HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 55D - ADDITIONALMATTHEW S. PAPPAS
A T T O R N E Y
E -AlAm:
OFFICH@MATTPAPPASL W.COM
HAND- DELIVERED
Hon. Manuel Pulido, Mayor
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92701
22762 ASPAN ST, #202 -107
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
June 17, 2014
Re: June 17, 2014 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item — [PROPOSED] City Medical Marijuana Initiative
Dear Mayor Pulido:
(949) 382 -1485
FACSMLE: (949) 242 -2605
I ask that this letter be included in the records of the aforementioned City Council
meeting after being marked and numbered as an exhibit. My office represents several
seriously ill and/or disabled individuals who are members of medical marijuana collectives
located in Santa Ana, California.
I am now in receipt of the proposed Santa Ana initiative /ordinance the Council
intends to place before voters for approval /rejection in November, 2014. I have reviewed
the ballot initiative. Included with this letter is a true and correct copy of the proposed
ballot initiative with areas highlighted. Also included is a copy of a lawsuit filed
approximately two (2) weeks ago by the City of Riverside against a medical marijuana
ballot initiative that has qualified for inclusion in that City in November. Please note that
the lawsuit filed by the City of Riverside alleges the ballot initiative proposed for that
City is invalid and preempted by Federal law.
In October, 2011, the Second District Court of Appeal agreed with my arguments
against an ordinance passed by the City of Long Beach that is very similar to the ordinance
you are proposing for Santa Ana (Pack v. Superior Court, 2011). Although the California
Supreme Court later granted review in that case, the City of Long Beach repealed that
ordinance rendering the case moot. While I am not citing that case for its legal proposition,
it is available on the Internet solely for the purpose of examining potential issues cities and
counties need to be aware of when crafting legislation in the area of medical marijuana.
I am well aware of the City's relationship with Best, Best and Krieger. It is my
opinion that law firm used the core Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.87 ordinance as
Mayor Manuel Pulido
June 17, 2014
Page Two
a "roadmap" for the ordinance before the Council tonight. It is also my belief, after
investigating the matter, that Best, Best and Krieger may be operating for its own interests
rather than on behalf of the City and its citizens. Oddly, your proposed ballot initiative
looks very much like the Long Beach ordinance that was in -part stricken by the appellate
court.
In the Long Beach case, the appellate court essentially found that the permitting or
authorizing provisions of former LBMC Chapter 5.87 were impermissibly conflicted with
Federal law. The Court also held that the specific provision of Long Beach's ordinance
that compelled testing of marijuana directly conflicted with federal law. Your ordinance
contains an almost identical provision. Although Long Beach called what it was issuing a
"Medical Marijuana Collective Permit," changing the name of that permit to a "Conditional
Use Permit" does not alter one of the fatal flaws in the proposed law — like the Long Beach
ordinance, it conflicts with federal law.
The proposed ordinance also compels individuals to provide information that can be
used to incriminate them because all marijuana activities are illegal under federal law.
Each provision of the ordinance that compels what could result in federal criminal charges
is likewise invalid. The City cannot compel individuals in compliance with State law to
incriminate themselves under Federal law through a scheme designed to "permit" a
federally illegal activity.
At the same time, Santa Ana is not part of the federal sovereign. It is a part of the
sovereign state of California and must give meaning and effect to state law even in areas
where federal law may differ. Moreover, the City cannot be compelled to enforce federal
law nor can its officers be conscripted by the federal government in order to enforce the
remote central power's laws.
Attached is a marked copy of the proposed ordinance. The marked copy has a
legend at the top with color indicators. Each section of the ordinance that is impermissible
has been marked by the respective colors. Given I have stricken laws in this area and have
handled multiple cases in this area, I urge you to carefully review this letter and the
accompanying exhibits. The taxpayers of Santa Ana should not be exposed to having to
pay for the defense of lawsuits attacking this poorly drafted proposed ordinance.
There is an ballot initiative already on the November ballot provided by the Citizens
of Santa Ana. I have reviewed that proposed initiative and it is not subject to the
preemption and discrimination issues I have outlined above. While it may not be perfect, it
is far less vulnerable to attack in court in my opinion. Moreover, although it contains
restrictions that I believe violate California's Disabled Persons Act, it is not subject to
federal preemption attack based on the issuance of permits, forced incrimination or the
Mayor Manuel Pulido
June 17, 2014
Page Three
compelled violation of differing federal law. That is the ordinance that should move
forward — not this one.
I urge you and each member of the Council to seriously consider the concerns I
have outlined herein before you move to put the fatally defective proposed initiative on the
November ballot.
Very truly yours,
Matthew S. Pappas
MSP.jm
Encl.
u❑00
p m m
m O
Fc of c3o3�mmm g� 33y ZN
N30 D Z C C
m'�;m m m 3m n 8Qm m dam nom A �' m m
»o RAi Av ���m p1.a °= °'»'O'v_°'`�M w'mM o�mm y ➢➢-I .'py -I G)�ND Z 3 3
m ^nN
5L, 'M 6m_JN "�DMN N^p>, 5 (DU -1p�DXy(MmmzDZ, O y -91 y
mm3' °C' O -f� mmNyN O o o
ZO Z' 0, :< A r m '
me mSH 5. ° �my> d- m m Z yCr�mD �<O
m¢� m mo °» m'n m,�m3 n-. F �e ? »,�i �9 �AZKy >-
j 3.o go�mNO. o =w Nq3 o.mm d -. -`^' to.... O�rn1O=mO CZ OO OZ A � y n 0
»H, mmm mmo�mmm�. i m¢� m Oy3mOmnm�O m T N m m
0 o H >o mm m �<mmT T N D
Na��- m m yNtin� m 3 m0 N mTA -y O
11 J�_m o» rov Nm= ^3m�.o� °m0 amm. �N�yDAry02 m m
m D
a3l d ' n -cm ° o3c �m- •_ ' w�ii fiw= w n -b'd nm ZD->' >POD -p M"n m y a 3 m
3 OW �g p
im C) O a j OS. m 3d mm y O n m z D
u m m2m OR �OAmON A O 20 am m A 3 m
a o�gNF� ¢ odH' oo55m
_ a On a yr r c0Z i m z A O< O y
m mZ yoA m T O
3
M is yONO as ➢
m m D>
O A mA O W m m m O <
m vrm v3 om��m >> «m,N Nd ova C Oy -�m0M, mm A
9.3 = N 2'y Z m y O
vcy a2:m o� Omm a�oNV�� o2a mnZnvimo'..�0 y m
�p1 m -m -NJm JON m 3 0~ mzOTO O m
m °J _ .m.°...d �m� mt3o -m(g °�m m'e.0 ymZyy O2T0 2 O
O.sm f0d 0 n°ym yyddj O a' CNOOOZmDT n
3< J> 3-Ai p y
,0...
a egg 9 m m
m°
m
m
0
m W °. omi So�B`�°m
`?
mm mmm Qmm noma
A
3m
mm
A
,c m 4 i m? m° -Era
r
y
'_
°.O
p
iz
aSS�omm3 °'om
o
'm
2n- �m���_ o -�.
p1F 3m
'<O
4'
m
go
.Z
Oz
O
�mnmNm
mN
'_cD '- t�C m
m
am
o�
yy
mySm �, mmm n
�. 1.
�$ a
�`�.8c o mC
c
mD
^ s
Orm
am a- m8a_�0
°3.-.3
e'em
$
5:q Nc
3
nom'
mm
m m m
�
o
Er m
N90
OA
�$OSmm
'm S.S..3nn
qm °•�mmcmm
c
m ° =�m
4.4mm
N3 m'ndm°
A
g Tt
a s
na
x
00
mm'�o �.m
m
yCy
o
m
v
(i
ii OO O.d O >°-ddNma
�IUZ m1�3N�W >0N
D
o19
O
J 66 8 8 ?rd 5 d n9
.3
m m<
mz� d'S omm
m
n om >m m
o nim...m G+i,a 9.2'
m
>O"c7,
m'g
N
>n
a3gmm °�
ma
m
�1O_�SB 3ur+o D3 n10
s_£m
O
ay.�3a mam
m 3 a;E
F N C N Q C j ,Z J >> m so
9
n
�m
m
DN
m° m
amo�,ma �nA
E
ec3Sm=- �mzOFO^
a d m U1.0
y
c
d
>
° S m n
m
m
m
2
sm �NOm J Bmr
m�
$ o 'O -'o 8'.34 m 3
N-°.
m
9D
a
mm3 QNnJn Wmoo
m'
B�
�yp1 m. 3a. nr
O
mss- °g�.'Ngo
s�8 olquft
m
a
N m o O T S (a O
�
N O o m J 3 ° Q
�
$
'm a
F5mS mC
3
m_
am
° 83
.°�.gP3m8 Po
s
S�`
3
m� 5m om'N a�.
S
fm,
°m.ccn0
a1°
$3nc3o-
3m.m^
gm 3�m
3J
gm
mV
Nmm
m�3mP
R•2"`a
=
ad
a83
mm
°c'
u
°g
n
om
8 -a o8m
m0
m�
3
�n
ffi °_
m'n
8 am
42mN8=m
s�
a -�
ymuy
maaD
u
dow2�m�3`��
amt
q °c
o
4!
a,gm
m
off +
psco
w ov
mk
°
nu
mFm °6- ys'FOi,
m66�
as S.�S
8
�_
-.`
m°m3
mo
m
c
w�mc3S
v9m -32 '0�%�'mo i�H
2Nnw
wN
um=
mm
��w
�°
.EL
a
m
o �W
rom
= o�
wJgm 8yn
3
° 2���
7
:.� o �m
nm �Nma m >>
`0g
ms
mm
ti
mm
�'m
5,2.- m&9
bo mopoo
mm
m..
y
we ar
D
FS5Oo ^wo8m�
mm
'gym
8m
°
ES4wm�
°m
�$53m°
$w
6 4
and
?
m °L
?
P
3
a
R�
V'NH
83
33
=
g
.°n'_$�a
$3'
sa '-
qm
`^ oN°
9 w
8 °a
a
m
m
m
^$
3
a
o
FQ
m°
m Q
^mg
30��
3
8
o�9 ^`.1.'
`$J
=.�m
°
Fm n�°Dmyn•Z
<e,28
°
mm
ow -o
m 8
.°J o
om5
H
J�'�
9w3�g>-
a o�$3
n OF,-
El
m m W
m :G N^
m _nR
Q
8
J
_!¢0
O a N
l
^3m
3
Ana
3
'mo
rmw
mPm m'BSno��o;^c
Ei
5
S
3
a
moxmm�8o�
a
om nm�
$
'm a
F5mS mC
3
m_
am
° 83
. i.
3m.m^
gm 3�m
3J
gm
mV
Nmm
m�3mP
R•2"`a
=
ad
a83
mm
°c'
u
°g
n
om
d
mo
m
6N8D
ffi °_
n
Nx
oy
9,
3m
rmx
s�
a -�
ymuy
maaD
u
amt
q °c
o
a,gm
m m
o�
=nm
8
�_
m°m3
mo
c
Soo
m
o �W
rom
°m
vm
3
m3m
6 4
m$
m m
P
9m
a
R�
V'NH
J
$3'
sa '-
m
9 w
8 °a
m
^$
3
m
o
S
^mg
30��
d'
v'Q
°
;o
°
mm
ow -o
m 8
_a3
El
^3m
Ana
3
'mo
rmw
ns•
Ei
aoam
d
H
jam-
-'<o
�o-
mm_
m
m o°
Sao
Sm
�E
m
o
v° m'
m°
333m
'
a°^'Nwam
�ma
o3K
m
u
me
_>>
Nam
�oav
'o
ao
m
Gw_z
mZ
f.
w
T
a
m
38'8
m
m
m
S
3 =
rn
S
a
d�
g
=.o g3 Z
a
v: ,w0-+
<w mo ° n
9°'_,
3
z
o
-,
-0 w o
<
d
K m m N
N
0
S O J N N
0
c
C°
3
3 <
o
s >
$r
P.
�
y3a
°wo
m�a
m 77
m m
�m'w
m'� m N
o'v
�o
m"t°�
»mgsOm
m
°� o m
o.
$¢m
m
?
m
y�g
w
�sm
o'�`oni aam:A
a8
m
=a
02
aC,
m03° cv
Sa
}_
um_
aim
ppS x'33
C j
a L
�N
9
8
d
m
v
pm
3
S�m
°o
sm
a2
o
c
Ei
Ev
go
m
nom m
m
�oav
'o
ao
m
Gw_z
mZ
f.
w
T
a
m
38'8
m
m
m
S
3 =
rn
S
a
g
=.o g3 Z
2Z
v: ,w0-+
<w mo ° n
9°'_,
3
z
o
-,
-0 w o
<
d
K m m N
N
0
S O J N N
0
c
C°
3
3 <
o
s >
$r
P.
�
ry
m m
�m'w
m'� m N
o'v
�
o
�
m
°� o m
o.
m
?
m
y�g
w
�sm
o'�`oni aam:A
a8
m
=a
}_
C j
a L
�N
9
ma
Ev
go
m
nom m
m
wDA�
o
nSain S^
s
m 3'
aam na°
nm
ij
v
ms
n 3
f115'0
..o�o'�
m d
j C
.m
m m m3
a
�3sd
H�
'm
mnmw
v
d
w90
^D
d�
3
a�-
m
m
D
O
N
U=
°i
80,
m m
°n
6n1:Acd
n
w n m
.0
g n
.
3 mmQ o
m 0 o
3 —
OGm3
'
mm
�O p"
m'
N
ampi'0
v m
y
J
1
g
o
'00 ry
'0800
Q m ^ �..8 0
31O 0-0 _N
°
m
A
w
e
6
m
g
N
m
pa ° o
v
-
F
yn
My
e m
n
ma
m
a
�i
w
ym
y$�O
n�npa
o.°m
°.
10�
owN�
Om
'O"�W
-ME,,
ID
O
my om3
my
°v
m
Or
d 9 m
d
N
0
EF N
J 0=
a
d
O 2 <
n
O
-
(p 0
q =m
..�
50 Nm
pp
s
�
OW
O
Nm�
Oj
2yAnmf
�$. 6
d
°c"
J
C
m8 - w
m' <
516
Om
y
3 R
E
O
dOO. j:
o"0 Z
I
m'
8 0
g°
a3
mo3m
m
m
am
m
un
23
w
.°3m�3n
w °
o
m
a=
g °
m
2
m rmvm
3'
3
n -9' =n gmSm
o'3w�
m
a
o a
s3
vm°
`S3
gya
m
do
Er
im
EF
n
w
ndi6
N�
j
Odm
m O
a
p
F
-
-OPT
O
9
��i
WE
o
R-
14m33
n
m
N
$
m'
D3mo
3
m
ij
v
ms
n 3
f115'0
..o�o'�
.m
m m m3
m�pS w $� om'o mm
'm
mnmw
v
d
w90
^D
' ^
O
N
U=
80,
m m
°n
g m< p 3° °^- z
w n m
g n
m
3 mmQ o
m 0 o
3 —
m'
g
o
w H Z
Q m ^ �..8 0
31O 0-0 _N
°
m
w .�' = g
o
m3
° ^�
n <$
mom,9<
e
°
g
N
m
n
m
a
�i
w
ym
y$�O
m$an
�m ymmp+
10�
Om
'O"�W
m
my om3
my
°v
m
oo
=y
0
mo�cm
�.m
Oro
_�
m'�'�o�im
pp
s
�
�$. 6
O N (11 (0
C
m8 - w
516
8 0
23
w
°O1
m
a�2
a
o m
3
mm
Z m
n -9' =n gmSm
o'3w�
3
n
o a
s3
vm°
`S3
gya
m
Er
EF
'ma 3n_.g3 Soo~i3�o°c o.3 JOB c�'ca
w
��Za >ammmm3 m�v.n3 tic v301mc_x 33
0g�oO�mmg��°'R�m3
@.m non!°m'0mg�- °. =mmo�m
m?
ma 2�2,i°m °mf'ew3Ew- .�oa�' <�'���n3
� �cc momom cv. tp '^m3 �' °ammc°
Jm ^3'm m° `
n O o o 3 v m c
7 0-0
mn J
my� °ma° 3�'m m i3m
aan`��amm °mmn m - m�m- °3 3 a =m`D
8
c m$ 3 8.m o n Q m v ° ^_.� o °.� m m m-r y
OP 6 ¢�TmC- ymO�mmJd�C. -
mo_ 3 3 n
2 a 0 O.S
m _n�... RR �xmJ,mm^m n,z m9.
Q S'^ m m m 6 jp 3{mO m'
i3 N o m o m g m 3 a
te a�3t m _ N - c " U 3 d 3 '' ma moa a ' @3 a, m o�
v
v o
n
n
7
n
ogm�o
�omNxm ^. .m L°Nm�
°-m�3�m�3 m no�cJCm�'
m
o' �aNZO2 n z3 0. 0'
k3Qmm o'o > >6 <53
ammH 9 'n m3Om °c°
c-°
3 _7N fq
m Om m
OdOmOno'` m Om�a or_
3.� _asN9m
f0 m. m'36 w N�'b yF
m m
61 Z
o n
m
f .cn xm3mFi. w' mK'
a o �
®�•�„��- oma36�
�3mmyd�g�T�a
ado �. <QOd�
a°mw6 z
daonoud %�
um °momz�+°mJ
n��3 a. 46�
c3a<g_N..
33,�� °me $_
3��Q gm IIm m�
O$o 3
bj�al ¢m p.�2W
= n'own'j -
m
d-
a m
°a s °g ° ='° d m ;
�av "a�em ",a
N � a
d m
°m'm 3'ag9a0 8
Pry O N 3 C m C
Egg
3 oma Fo°i °gn ®aa
m �o3 °Nm agaa
3, c�mcomJBm <m°
1 10
a a O N
NO_NV m 00
�$mnn 9,m mm
N O O ✓ O
c�s�O -D4 -• ^o
N m w
m
a °cffi m:=0 -os
$ism omE @Nm84°
w6aN m n'°na
m- ?.m?osda zo
'mmg�a nE m'm
mvggF� `agm b''om
7 x�
°ma �'�mD D °35m `3mz
OHIO a o 3 0
0
' a am�da
m ®S�w
mmb'? ^n oe3m
nc ov m°
end0
a 4 E �cmi
�in.°`C mN9 c6
dm�Q �°. =5a3i
Ea
6Pg,N 6�m
— a
o -
N
7N
C J a
'¢ 3
mom
my
6 -'mom
2mc�.
" -omm3
nm�'m3 °�'
Z
oi°-mn
aID
CJ
N
C.
aoc
o
3-� °�
Uy
D
3
a3�o
a
om¢m m'
'�
n3�
S.
=za B"
for
� 3 <p
�
So
� c m m
g$
° a° 5
m
e �.
�•
m
6i o�� o v
m
e
o do
3 =. g S
-m..
a
m
yao �o
w
a'
m°
m
a°
�'mmod
o
io
¢
n
-'S
3~,ao
mod'
amo
m
=a�
.e
m
j
dx�
s
�_��.
o
o
�maJm
�o
yr'm .'c
mamv
k
-
m'o
JO_g
mda ma
.'<�
' a
m
Poimmm 3.m
- -am
n
SLo
m
mo
OR
m¢ m o°
m
m
m S$ o
n
n S Q a
m ry
m
3 m_ c
g
0 Q<
�'n
mmw�
asa --�o
R 0��
'm H
nm
m o
'<cM
m
wo3 °..
a7Nr?
a_
ma
m
m
m
3�mmm
Ft
o¢a3
v...3
a
'mow s ?-m. s•Jm
;
°;�
40 o
roam c ��
m
'cam go
Q.m
wm�$E010
a
Isom
�A °�3
mH�a
�n�
mam
EP
°.,7
o3`¢DO JO m
$
nc 1O m
q�' w m
Foam
om o r�
G
u
m
o'
m
m ¢.
m g
Ei m
3
o
a6-
�m�
a ti
m? 3
off_.
No E�
iic
s+3�
n s
P. `c ro
o g f
..ym3
m o
nz
SO
N
7N
C J a
'¢ 3
my
.zy
ScmJ�T
rN
¢
Z
CJ
N
•
D
3
�
a m
a
`<
yao �o
m°
m
6m 3m
¢�i 'm<r
m
io
¢
n
onsvns3 m "v: 3 cN �'a� 2'm �°N ow <s N mD`N
S bpd Dm po D.m ° ucin ti� H� o gmxmin n Hm
o_
O7 O 3 O� � O m N✓ LQ i 2 V 6� � j' �v � R N � ID ry m N m N Z
aoc»y° :y bN=o a'._ 9 � vq aW-h aomm - 3 mg cw F Ncl
mu no. B.°
�m�N mom �5 nvwn
ym S,Dm v�o maw° m No m8�° N�o� a e enNOO tiD
N 'S'NAncm m g14 O 7-. mm °� a �w 0 m3
n p C N n 2 0 p d n n NaEO N N
nC j .� d= mSD 2L '. >!C i,
A �X
7 v m a» o y m Q S m w w d m m m C y d y W O
A m° m O 3 9 m 'm y 3� m v -
� �
£ 03 .wm» •m@ m nm m z 1.3
3mFn$ 3.. 2Bpo a� m a via �.5. ^ u a�o<m
�mSm Nm go `zs J,� n�° n � $m mmS v �m o•� n�
nn X08 mm -.nma m
m= � IF
No�,00d�d gom oo .. m <m v m mmaa d¢
°c ^o'M dS.'�4m mn Sao maw 4a3
w a�
gom nmom� ��^$3ca
ngm 3mmy s
.°_'.= O-EP'o . ,°o' g.'c$aa �'m _' °mo
m'o•m'sm
Er0eB am
mm3 $s
__-
O
m w
wmn- 'n
3° o N
8
Oy¢won�'m..�ymno 6nm3 Z
8 Tmaom'p- n'b�mn.c�. �'c
l =omm
°2
05°w.
a x _
°
m 3 m m
°woo 0 6b iSm�,m ^ m
13
'w ae:q m
�.2 s., m
o m
'S s c n
�07�'a °$rysa$'��n gwmd`"B�Lm�
O--pcp ONOdm�n.�VV��O^Sm
y p
6O 6m °r0m �?
V `<b�mq C�Omw m_.N ^mi�m`}G
� }O9
a
6 @Ky�03mVy�p£
m m 3 O O J O W N 0 p y0. n' y Ol C m W w mtl
a b 0
yna�
-Be -mvw
�
�.D'D
'flmo j36SmmSN�n�_, 'm' =tea
�Q�o
wm�mom .cm>
mx'm - `�B-S -� w -m m m °QOy
d o m„= ^
° a"awci �3�p @f.mg�n'mz- daN�P
a�.,mps
�.
m m °mz =annl3 a
M
m
`G
N N N O G v O a N 7 N U W O=
C 3 V O. O' 'm
d a N 0° g .� V ? [3
j 3
ap3wjm�N?o�nO �io`�OmO
m_
�r9 Z.� �� S.m mmv
EF
Os�ry
rydO
7OuQyrn a�'941.m
p3j 01tN
-
3�G `G}n �'cm n3wm° mm pO'0i �"m 6t"n N_ ».d mii..�'<�d�r
3mP m
=��OVC c$acm mEmc wv> m55wS�Wy`
m16 5 n °`c
.E
E Z m o t 5 on S m@
�
c z ao c g n m °o
rt�m <m °E .yc�; OWm3 o`m mE nb Ti�nB
E (°j a8 n'�a E."-. nncco o° .w m =m0 >�u n
3 UOe 8
a_W«.ctmc m�a °- E aao QE-C4
a9 o °w m.E c R- E mn
u E W R q B=-5 C m 2� G m N m T N S Q E m m T m d V C a
r, S n W N$ a H v U .E o a m E a
n�
nm °_ cU.0 y @ rSc NSc W C
E 3 -m c ct E, t mYS_ wO9 Hm o oi'o_:'L m� u a g m r W$ `o m 's t _ o S a c y V m o m e'u ° h m n w l!
g cm g o.� � •. mm a c t a V °._ � o �,° n u
y c t w N y� Ti o 3 m. �yy t m m m`o ° E cNa°i n rn ty w a
O° m y m C 2 O N m N 0 E NR n mp y i C p
O J
Ep
9NNOWiOm 6 C CUa° ° O m jj��
-m --`�o �mcmOU .'aT_cm m 0 O
vNp m R
D m
NUn °.,o
w E `r @ >E O m c°
'�onmmwca °o�`� mmc cUEu a9 aim% W�jr
61 cm3m'� °fl mw -`3 Waw�v
mmxgaoR� rdy'NFE�m a
-mom E'c m° ''E�$ °c'c° > qr�° E w'o me
�gU O.cm3 �'^ �eE'noEm v.o oaEnmou
mn m H' ^cm6£'ox mmWR � c w w
of0m mm o" @nOmt wac 3�'.�T. -.cc o m E
... W X
= N]
Ey m @Q
E
US
Z�m cf coon w��'o- `o mad «_
m �« mg °3E nps Em ➢md o$$t E =_`gym E«°, E;
U o'oc�
omrnmama�
m m c'O nacic na mE3Lmx= EN n - c5ng�m moo° ° c $u
Q C N WN °N N�6 m wisp m X
>Tmimym'��^E E °m m'6 u@ "aEc z �C= SEw�wN X�� C
0
Ec w AWto-
0 36
�mWaic >u C
0 5 4
v o m'. ry uw 5._cg W
� C�e dcU c�OV nTm �Nm W m0���r� Hm- � UOS
t5 T
m $ o o n- 9
E
m - �9E - w-c
2�b�E
Zo maJ -O '
E -3i `mE m
o �
o o o b
c, n
w °Wmm� ccaZ.EnS my
o �t WTDE one mT zi
N+ym
0°os.5 vm.o
]
m�go v�
pa°o
so }Oa
N?'^
@.5. d J'J° m m
omoSSo
asap m
N -n N X 7 1
N n� p^i _ C
N
< O'
dQ
O Sm.
"� N
•a
$-Oim ¢' -gym T39
�
OdSC�m3J
Smo ^m...
D5 2a
ad'AX
mN
pO
o
o
° 5N o
p
O Od O
Q.
pm3p0
d 3
D
ry 6
!�
p0 ^ m
Sd
"m
°
j
��'a.JO-. m_3
am
m
gom
O
ii
'�N'a nO
m
S.N
Sm Cryc
mSmtii $ 3am0
]
�.�
T
mov
9.
a`�omrv3�
Jmm °^
$md
�mmc a,
�ma;3
3
63awo
a
�35].°
Oyo. -r
rsp - o
n
m
S
n
S _ate
a
°m
^ 5.
anmrd
afN-mss'm_vomm
a
m
^
and
�a
S y °m3
3 ° ^ =.5
0
°n
^O-
mg�gN��mcg
m
m
5 o
�" ^om4
o
ropd ° m�
0 3 o m �' zz
dm
'gym` =`m'v
mp Q j
r3
m¢ C'w
-
L
O Q
CL
y_.m
m
iammW'30�J
m'W�3`5
B�o
<2nm
�.co g0o�Qpdnq
S
2
vm
°ndm °?
Noo6
0`°3�
mmsmm
=m-F°
O. a 0
?
A
.�
J y a�Q
✓i
N m p j ry
o
a (3J `j
N$Y �
'm0 .G `G o
5
o
N3V
r�y�
NOm
¢00aN.d
Fwp4J
m���6
3
w o•
B5F
ommm'¢
dN.o
of ��m
m'S?$
mN3:3`Po mET 3
mm
0
c' -'s��n
cL
pa°o
N -n N X 7 1
N n� p^i _ C
N
< O'
O Sm.
"� N
•a
$-Oim ¢' -gym T39
�
pNO
ad'AX
mN
pO
O
ii
'�N'a nO
N
Omd9
Sm Cryc
mSmtii $ 3am0
]
�.�
T
mov
9.
a`�omrv3�
Jmm °^
$md
�mmc a,
�ma;3
3
63awo
a
�35].°
Oyo. -r
rsp - o
n
m
n
S _ate
a
°m
anmrd
afN-mss'm_vomm
a
m
^
�a
S y °m3
3 ° ^ =.5
0
°n
^O-
mg�gN��mcg
m
m
5 o
n
m o n °i
0 3 o m �' zz
mp Q j
r3
m¢ C'w
$$
l 6 E; m Nm
L
O Q
°
°_�,
B�o
<2nm
�.co g0o�Qpdnq
S
2
vm
°ndm °?
Noo6
0`°3�
mmsmm
D�+w my =cm�m m
ia;
Er
o
_,,a
aR
3
w o•
ommm'¢
.acm ?o
of ��m
m'S?$
mN3:3`Po mET 3
mm
\;
�i /
-�
q
r \B
t -Z!
Q/;
2
;G;joz
�
-
! ■Q Z!
d!
ma
\
\ {
/Hu
q
< !
EEF
# >!
!
6
{ \}
/� q
/ \
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
anA.m wsornce
�wm,�
wrresuox,unsu
GREGORY P. PRIAMOS, City Attorney, #136766
JAMES E. BROWN, Supervising Deputy City Attorney, #162579
NEIL OKAZAKI, Deputy City Attorney, #201367
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
City Hall, 3900 Main Street n
Riverside, California 92522 c"o° Z7P1jkrra0p���'O
Telephone: (951) 826 -5567 °FRR ERS� E;SW t
Facsimile: (951) 826 -5540
Email: nokazaki @riversideca.eov JUN 04 20m
TIN40THY T. COATES, #110364 A. Sanchez
GARY D. ROWE, #165453
GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP
5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90036
Telephone: (310) 859 -7811
Facsimile: (310) 276 -5261
Email: tcoates @gmsr.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RIVERSIDE,
a California charter city and municipal corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE R`C 1405588
CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a California charter
city and municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
0
REBECCA A. SPENCER,
INTERIM REGISTRAR OF VOTERS FOR
THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, and
DOES I through 10, inclusive,
Defendants,
V.
KIMBERLY THOMPSON, an individual;
MICHAEL EPPOLITO, an individual; and
ROES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF (C.C.P. Section 1060)
Plaintiff City of Riverside ( "Plaintiff') alleges:
-1-
** Deemed verified pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure Section 446.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
1. This case involves a pre - election challenge by Plaintiff to a proposed ballot initiative
(the "Initiative ") that attempts to use the initiative power to delete portions of the Municipal
Code that, pursuant to State law. bar the City from enacting zoning provisions contrary to federal
law. The Initiative also affirmatively authorizes the establishment of specific uses prohibited by
federal law. The "Notice Of Intent To Circulate Petition" and the Initiative itself are attached to
this Complaint as "Exhibit A," and are incorporated by reference herein.
2. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law is the
supreme law of the land, and state court judges are bound to follow federal law in all instances,
even when it contravenes state law.
law,
3. State law prohibits the enactment of any legislation that contravenes federal law.
4. Local law prohibits the enactment of any zoning laws that contravene state or federal
5. The Initiative goes beyond the legislative powers of the electorate by purporting to
amend the Riverside Municipal Code to a) contrary to state and federal law, eliminate the
requirement that City zoning regulations not contravene federal law; and b), contrary to slate and
federal law, enact zoning regulations that affirmatively sanction and support the cultivation and
distribution of a Schedule 1 drug in contravention to the dictates of federal law.
6. Immediate and urgent relief is therefore sought from this Court to ensure that the
Registrar of Voters and Plaintiff shall not be required to expend any additional funds or to
engage in any further actions to place the unlawful Initiative on the ballot.
THE PARTIES
7. Plaintiff City of Riverside ( "City ") is now, and has been at all times mentioned in this
complaint, a California charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the
2511 constitution and laws of the State of California.
8. Defendant Rebecca A. Spencer ( "Spencer ") is the Acting Registrar of Voters for the
27 11 County of Riverside ( "Registrar of Voters "). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
28 thereon, alleges that Spencer is the person within the County of Riverside ( "County "), acting
Cmnrm WSOH
aso Mx b y e ¢ r - 2 -
RrvEa51u):GYSSZI
t95t1 xz�.rb;
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C Ali mWsOE E
399uMaP1SiRFkT
RWEMU4CA91522
(951) 926596)
through the governmental department known as the Registrar of Voters, responsible for
administering, coordinating and conducting elections within the County, including certifications
and elections pertaining to initiatives.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that real parties in
interest Defendants Kimberly Thompson ( "Thompson") and Michael Eppolito ( "Eppolito ")
(collectively, "Proponents ") are residents of the City and County, and are named as proponents
of the initiative.
10. The true names of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are
unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint when the names
of such defendants are ascertained.
11. The true names of defendants sued herein as ROES I through 10, inclusive, are
unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint when the names
of such real parties in interest are ascertained.
VENUE
12. This action is brought by Plaintiff City of Riverside against Riverside County
residents and a Riverside County official. As such, venue is proper in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
13. The Initiative exceeds the initiative authority of the electorate by attempting to amend
local zoning laws in such a manner that they will conflict with federal law, state law, and with
other local laws that bar the enactment of any legislation that conflicts with state or federal law.
14. A local electorate's right to initiative is "co- extensive with the legislative power of
the local governing body." (DeVita v. County, of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4111763, 775.) "Thus, if the
state Legislature has restricted the legislative power of a local governing body, that restriction
applies equally to the local electorate's power of initiative." (Mission Springs Water Dist. v.
Verjil (2013) 218 Cal.AppAth 892, 920.)
///
0
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17i
18
19
20
21
23,
24
25
26
27
28
Ct AtIUAYEYSWX6
WDM.5i
R�E MS@ 915n
(951) d'J. -5 %)
15, Federal law is the supreme law of the land and trumps the laws of a state or locality
that are inconsistent with a federal law. United States Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 provides
that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof: and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
16. Government Code section 37100 states that no "legislative body" in the State of
California may pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law. Plaintiff is a "legislative body"
within in the meaning of Government Code section 37100.
17. Riverside Municipal Code section 19.150.020 (which the Initiative purports to
amend) embodies the same principle. It states as follows regarding permissible zoning in the
City of Riverside: "Any use which is prohibited by state and /or federal law is also strictly
prohibited" Thus, consistent with Article VI of the United States Constitution and Government
Code section 37100, the City of Riverside cannot enact local zoning laws that contravene federal
law.
18. The Initiative would delete the current portion of Riverside Municipal Code section
19.150,020 that prohibits any use prohibited by federal law. (See Exhibit A, pp. 33.)
I9. There are numerous land uses that are prohibited by federal law. Examples include
the following:
a. The land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000 protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions
from discrimination in zoning laws. Prior to the passage of this law, a Florida city
prohibited religious institutions from locating in the downtown area for more than
two years, which forced a religious institution to leave the area and created a
religion -free zone. Another Florida city had prohibited churches and synagogues
from locating within city limits.
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1'
2
3�
4
51
7
9
10
11
I2
13
14I
15
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cm'AnowWsO'P
3900 MAP STPFPf
RNMI E,CA9_5r
(951) blb55e1
b. While it does not preempt local zoning laws, the Fair Housing Act applies to
municipalities and other local government entities and prohibits them from
making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that
exclude or otherwise discriminate against protected persons.
c. Regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 demonstrate a growing, strong federal policy to
promote a national communications system. As an example, FCC regulations
require local governments to expedite and approve the installation of smaller
residential satellite dishes previously prohibited in some communities. (47 C.F.R.
§ 25.104) Another example is declaratory ruling PRB -1, which requires that
"local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas
based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to reasonably
accommodate amateur communications, and to represent the minimum
practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose."
d. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a locality is required to reasonably
accommodate persons with disabilities by modifying its zoning policies, practices
and procedures and may not intentionally discriminate against such persons.
Dadian v. Village of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001).
e. Federal uses and buildings are exempt from local zoning requirements. United
States v. City of Chester, 144 F.2d 415 (3rd Cir. 1944) (stating "[a] state statute, a
local enactment or regulation or a city ordinance, even if based on the valid police
powers of a state, must yield in case of direct conflict with the exercise by the
government of the United States of any power it possesses under the Constitution.
[citations omitted]" Id., 144 F.2d at 420).
f. The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, the Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970, and the Noise Control Act of 1972 preempt local
attempts to regulate railroad activities. See, generally, City of Auburn v. United
States, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998).
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
CMATro1WkY OU
3 XAAWBrvrP[
9IV 'IDEGM2
(951( 9X.5561
20. The Riverside City Council's enactment of Section 19.150.020 ensures that local
zoning law does not conflict with state or federal law. This ensures that the City Zoning Code
does not present an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of die United States and the State of California. This provision serves a vital
importance in numerous areas such as protecting religious institutions; preventing housing
discrimination; protecting consumer's right to receive television programming; and protecting
persons with disabilities from discriminatory zoning practices. By striking the state - imposed
restriction on local zoning uses that conflict with federal law, the Initiative seeks to allow uses in
conflict with the law of the United States.
21. In addition to deleting the current portion of Riverside Municipal Code section
19.150.020 that prohibits any use prohibited by federal law, die Initiative would enact new
zoning laws and amend others, including designating marijuana distribution as a "permitted use"
in the City of Riverside. (See Exhibit A, pp. 26 -28, 29, Article V (Table).)
22. The Initiative would enact the "Medical Marijuana Restriction And Limitation Act,"
which by its terms, would permit "the operation of medical marijuana provider associations
within the City" of Riverside. (Exhibit A, p. 8.) The Initiative states that "jtjhe City shall
recognize the status of a medical marijuana provider association to operate within the City," and
the Initiative permits the cultivation, transportation and distribution of marijuana. (See, e.g.,
Exhibit A, pp. 22 -23.)
21 The Initiative would also repeal the "Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries" section of the
Riverside Municipal Code, which currently prohibits mobile marijuana dispensaries and bars
people from delivering marijuana within the City of Riverside. (See Exhibit A, pp. 46 -47.).
24. The Initiative, which would enact local ordinances requiring the City of Riverside to
facilitate the cultivation and sale of marijuana, would plainly "stand as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" in enacting the
CSA, and thus would violate the Supremacy Clause. (Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(2000) 529 U.S. 861, 873, quoting Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) 312 U.S. 52, 67.)
111
-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
I
25. These provisions relating to marijuana are in direct contravention of the federal
2 Controlled Substances Act ( °CSA "), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., which "prohibits the manufacture
3 and distribution of various drugs, including marijuana." (United States v. Oakland Cannabis
4 Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 486.) "Whereas some other drugs can be dispensed
5 and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U.S.C. § 829, the same is not true for marijuana. Indeed,
6 for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has `no currently accepted medical
7 use' at all." (Id. at p. 491, quoting 21 U.S.C. § 812; see also Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S.
8 1, 14 [ "In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U.S.C. §
9 812(c).... Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse,
10 lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically
1I supervised treatment. § 812(b)(I) "].)
12 26. Because the Initiative would contravene federal law, the Initiative would also
13 constitute an impermissible attempt by Plaintiff's electorate to legislate beyond the powers given
14 to it. The electorate's power to legislate via ballot initiative is constrained by the federal
15 constitution, Government Code section 37100 and by Riverside Municipal Code section
16 19.150.020. (See Supremacy Clause; Gov. Code, § 37100 [a "legislative body" cannot pass
17 ordinances that conflict with federal laws]; RMC § 19.150.020 [ "Any use which is prohibited by
18 state and/or federal law is also strictly prohibited "].)
19 27. Thus, the federal constitution, state law, and local law bar the electorate from
20 enacting laws that contravene federal law. As a result, the Initiative —which specifically amends
21 the Municipal Code to delete the requirement that City zoning regulations not contravene federal
22 law, and facilitates, aids and abets cultivation and distribution of a federally- classified Schedule I
23 drug -- exceeds the power of Plaintiff's electorate to enact legislation.
24 28. While courts generally defer challenges to ballot initiatives until after an election, this
25 rule does not apply when the challenge is based on a claim that "the measure is not one that
26 properly may be enacted by initiative." (Independent Energy Producers Assn, v. McPherson
27 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1020, 1029; Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Verjil (2013) 218 Cal_AppAth 892,
28 919 [same].) "It is clear that a measure may be kept off the ballot if it represents an effort to
CR /,TpR4EY5nYTu
3%Dhf NsA -7-
Rrcers�or CA9i$22
(95]) 526556
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27'
28
Cm nimxHErsrnvxE
YAW Mww SlM.i
Rla(951) aa- 1,
(9515 81s.Y,6:
exercise a power which the electorate does not possess." (Mission Springs, supra, 218
Cal.AppAth at p. 919, citing City of San Diego v. Dunkl (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 400.)
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Declaratory Relief Against Defendants Rebecca A. Spencer and Does 1 -10, Inclusive)
29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28,
above as though set forth in full herein verbatim.
30. Plaintiff brings this declaratory relief action under Code of Civil Procedure section
1060, which is a proper avenue of relief for a party who seeks to demonstrate that a proposed
ballot measure is beyond the powers of the voters to adopt. (See Mission Springs Water Dist. v.
Verjil (2013) 218 Cal.AppAth 892, 910'. Cite gfSari Diego v. Dunk-1, supra, 86 Ca1.App.4th at p.
398 1 samel.)
31. As a result of the Initiative's language, an actual controversy has arisen and now
exists between Plaintiff and the Proponents, as real parties in interest, concerning the propriety,
legality and constitutionality of the Initiative and the propriety of Plaintiff taking any further
action with respect to the Initiative. Plaintiff contends, among other things, the following:
a. The Initiative exceeds the initiative authority of the electorate by enacting laws
that would contravene the federal constitution, state law, and local law that bar the
electorate from enacting any laws that contravene federal laws.
b. The Initiative violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
c. The hnitiative is subject to pre - election review.
d. The Initiative and any resulting measure must be excluded from the hallot.
e. Any further processing of the Initiative by the Registrar of Voters and subsequent
consideration of the Initiative at an election would be an inappropriate,
unnecessary and wasteful expenditure of public funds, and
f. Plaintiff and the Registrar of Voters should be relieved and prohibited from taking
any further actions with respect to inclusion of the Initiative in any election or on
any ballot as would otherwise be required by the pertinent provisions of the
Elections Code.
_g_
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CM AiroWWS OMF
39DOMAWSMff
RWEMME�CA925n
(951 ) 626-5561
32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that real parties in
interest, Proponents, dispute these contentions and contend that:
a. The Initiative is valid and permissible under California and local law, and
b. Plaintiff and the Registrar of Voters are required to continue with all necessary
acts to ensure that the Initiative, if it receives sufficient signatures to otherwise
qualify for the ballot, is submitted to the voters in accordance with the pertinent
Elections Code provisions.
33. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of its rights and duties and a declaration
regarding whether the Initiative and any measure based thereon is impermissible under
California law for the foregoing reasons and therefore outside the power of Plaintiff s electorate
to adopt, and that, if so, Plaintiff and the Registrar of Voters need not include the Initiative on the
ballot in comtection with an election.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
1. For a judicial declaration:
a. That the Initiative is impermissible for the foregoing reasons;
b. That the Initiative is beyond the power of Plaintiff's electorate to adopt;
c. That Plaintiff and the Registrar of Voters are relieved of any duty to further
process the Initiative in connection with any future election; and
d. That no additional public funds should be expended to process the Initiative.
2. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
DATED: June 3, 2014 GREGORY P. PRIAMOS, City Attorney
JAMES E. BROWN, Supervising Deputy City Attorney
NEIL OKAZAKI, Deputy City Attorney
BY, Nt'"i (1/ v---
GREGORY P. PRIAMOS
NEIL OKAZAKI
Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF RIVERSIDE
CA #L]3 -0454
OACywm\W PDocs\D039M 19100201720.docx
-9-
COMPLATNTFOR DECLARATORY RFLIFF