Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br />OCTOBER 1, 2007 <br />TITLE: <br />PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE <br />AMENDMENT NO. 2007-04 TO AMEND CHAPTER <br />41 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO <br />DEFINE AND BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA <br />DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES AND ORDINANCE <br />AMENDMENT NO 2007-02 TO AMEND CHAPTER <br />18 TO PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA <br />DISPENSAR ~S <br />~~Lt c~ - <br />CITY MANAGER <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br />APPROVED <br />^ As Recommended <br />^ As Amended <br />^ Ordinance on 1S' Reading <br />^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading <br />^ Implementing Resolution <br />^ Set Public Hearing For_ <br />CONTINUED TO <br />FILE NUMBER <br />Adopt an ordinance adding Article XIII to Chapter 18 and amending <br />Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment <br />and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries (Zoning Ordinance <br />Amendment No. 2007-04 and Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02). <br />DISCUSSION <br />California has two statutes dealing with medical marijuana. The <br />Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was enacted through a popular initiative, <br />Proposition 215. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 (SB 420) was <br />enacted by the State Legislature in the belief that Proposition 215 was <br />being ignored by California cities and counties. Both Proposition 215 <br />and SB 420 authorize cultivation, possession and transportation of <br />marijuana in certain medical circumstances. Proposition 215 only <br />provided this authorization to a patient with a prescription and to a <br />single qualified caregiver, who Proposition 215 defines as the person <br />"who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or <br />safety of" the patient. In adopting SB 420 in 2004, the Legislature went <br />beyond Proposition 215 and arguably removed this one-on-one relationship <br />between a patient and the qualified caregiver, which has empowered <br />storefront operators to seek to proliferate throughout California. <br />In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court, relying on the Commerce <br />Clause and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, held that <br />these California state laws do not provide a defense to individuals <br />prosecuted in federal court under applicable federal law for cultivation, <br />transportation, or possession of marijuana. After the June 2005 Supreme <br />75A-1 <br />