75A - PH - MEDICAL MARIJUANA - PROHIBIT

Home Browse Search

Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 October 1, 2007 Page 4 could be allowed to operate in all specific development (SD) districts that allow retail and service uses, as well as the city's C1, C2, C3A, C4, C5, and C-SM zones. Several expert reports on the negative secondary effects caused by medical marijuana storefronts are attached to this RFCA for the Council's examination. They are: (1) the California Police Chiefs Association Compilation Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensary Negative Secondary Effects; (2) the Riverside County District Attorney's Office White Paper on Medical Marijuana; (3) the City of El Cerrito Police Department Memorandums; and (4) sworn declarations submitted by the Chief of Police of Anaheim and two other Anaheim police officers defending a challenge by an existing medical marijuana dispensary to Anaheim's ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries. Also attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 24, 2007 and information supporting the proposed ordinance and considered by the Planning Commission in its consideration of the matter. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On July 31, 2007, the City Council Public Safety Committee recommended an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries be considered by the City. On September 24, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 and adopt an ordinance approving Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 by a vote of 6:0 (Munoz absent) to define and ban medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones and to amend Chapter 18 to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in the city. In recommending the proposed action to the City Council, the Planning Commission recommended adding a section to the ordinance setting forth the Planning Commission's wish to review the issue in two years to reconsider the ban if in that time the dispute between state and federal law is resolved in favor of permitting such facilities. That provision was not considered or approved by the City Council Public Safety Committee. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission's recommendation for future review of the ban be implemented by motion of the City Council rather in the body of the ordinance. If the City Council wishes to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, in introducing the ordinance, the additional language to be added to the ordinance should read: "The ordinance shall be reviewed in two years by the Planning Commission." 7 5A-4