HomeMy WebLinkAboutColleagues-Memo-Measure-C City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
September 10, 2012 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 3134)
DATE: September 10, 2012
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Yeh, Scharff, Klein
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO REQUESTING COUNCIL PASS A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO IN OPPOSITION TO MEASURE C
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council pass a resolution in Opposition to Measure C as set forth in the
accompanying resolution.
BACKGROUND
In 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which exempts
patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under State law for possession and
cultivation of marijuana for personal medical use. Subsequently, the State Legislature adopted
the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which also exempts patients and caregivers who participate
in medical marijuana collectives or cooperatives from State criminal liability for possession and
cultivation. However, the Federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits possession, cultivation,
and distribution of marijuana and contains no exception for medical use. In 1996, the City
Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in Palo Alto.
Currently, there are no dispensaries operating in Palo Alto.
Measure C is an initiative that would amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to permit three
medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in Palo Alto in any commercial or industrial zone
subject to certain prescribed zoning criteria. The proposed ordinance would amend the Palo Alto
Municipal Code as follows:
(1) The ordinance would require the City to issue three medical marijuana dispensary permits,
and to have three permits issued and outstanding at all times.
(2) Permits would be issued for one year and could be renewed annually.
(3) The ordinance would allow dispensaries to sell marijuana to minors if the minor has a
prescription.
(4) Marijuana must be allowed to be grown or cultivated on the premises.
September 10, 2012 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 3134)
The establishment and regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries has been the subject of
extensive litigation and there are several cases pending before the California Supreme Court
relating to cities' ability to permit, regulate or ban medical marijuana dispensaries. If the City
issues permits for marijuana to be grown and sold within the City of Palo Alto, it is unclear what
the legal ramifications of this could be. However, these ramifications could range from federal
criminal prosecution of those aiding and abetting the cultivation and sale of Marijuana to the
City losing any ability to regulate the marijuana dispensaries.
Federal prosecutors are cracking down on California’s medical marijuana industry. The
California Supreme Court is reviewing the state of the law. On the advice of its city attorney in
October of 2011, the Redwood City Council unanimously voted to ban medical marijuana
dispensaries. Mountain View, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, Cupertino and most if not all peninsula
communities ban medical marijuana dispensaries. On February 14, 2012, the San Jose City
Council repealed the Medical Marijuana Regulatory Ordinance and medical marijuana
dispensaries are not currently legal in San Jose, although a number of them are still operating.
In San Jose, for the 18 months prior to the repeal, 77 complaints had been received, including
public nuisance, illegal drug use, harassment of passersby, loitering, smoking too close to
schools and day cares, and disturbing the peace. We should not make Palo Alto the center of
the Peninsula for this commercial activity with demonstrated negative impacts as other cities
move to ban pot dispensaries.
CONCLUSION
The treatment of marijuana as “medicine” sends an unwarranted message to young people and
others that consuming marijuana is a benign activity or even beneficial to health.
Without an efficient or effective mechanism to determine if someone is driving impaired while
under the influence of marijuana, issues around safe driving and law enforcement would
increase.
Many people continue to struggle with drug addiction, which can lead to poor school
performance, job loss and serious medical problems.
The presence of marijuana dispensaries can lead to negative “secondary effects” on our
neighborhoods, such as illicit drug sales, loitering, and even criminal activity.
Therefore, we urge our colleagues to support the accompanying resolution to oppose Measure
C.
** NOT YET APPROVED **
120906 sh 8261599 1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in
Opposition to Measure C
WHEREAS, under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, it is a crime to cultivate,
transport, distribute, possess or consume marijuana; and
WHEREAS, there is no exception under Federal law for medical need or medical
use; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, California voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate
Use Act, exempting patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under State law
for possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal medical use; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the State Legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program
Act, which provided patients and caregivers access to medical marijuana through “collective,
cooperative cultivation projects” and allowed cities to adopt and enforce laws consistent with
these State laws; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting medical
marijuana dispensaries in Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, currently there are no medical marijuana dispensaries operating in Palo
Alto; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, Palo Alto voters will vote on whether to adopt
Measure C, an initiative ordinance that would require Palo Alto to issue three medical marijuana
dispensary permits; and
WHEREAS, treating marijuana as “medicine” sends an unwarranted message to
young people and others that consuming marijuana is a benign activity or even beneficial to
health; and
WHEREAS, many people continue to struggle with drug addiction, which can lead
to poor school performance, job loss and serious medical problems; and
WHEREAS, the presence of marijuana dispensaries can lead to negative “secondary
effects” on our neighborhoods, such as illicit drug sales and use, loitering, and even criminal
activity
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto opposes passage of Measure C.
120906 sh 8261599 2
SECTION 2. No City funds or resources shall be expended on campaigning or be
used to implement this Resolution.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this Resolution is not subject to review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Attorney City Manager