Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br />MARCH 18, 2013 <br />TITLE: <br />ACCEPT REPORT REGARDING THE <br />MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE AND <br />DECIDE WHETHER TO ADOPT <br />PROPOSED ORDINANCE OR PLACE ON <br />BALLOT FOR NOVEMBER 2014 <br />ELECTION <br />CITY MAN4kk <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br />APPROVED <br />? As Recommended <br />? As Amended <br />? Ordinance on 1s' Reading <br />? Ordinance on 2nd Reading <br />? Implementing Resolution <br />? Set Public Hearing For <br />CONTINUED TO <br />FILE NUMBER <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br />1. Receive and file the attached Report prepared pursuant to Section 9212 of the California <br />Elections Code. <br />2. Call for the election and place the measure on the November 2014 ballot. <br />Alternatives: <br />a. The Council may place the measure on the November 2014 ballot and seek declaratory <br />relief; <br />b. The Council may adopt the measure without change and it would become effective <br />immediately; <br />c. The Council may direct staff to explore placing a competing initiative on the November <br />2014 ballot;' <br />d. In the future the Council may consider taking further action, including legal action, as may <br />be indicated after the California Supreme Court decides City of Riverside v. Inland <br />Empire's Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal. App. 41885.2 <br />1 The Council retains authority under Elections Code Section 9222 to place a measure on the ballot. A final determination on <br />whether the full text issue disqualifies the initiative measure could be avoided altogether by having the Council present the <br />measure to the voters as a Council sponsored measure. In order to do this the Council would have to direct staff to prepare the <br />measure and the necessary resolutions calling for an election. However, the Council would not be able to take action on the <br />resolutions calling for the election until after it complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the <br />California Supreme Court has ruled that City sponsored initiative measures, unlike voter sponsored measures, are subject to the <br />CEQA review process. Compliance with CEQA could delay placement of the measure on the ballot by six months, if not <br />longer. Another thing to consider is that the measure may have substantive defects and the Council may not want to sponsor a <br />measure that is not substantively sound. <br />z Last month the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and <br />Wellness Center, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 885. The Court has been asked to determine whether local agencies are <br />preempted, under federal or state law, from regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related <br />activities. The Court will likely issue its decision before this initiative is on the ballot. Depending on that decision, the City of <br />Santa Ana may decide to support this initiative, support the current ban on dispensaries, or propose a competing initiative which <br />more strictly regulates medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. <br />65A-1