Here is a copy of the letter sent to all the weed shop owners yesterday. Per the LA Weekly there were 1046 letters mailed out. That’s a lot of weed shops! The short story is they have to bail by the 6th or face $2,500 a day in fines and misdemeanor arrest. Like they have listened to, or obeyed the rules/law so far. Psssshhhh. To download the doom and gloom and joy yourself click here.
The real nuts and bolts is in the last paragraph, in bold. Clicky clicky!
City Hall East (213) 978-8100 Tel
200 N. Main Street (213) 978-8312 Fax
Room 800 [email protected]
Los Angeles, CA 90012 www.lacity.org/atty
CARMEN A. TRUTANICH
City Attorney
August __, 2012
Dear Business/Property Owner:
On September 6, 2012, Ordinance No. 182190 prohibiting medical marijuana
businesses in the City of Los Angeles will become effective. This Ordinance repeals
and replaces Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, which
regulated marijuana collectives.
Ordinance No. 182190, specifically Section 45.19.6.2 A. of the Los Angeles
Municipal Code, provides that: “It is unlawful to own, establish, operate, use, or permit
the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana business, or to participate as
an employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any manner or capacity in any
medical marijuana business” (emphasis added). Subsection B of Section 45.19.6.2
states that the prohibition in Subsection A includes “renting, leasing, or otherwise
permitting a medical marijuana business to occupy or use a location, vehicle, or other
mode of transportation.” Section 45.19.6.1 defines a medical marijuana business, in
part, as: “Any location where marijua na is cultivated, processed, distributed, delivered or
given away to a qualified patient, a person with an identification card, or a primary
caregiver.” The ordinance excludes certain conduct from the definition, such as
collective cultivation in a dwelling unit by a maximum of three, limited to qualified
patients and primary caregivers, or provision by a range of licensed health care facilities
including home hospices.
We are advised that a medical marijuana business may be operating at the
above referenced address. The operation of this business and use of the property as a
medical marijuana business is unlawful. It violates the City’s land use laws, the
sunset clause of the City’s original ordinance which took effect on June 6, 2012, and
Section 45.19.6.2 of the newly-passed ordinance. Section 45.19.6.5 of the new
ordinance provides for both due process and enforcement. Continuance of a medical
marijuana business at this location may subject you to legal action resulting in a courtordered
closure and imposition of monetary penalties of $2,500 a day, as well as
prosecution for a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $1,000.00 fine.
Each day that the property is used in violation of City law is a separate violation.
Additionally, administrative action, also involving notice and hearing, to discontinue the
use and padlock the property may be pursued.
The City’s repealed ordinance was adopted in January 2010. The repealed
ordinance regulated, rather than banned, medical marijuana businesses. The City was
sued by dozens of dispensaries that challenged the legality of those regulations. The
trial court enjoined, or struck, five provisions of the ordinance and, as a result, the
ordinance could not be implemented. The injunction was reversed on July 3, 2012 by
the Court of Appeal, but the reversal came too late – the ordinance had expired in June
2012. Moreover, newer lawsuits continue to face the City that contend that the City
never had any right to affirmatively regulate or authorize dispensaries because to do so
violates federal law. This preemption theory, which has been endorsed by our Court of
Appeal, means that any effort by the City to affirmatively regulate, rather than simply
restrict, dispensaries will be subject to litigation risk.
The City spent nine months in settlement discussions with the dispensary
litigants and the court. We are not able to share the content of those confidential
discussions, but we can tell you that we did not achieve settlement, which would have
exempted from the gentle ban a number of regulated collectives, accompanied by an
agreement that there would be no legal challenges. The unresolved and continuing
legal impasse has been accompanied by a massive proliferation of unregulated
dispensaries in the City, leaving the City with only one clear legal option – to recognize
compassionate access, but prohibit medical marijuana businesses within the City.
The City seeks your compliance with Ordinance No. 182190 at this time. You
may go online to http://contact.lacity.org/ord/mmo.pdf to review the full text of the
ordinance. If you have questions, please consult your own attorney. If you wish, you
may complete and return the enclosed form indicating the action you are taking to
comply with Ordinance No. 182190. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in
these matters.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM W. CARTER
Chief Deputy City Attorney
Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION LETTER
RE MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESS AT:
___________________________________
Name of Medical Marijuana Business:_____________________________________
Date property leased to/by above Business:________________________________
Name of Landlord:____________________________________________________
Name of Tenant: _____________________________________________________
Present Status of Business:___ _________________________________________
Action to be taken to comply with LAMC § 45.19.6.2:_________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments:_________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Form completed by: (Print Name):________________________________________
Person completing form: Tenant Landlord Other _____________________
Signature:______________________________________ Date:_______________
Please mail to:
City Attorney’s Office
Medical Marijuana Section
200 N. Main Street
Room 966
Los Angeles, CA 90012
The ordinance passed by the city July 24th 2012 making this all a big fat reality:
182190 ORDINANCE NO. _
An ordinance repealing and replacinq Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code, in response to recent appellate court decisions, by prohibiting
medical marijuana businesses, while preserving the limited state law medical marijuana
criminal immunities, until such time as the California Supreme Court rules regarding
what cities can and cannot regulate and the City enacts new medical marijuana
legislation consistent with that judicial guidance.
WHEREAS, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), adopted by the voters in 1996,
and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), enacted by the State Legislature in
2003, provided California’s qualified patients and their primary caregivers with limited
immunities to specified criminal prosecutions under state law for purposes that include
ensuring that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for
medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to state
criminal prosecution or sanction;
WHEREAS, commencing in 2007, according to local media reports and
neighborhood sightings and complaints, more than 850 medical marijuana businesses
randomly opened, closed and reopened storefront shops and commercial growing
operations in the City without any land use approval under the Los Angeles Municipal
Code (LAMC or this Code) and, since that time, an unknown number of these
businesses continue to randomly open, close, and reopen in Los Angeles, each with no
reguiatory authorization from the City;
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has reported that, as
the number of marijuana dispensaries and commercial growing operations continue to
proliferate without legal oversight, the City and its neighborhoods have experienced an
increase in crime and the negative secondary harms associated with unregulated
marijuana businesses, including but not limited to, murders, robberies, the distribution of
tainted marijuana, and the diversion of marijuana for non-medical and recreational uses;
WHEREAS, in January 2010, the City established a comprehensive regulatory
framework to balance the unregulated proliferation of medical marijuana businesses,
access by seriously ill patients to medical marijuana, and public safety, by adopting the
Medical Marijuana Ordinance (MMO), adding Article 5.1, Chapter IV, of the LAMC,
subsequently amended by ordinances including, in 2011, Temporary Urgency
Ordinance No. 181530 (the TUO);
WHEREAS, the City’s efforts to foster compassionate patient access to medical
marijuana, which capped the number of dispensaries through priority registration
opportunities for earlier existing collectives, a drawing, and mandatory geographic
dispersal, resulted in an explosion of lawsuits by medical marijuana businesses
challenging the validity of the MMO and TUO. These related actions were deemed
complex and are assigned to Department 309 of the Los Angeles Superior Court. MJ
Collectives Litigation: Americans for Safe Access et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et ai,
1
Los Angeles Superior Court, Lead Case No. BC433942 (and all related actions). These
lawsuits have been accompanied by the continued opening and operation of
unpermitted businesses, unending neighborhood complaints regarding crime and
negative secondary effects, an inappropriate and overly excessive drain upon civic legal
and law enforcement resources;
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the Second Appellate District of the California
Court of Appeal, whose decisions bind the City of Los Angeles, ruled in the case of
Pack v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.AppAth 1070 (2011) (Pack), that significant provisions
of the medical marijuana ordinance of the City of Long Beach, which was modeled after
Article 5.1, Chapter IV of the LAMC, are preempted by the federal Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) [21 U.S.C. Section 801, et seq.], which bans marijuana for all
purposes;
WHEREAS, the Pack court held, as more particularly stated in the opinion, that
while cities may enact prohibitions that restrict and limit medical marijuana businesses,
cities are preempted under the CSA from enacting affirmative regulations that permit or
authorize medical marijuana businesses and marijuana related activities, and further
raised the specter of violation of federal law through the actions of individual city
officials, 199 Cal.AppAth1070, 1091, fn. 27;
WHEREAS, although the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a narrow injunction
against pieces of the MMO in December 2010, on October 14, 2011, it: (1) denied
numerous motions to enjoin the MMO, as amended; (2) declined to address the impact
of federal preemption on the City’s medical marijuana regulations in light of Pack until
that case becomes final or until “our Supreme Court decides to weigh in on the federal
preemption issue”; and (3) observed that Pack could have a profound impact on the
TUO “which bears more than a passing resemblance to the Long Beach medical
marijuana ordinance”;
WHEREAS, given the similarities between the ordinance at issue in Pack and
the City’s MMO, as amended, and to avoid any possibility of violating federal law, the
City discontinued implementing the MMO, as amended. Further, given the multiple
threats from dispensaries to litigate each and every clause of the registration provisions
of the MMO, as amended, the City realizes that it cannot ever implement the amended
MMO without incurring unending and pointless litigation intended to stymie any future
implementation of these regulations;
WHEREAS, in December 2011, California Attorney General Kamala Harris
advised the State Legislature that new legislation is required in order to resolve
questions of law regarding medical marijuana that are not answered, but instead are left
open and unclear by existing state law. The Attorney General specifically called out the
need for legislation on the contours of collective and cooperative cultivation, as well as
on the definition and rules for dispensaries;
2
WHEREAS, in early 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review of Pack,
as well as review of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & WeI/ness
Center, 200 Cal.AppAth 885 (4th Dist., 2011) and People v. G3 Holistic, 2011 Cal.App.
Unpub. LEXIS 8634, both recognizing that cities may properly ban medical marijuana
businesses consistent with the CUA and MMPA; and further declined to enjoin a
complete ban of medical marijuana business then proposed for the City of Long Beach;
WHEREAS, additional appellate rulings concerning medical marijuana were
issued in February 2012, including by the Second Appellate District of the California
Court of Appeal in the case of People v. Colvin, 203 Cal.AppAth 1029 (2012), and by
the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal in the case of City of Lake
Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective, 203 Cal.AppAth 1413 (2012), and these
additional rulings are the subject of requests for depublication and California Supreme
Court review;
WHEREAS, an additional appellate ruling concerning medical marijuana was
issued in March 2012, by the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal
in the case of People ex rei. Trutanich v. Joseph, 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 437 (2012),
which held that that neither section 11362.775 nor section 11362.765 of the MMPA
immunizes marijuana sales activity. “Section 11362.775 protects group activity ‘to
cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.’ It does not cover dispensing or selling
marijuana.” “Section 11362.765 allows reasonable compensation for services provided
to a qualified patient or person authorized to use marijuana, but such compensation
may be given only to a ‘primary caregiver.”’;
WHEREAS, the LAPD has reported that all of the medical marijuana business in
the City which they have investigated are involved in the sale of marijuana and
compensation is being provided by parties to persons other than those lawfully
designated at their primary caregiver, and are similarly in violation of the MMPA under
the analysis of the Second Appellate District in People ex reI. Trutanich v. Joseph; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to address the continued proliferation of medical
marijuana businesses that have previously argued to the courts, contrary to the City’s
laws, that all medical marijuana businesses, including those selling from storefront
shops to all persons with recommendations, may open, close, reopen, and operate at
will in perpetuity, with vested rights and without any regulation, in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is
amended in its entirety to read as follows:
3
ARTICLE 5.1
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
SEC. 45.19.6. PURPOSES AND INTENT.
The purpose of this Article is to permanently repeal the City’s existing medical
marijuana legislation in response to the conflicting decisions of the appellate courts by
prohibiting medical marijuana businesses, while preserving the limited state law medical
marijuana criminal immunities, until such time as the California Supreme Court rules
regarding what cities can and cannot regulate and the City enacts new medical
marijuana legislation consistent with that judicial guidance. It is also the purpose of this
Article to stem the negative impacts and secondary effects associated with the ongoing
medical marijuana businesses in the City, including but not limited to the extraordinary
and unsustainable demands that have been placed upon scarce City policing, legal,
policy, and administrative resources; neighborhood disruption, increased transient
visitors, and intimidation; the unavoidable exposure of school-age children and other
sensitive residents to medical marijuana; drug sales to both minors and adults; fraud in
issuing, obtaining or using medical marijuana recommendations; and murders,
robberies, burglaries, assaults, and other violent crimes. This Article is not intended to
conflict with federal or state law, nor is this Article intended to answer or invite litigation
over the unresolved legal questions posed by the California Attorney General or by case
law regarding the scope and application of state law. It is the intention of the City
Council that this Article be interpreted to be compatible with federal and state
enactments and in furtherance of the public purposes that those enactments
encompass.
SEC. 45.19.6.1. DEFINITIONS.
A. The following words or phrases, when used in this Article, shall be
construed as defined below. Words and phrases not defined here shall be construed as
defined in Section 11.01 and 12.03 of this Code.
“Building” means any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, for
the housing, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind.
“Location” means any parcel of land, whether vacant or occupied by a building,
group of buildings, or accessory buildings, and includes the buildings, structures, yards,
open spaces, lot width, and lot area.
“Marijuana” shall be construed as defined in California Health and Safety Code
Section 11018 and further shall specifically include any product that contains marijuana
or a derivative of marijuana.
“Medical marijuana business” means either of the following:
4
(1) Any location where marijuana is cultivated, processed, distributed,
delivered or given away to a qualified patient, a person with an identification card, or a
primary caregiver.
(2) Any vehicle or other mode of transportation, stationary or mobile, which is
used to transport, distribute, deliver, or give away marijuana to a qualified patient, a
person with an identification card, or a primary caregiver.
(3) Notwithstanding Subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, “medical marijuana
business” shall not include any of the following, which shall not be subject to
enforcement for violation of this Article:
(a) Any dwelling unit where a maximum of three (3) or fewer qualified
patients, persons with an identification card, and/or primary caregivers process or
associate to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana on-site for their own
personal medical use or, with respect to the primary caregivers, for the personal
medical use of the qualified patients or persons with an identification card who
have designated the individual as a primary caregiver, in accordance with
California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 et seq.;
(b) Any location during only that time reasonably required for a primary
caregiver to distribute, deliver, or give away marijuana to a qualified patient or
person with an identification card who has designated the individual as a primary
caregiver, for the personal medical use of the qualified patient or person with an
identification card, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section
11362.5 and 11362.7 et seq.;
(c) The location of any clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1200), a health care facility licensed pursuant to
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250), a residential care facility for persons
with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01
(commencing with Section 1568.01), a residential care facility fcr the elderly
licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 (commencing with Section 1569), a hospice, or
a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
1725), all of Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code where: (i) a
qualified patient or person with an identification card receives medical care or
supportive services, or both, from the clinic, facility, hospice, or home health
agency, and (ii) the owner or operator, or one of not more than three employees
designated by the owner or operator, of the clinic, facility, hospice, or home
health agency has been designated as a primary caregiver pursuant to California
Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d) by that qualified patient or person
with an identification card; or
(d) Any vehicle during only that time reasonably required for its use by:
(i) a qualified patient or person with an identification card to transport marijuana
for his or her personal medical use, or (ii) a primary caregiver to transport,
5
distribute, deliver, or give away marijuana to a qualified patient or person with an
identification card who has designated the individual as a primary caregiver, for
the personal medical use of the qualified patient or person with an identification
card, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765.
“Structure” means anything constructed or erected which is supported directly or
indirectly on the earth, but not including any vehicle.
“Vehicle” means a device by which any person or property may be propelled,
moved, or drawn upon a street, sidewalk or waterway, including but not limited to a
device moved exclusively by human power.
B. The following words or phrases when used in this Section shall be
construed as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 1746, 11362.5, and
11362.7.
“Hospice”;
“Identification card”;
“Person with an identification card”;
“Primary caregiver”; and
“Qualified patient”.
SEC. 45.19.6.2. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.
A. It is unlawful to own, establish, operate, use, or permit the establishment
or operation of a medical marijuana business, or to participate as an employee,
contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity in any medical
marijuana business.
B. The prohibition in Subsection A, above, includes renting, leasing, or
otherwise permitting a medical marijuana business to occupy or use a location, vehicle,
or other mode of transportation.
SEC. 45.19.6.3. NO AUTHORITY TO PERMIT USE IN ANY ZONE.
The use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for a medical
marijuana business is not currently enumerated in the Los Angeles Municipal Code as a
permitted use in any zone, nor is the use set forth on the Official Use List of the City as
determined and maintained by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall
not have the authority to determine that the use of any building, structure, location,
premises or land as a medical marijuana business may be permitted in any zone or to
add medical marijuana business to the Official Use List of the City.
6
SEC. 45.19.6.4. NO VESTED OR NONCONFORMING RIGHTS.
This Article prohibits medical marijuana businesses. Neither this Article, nor any
other provision of this Code or action, failure to act, statement, representation,
certificate, approval, or permit issued by the City or its departments, or their respective
representatives, agents, employees, attorneys or assigns, shall create, confer, or
convey any vested or nonconforming right regarding any medical rnarliuana business.
SEC. 45.19.6.5. DUE PROCESS AND ENFORCEMENT.
As has always been the law in the City, any enforcement action by the City for
failure to comply with this Article shall be accompanied by due process, Every violation
of this Article and each day that a violation of this Article occurs shall constitute a
separate violation and shall be subject to all criminal and civil remedies and
enforcement measures authorized by Sections 11.00 and 12.27,1 of this Code, In any
enforcement proceeding pursuant to Section 12,27.1, the notice required by Subsection
C.1 of Section 12.27.1 shall be provided only to the owner and lessee of the medical
marijuana business, and shall not also be provided to other property owners within a
500-foot radius.
SEC. 45.19.6.6. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision or clause of this Article or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other Section provisions, clauses
or applications thereof which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause
or application thereof, and to this end the provisions and clauses of this Section are
declared to be severable.
7
Sec. 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it
published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated
in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public places in the City of
Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the
Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street
entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located
at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records.
I hereby certify that this ordinance was..passed by the Council of the City of
Los Angeles, at its meeting of JUL 2 4 LOll .
JUNE LAGMAY, City Clerk
AUG 0 12012
Approved _
Mayor
Approved as to Form and Legality
CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney
Speci Assistant City Attorney Pursuant to Charter Section 559, I approve
this ordinance on behalf of the City
Planning Commission and recommend that
Date MAY 2 5 201IG1:.:1 _ it be adoptMeda.y 25. 2012
CF 11-1737 and 11-1737-51
File No.
Speak Your Mind
You must be logged in to post a comment.