with the common law related to the establishment and operation of medical <br />marijuana dispensaries. <br />Finally, the City Attorney has advised the City Council in past hearings and proceedings that <br />the possession and distribution of marijuana is illegal under the Federal Controlled <br />Substances Act. In a new memorandum dated August 29, 2013, the Justice Department <br />(“Department”) makes clear that marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Controlled <br />Substances Act and that federal prosecutors will continue to aggressively enforce this statute . <br />To this end, the Department identifies eight (8) enforcement areas that federal prosecutors <br />should prioritize. These are the same enforcement priorities that have traditionally driven the <br />Department's efforts in this area. <br />Outside of these enforcement priorities, however, the federal government has traditionally <br />relied on state and local authorities to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their <br />own narcotics laws. This guidance continues that policy. Thus, for states that have enacted <br />laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, whether for <br />medical or recreational uses, the Department expects these states to establish strict <br />regulatory schemes. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately <br />strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the states that it is deferring its right to <br />Page 2 City of San Leandro Printed on 9/11/2013