6315 ORDINANCE NO. 6315
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTION 4.20.030 OF CHAPTER 4.20 OF TITLE 4 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES) AND SECTION 4.21.030 OF CHAPTER 4.21
OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (MOBILE
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES) RELATING TO
LAND OWNERS AND LANDLORDS AS PARTIES SUBJECT
TO THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED 1N SAID CHAPTERS,
AND ADDING SECTION 4.20.050 TO CHAPTER 4.20
RELATING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES.
WHEREAS, the People of the State of California approved Proposition 215,
which was codified as California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 and entitled the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("CUA"}; and
WHEREAS, the CUA provides an affirmative defense to particular state laws
regarding the possession or cultivation of marijuana for a qualified patient, or a patient's primary
caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient upon
the recommendation of a physician, and also provides an affirmative defense to the criminal
prosecution or punishment of a physician for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical
purposes; and
WHEREAS, California courts have held that the CUA creates a limited exception
from criminal liability for seriously ill persons who need medical marijuana for specified
medicinal purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, defined
circumstances; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, the Legislature of the State of Califomia enacted Senate
Bill 420 in 2003 (the "Medical Marijuana Program" or "MMP"), codified as California Health
and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 et seq., which requires the State Department of Health
Services to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to
qualified patients and primary caregivers, and which also prohibits the arrest of a qualified
patient or a primary caregiver with a valid identification card for the possession, transportation,
delivery ar cultivation of inedical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, one purpose of the CUA and MMP is "[t]o encourage the federal and
state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of
marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana;" and
WHEREAS, the federal and state governments have not implemented a specific
plan "to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical
need of marijuana," thus leaving cities to decide how the CUA is intended to be implemented,
particularly in regard to distribution of inedical marijuana through mobile or storefront
dispensaries; and
1
WHEREAS, the MMP provides statutory guidance for medical marijuana use and
cultivation, but it does not require that cities provide for or allow the establishment and/or
operation of mobile or storefront medical marijuana dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the passage of the CUA and the MMP, the
possession, sale and distribution of marijuana is prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances
Act, 21 U.S.C. Sections 801 et seq., and Section 11359 of the California Health and Safety
Code; and
WHEREAS, California law does not expressly authorize the sale or distribution of
marijuana by mobile or storefront medical marijuana dispensaries to a primary caregiver, a
qualified patient or a person with an identification card, as those terms are defined in Section
11362.7 of the California Health and Safety Code; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Municipal Code expressly prohibits the existence or
operation of both storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Anaheim,
as codified in Chapters 4.20 (medical marijuana dispensaries) and 4.21 (mobile medical
marijuana dispensaries), respectively; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5(b)(2) expressly
provides that nothing in the CUA "shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons
from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for
non-medical purposes." Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83 similarly anticipates that
local agencies may take action to regulate in this area, providing that "[n]othing in this article
shall prevent a city ... from adopting and enforcing ... local ordinances that regulate the location,
operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or collective ... civil and criminal
enforcement of local ordinances [and] ... other laws consistent with this article;" and
WHEREAS, in City of Rive�side v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness
Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Ca1.4th 729, the California Supreme Court held that neither the CUA nor
the MMP preempt local regulation or bans of inedical marijuana dispensaries, and that cities can
affirmatively and proactively prohibit such activities and uses, which is what the City of
Anaheim has done in adopting Chapters 4.20 and 4.21 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, both storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries have
been associated with criminal activities. Examples of such criminal activity reported in the
media include homicides, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes, such as the following:
a. In October of 2014, three armed men robbed an illegally operated medical
marijuana dispensary in Santa Ana, fleeing with an undisclosed amount of cash
and marijuana.
b. In June of 2014, a security guard at a Los Angeles medical marijuana
dispensary exchanged gunfire with two would-be robbers, killing one of them.
c. In May of 2014, the manager of an Oakland medical marijuana dispensary was
robbed of four pounds of marijuana by two armed, masked robbers as he was
leaving work.
2
___
d. In April of 2014, two armed robbers held up a medical marijuana dispensary in
San Diego County, threatening to kill the owner and a security guard. A gun
battle ensued, which wounded the security guard and killed one of the robbers.
The same robbers had held up another nearby dispensary just four days earlier,
also firing a weapon at a security guard.
e. In February of 2014, three armed men robbed a San Bernardino County
medical marijuana dispensary that was purportedly closed because of numerous
code violations.
£ In October of 2014, three armed men shot and killed a marijuana grower during
a robbery in Redding, and then sped off, prompting a manhunt that spanned two
counties.
g. In September of 2013, the Anaheim Police Department responded to a call for
service at a medical marijuana dispensary and observed that the glass front doar
was completely shattered. Although there was no one operating the business or
on the premises, it was readily apparent from the drug paraphernalia that the
business was a medical marijuana dispensary and that it had been broken into.
h. In March of 2013, a West Covina deliveryman was reportedly robbed after
making a delivery. The deliveryman told police that he was approached by two
subjects in ninja costumes who chased him with batons and took the marijuana
and money he was carrying.
i. In February of 2013, a Temecula deliveryman was reportedly robbed of cash
outside of a restaurant, which led to a vehicular chase that continued until the
robbers' vehicle eventually crashed on a freeway on-ramp.
j. In January of 2013, marijuana deliverymen in Imperial Beach were reportedly
robbed after being stopped by assailants (one with a semiautomatic handgun) after
making a stop.
k. In January 2013, a deliveryman was reportedly robbed of three ounces of
marijuana while making a delivery outside a restaurant in Riverside, and he told
police that the suspect may have had a gun.
1. In May of 2012, a deliverywoman in La Mesa was reportedly shot in the face
with a pellet gun by assailants who subsequently carjacked her vehicle.
m. In August of 201 l, a deliveryman was reportedly robbed of $20,000 worth of
marijuana (approximately 9 pounds) and a cellular phone in Fullerton, and
suffered a head injury during the crime.
n. In June of 2011, a marijuana delivery from a Los Angeles mobile marijuana
dispensary resulted in a homicide in Orange County when four individuals
reportedly ambushed the dispensary driver and his armed security guard and tried
3
to rob them. One of the suspects approached the delivery vehicle and confronted
the driver and a struggle ensued. A second suspect armed with a handgun,
approached the security guard, who fired at the suspect hitting him multiple times.
o. In April of 2011, a customer reportedly made arrangements for a medical
marijuana deliveryman to meet him in a store parking lot in Salinas. The
deliveryman was robbed, at gunpoint of approximately $1,000 in cash and 1.5
pounds of marijuana.
p. In March of 2011, two armed gunmen shot a medical marijuana courier in the
back of the head and dumped his body in an alleyway in Long Beach.
q. In May of 2010, a college student delivering medical marijuana was reportedly
robbed at gunpoint in Richmond. The assailants took $1,000 in cash and a pound
of marijuana.
WHEREAS, according to an article published in the Los Angeles Times on
November 28, 2014, banks and lending institutions are reluctant to do business with owners and
operators of inedical marijuana dispensaries because the sale and distribution of marijuana is
illegal under federal law. As a result of this, owners and operators of dispensaries often possess
and transport large amounts of cash, making them potential targets of criminal activity; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has received numerous complaints from
residents and businesses adjacent to medical marijuana dispensaries. The dispensaries generate
significant foot and vehicle traffic, their customers congregate and use the marijuana they
purchase on or near the dispensary premises, they strew trash, drug paraphernalia and other
items, and they generate significant noise. The City has also received reports of children being
exposed to marijuana smoke because it is being sold and consumed in proximity to their home(s)
or school(s}. This activity is detrimental to nearby businesses and disruptive and dangerous for
nearby residents; and
WHEREAS, despite the City of Anaheim's prohibition of storefront and mobile
medical marijuana dispensaries, and enforcement actions taken by the City to enforce that ban,
medical marijuana dispensaries continue to operate in Anaheim in blatant violation of City law.
Even in cases where dispensaries have been subject to judicial processes and/or ordered to close,
they often stay open. As a result, the City has, where possible, discontinued utility service in an
attempt to compel operations to cease. However, even this has not dissuaded some dispensary
owners and operators. Some medical marijuana dispensaries have continued to function despite
a lack of electricity through the use of headlamps, generators, and car batteries. In addition,
others have operated without running water. These practices pose significant health and safety
risks, examples of which include the following:
a. On November 6, 2014, the Anaheim Police and Fire Departments responded to
a medical marijuana dispensary where car batteries were being used to generate
electricity, producing hydrogen gas. Because hydrogen gas is an asphyxiant and
poses a risk of detonation and/or fire, the batteries were removed by the Fire
Department's Hazardous Materials team.
4
_.
b. On October 22, 2014, Anaheim Fire Department paramedics were dispatched
to a medical marijuana dispensary where a generator was being used to power
car/marine batteries and an inverter. A male was found lying unconscious and
rushed to the hospital suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning.
c. Three fires have been traced to the use of generators and/or car batteries to
generate electricity at dispensaries in Anaheim.
d. Medical marijuana dispensaries operating without running water (generally
using a trash can and a pump to replicate running water) pose an obvious health
and safety risk to their employees, visitors and the general public.
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the aforementioned reports of
criminal activity and hazardous practices contain persuasive, documented evidence that both
storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries and deliveries pose an immediate threat to
public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, concerns about non-medical marijuana use in connection with
medical marijuana distribution operations have been recognized by federal and state courts. One
example is People v. Leal (2012) 210 Ca1.App.4th 829:
"Not surprisingly, it seems that the enhanced protection from arrest
has proven irresistible to those illegally trafficking marijuana, for if
there is even rough accuracy in the anecdotal estimate by the
arresting detective in this case — that nearly 90 percent of those
arrested for marijuana sales possess either a CUA recommendation
or a card - then there is obviously widespread abuse of the CUA
and the MMP identification card scheme by illicit sellers of
marijuana. Ninety percent far exceeds the proportion of legitimate
medical marijuana users one would expect to find in the populace
at large. For this and other reasons, it is impossible for us not to
recognize that many citizens, judges undoubtedly among them,
believe the CUA has become a charade enabling the use of
marijuana much more commonly for recreational than for genuine
medical uses." �
WHEREAS, despite the City's prohibition of storefront and mobile medical
marijuana dispensaries, and past actions by the City to enforce Municipal Code Chapters 4.20
and 4.21 against those operating, working or volunteering in and owning storefront and mobile
medical marijuana dispensaries, there is an additional need to clarify that land owners and
landlords are accountable for the existence of storefront and mobile medical marijuana
dispensaries on their property. Evidence exists that land owners and landlords frequently know
of, should know of ar fail to use due diligence in renting or leasing space to persons who operate
storefront or mobile medical marijuana dispensaries on their property. Further, land owners and
landlords renting or leasing to persons that engage in such prohibited uses place neighbaring
commercial and retail land owners and landlords that do not rent to such uses at a competitive
disadvantage, constituting an unfair business practice (see, Will Your Tenant Go Up in Smoke?
The Risks of Leasing to a Medical Marijuana Dispensary in Los Angeles). The City also finds
5
that it is customary for land owners and landlords to include provisions in rental or lease
agreements that prohibit tenants or occupants from using their premises for any illegal or
unlawful purposes or activities, including activities that violate the Anaheim Municipal Code
(see, California Practice Guide, Real Property Transactions, Form 7:A). However, despite such
prohibitions, land owners and landlords have leased their properties for medical marijuana
distribution, transportation or cultivation, often at lease rates that are higher than for other
competitive lease properties; and
WHEREAS, the City's Code Enforcement staff has observed and documented the
following with respect to medical marijuana dispensary land owners/landlords and the impact
of such land owners/landlords on the City's ability to close medical marijuana dispensaries that
are operating illegally:
a. Because the owners and operators of inedical marijuana dispensaries are often
not well documented and/or difficult to ascertain, land owner/landlord
cooperation is critical to the City's successful enforcement of its prohibition of
medical marijuana dispensaries. In cases where a landlord is cooperative, the City
is generally able to close the dispensary. However, in cases where a landlord
knows of or permits a dispensary to operate and/or does not cooperate in the
City's efforts to enforce its ban, the dispensary often continues to operate.
b. There are a number of land owners/landlords who knowingly house medical
marijuana dispensaries on their properties. These landlords are aware of, promote
and profit from the illegal use on their properties.
c. Unscrupulous landlords who are not able to lease their properties for lawful
uses will instead lease to dispensaries, and will do so at a rate that is above what a
legitimate tenant would pay. These landlords financially profit from the illegal
activities of the dispensaries, while the properties of law-abiding landlords who
are not willing to lease to dispensaries remain vacant or underutilized.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the aforementioned examples contain
persuasive, documented evidence that land owners' and landlords' explicit or tacit acquiescence
to the use of their property for storefront or mobile medical marijuana dispensaries and deliveries
poses an immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, because of the contractual relationship between land owners and
landlords with those leasing, renting or occupying their property, and because land owners and
landlords are often prohibited by loan covenants with their lenders from allowing unlawful uses
to occur on their property, the City finds that land owners and property owners are capable of
and ha�e an interest in ascertaining the identity of those using their property for uses prohibited
by Chapters 4.20 and 4.21 of the Municipal Code and taking remedial action to prohibit such
activity on their property; and
WHEREAS, where local law is regulatory in nature and intended to protect public
health, safety and welfare, the courts have stated that "whether the context be civil or criminal,
liability and the duty to take affirmative action flow not from the landowner's active
responsibility for the condition of his land that causes such haxm but rather, and quite simply,
6
_ ____ _
from his very possession and control of the land in question" (Leslie Salt. Co. v. San Francisco
Bay Conservation Comm'n (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 605, 622); and
WHEREAS, Chapters 4.20 and 4.21 are regulatory measures to, among other
purposes, address public nuisance and protect the public's health, safety and welfare. The City
finds and concludes that clarifying that land owners and landlords are included within the
express prohibitions of Chapters 4.20 and 4.21 is necessary to further the regulatory purposes of
these provisions; not doing so would frustrate the effectiveness of these Municipal Code
provisions by materially impairing the City's ability to prevent and remedy the existence of
storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries in the City; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution grants charter cities the power to make
and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs. Article XI, Section
7 of the California Constitution provides that a city may make and enforce within its limits all
police, sanitary and other ardinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim, as a charter city, by and through its City
Council, has and may exercise all powers necessary to ensure the general welfare of its
inhabitants; and
WHEREAS, there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety
and welfare if the City does not adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 4.20 and Chapter 421 of
the Municipal Code to make clear that land owners and landlords are included within the
respective prohibitions of storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to promote the health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the residents and businesses in the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is enacted pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code Sections 11362.5(c)(2) and 11362.83 and the City's police power as granted broadly under
Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, in order to promote the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That Section 4.20.030 of Chapter 4.20 (Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) of Title
4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read in full as follows:
4.20.030 MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES PROHIBITED.
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in the City of Anaheim. It shall be
unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct or operate, or as a landlord or land
owner (or as such landlord or land owner's agent, property manager or similar person having
control over real property on behalf of its owner) allow or permit to exist, or be estabiished,
conducted, operated, owned or managed on or within any real property owned or controlled by
7
_ . ____..
such person, any Medical Marijuana Dispensary, or to participate as a landlord, lessor, land
owner, employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity, in any
Medical Marijuana Dispensary in the City of Anaheim. Each day a violation of any provision of
this chapter is committed, or permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 2.
That Section 4.20.050 be added to Chapter 4.20 (Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries) of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to read in full as follows:
4.20.050 PUBLIC NUISANCE DECLARED.
Operation of any Medical Marijuana Dispensary within the City of Anaheim in
violation of the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated
by all available means.
SECTION 3.
That Section 4.21.030 of Chapter 4.21 (Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)
of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read in full as
follows:
4.21.030 MOBILE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES PROHIBITED.
Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in the City of Anaheim. It
shall be unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct or operate, or as a landlord or
land owner (or as such landlord or land owner's agent, property manager or similar person
having control over real property on behalf of its owner) allow or permit to exist, or be
established, conducted, operated, owned or managed on or within any real property owned or
controlled by such person, any Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensary, or to participate as a
landlord, lessor, land owner, employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or
capacity, in any Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensary in the City of Anaheim. Each day a
violation of any provision of this chapter is committed, or permitted to continue, shall constitute
a separate offense.
SECTION 4 . PENALTY.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, any person who violates any provision of
this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished in the
manner provided in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
SECTION 5 . EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES.
Any Medical Marijuana Dispensary and Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensary
existing or operating within the City of Anaheim on the effective date of this ordinance shall
cease operations forthwith.
///
///
8
SECTION 6 . COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and
15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
SECTION 7 . SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be
invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this
ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared
invalid.
SECTION 8 . SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ardinance of this
City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations
were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or
penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this
ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted
by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and
continuations, and not as new enactments.
///
///
///
///
///
9
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 3rd day of February , 2015, and
thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 24th day of
February , 2015, by the following roll call vote:
AYE: ��cil Members Kring, Murray, Brandman and Vanderbilt
NOES: Nlayor Tait
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:
MA OR OF TH CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
B
ITY CLERK OF TH CITY OF ANAHEIM
10 572v.8A/mhouston
10
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LINDA ANDAL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
original Ordinance No. 6315 introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Anaheim, held on the 3rd day of February, 2015, and that the same was duly passed and adopted
at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 24th day of February, 2015, by the following
vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Council Members Kring, Murray, Brandman and Vanderbilt
NOES: Mayor Tait
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of February, 2015.
'CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LINDA ANDAL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
original Ordinance No. 6315 and was published in the Anaheim Bulletin on the 5th day of March,
2015.
.4ITY CLERK OF HE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PROOF OF PUBLIC I N
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
) ss.
County of Orange )
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident Proof of Publication of
of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal Paste Clipping of
clerk of the Anaheim Bulletin,a newspaper that Notice
SECURELY
has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general In This Space
circulation by the Superior Court of the County
of Orange, State of California, on December 28,
1951, Case No. A-21021 in and for the City of SUMMARY NEoN
fAAHIM
ORDINANCE NO.6315
Anaheim, County of Orange,State of California; i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SEC-
TION 4.20.030 OF CHAPTER 4.20 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANA-
HEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (MEDICAL MARIJUANA
that the notice, Of which the annexed is a true DISPENSARIES)AND.6ECTION 4.21.030 OF CHAPTER 4.21 OF
TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
NG77(MOBILE MEDI-
CAL
printed copy, has been published in each regular 1 ERS AND UANA LANDLLORDS SASIESPARTIESTISUBJEECT4ND TOOWN-
THE
PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN SAID CHAPTERS,AND ADD- .
ING SECTION 4.20.050 TO CHAPTER 4.20 RELATING TO PUB-
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any LIC NUISANCES.
to •
This ordinance amends Chapter 420(Medical Marivana Dispensaries)and Chapter 4.21
Supplement thereof on the following dates
(Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)of Title 4.(Business Regulation)of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries,respec-
tively,to clarify the City's ability to pursue civil and criminal remedies against land owners,
landlords and managers of properties that are unlawfully occupied by medical marijuana
dispensaries. In addition,this ordinance amends both Chapters to specify that each clay of
March 5 2015 operation of a medical marijuana dispensary constitutes a separate offense. Finally,this
ordinance adds new Section 4.20.050(Public Nuisance Declared)to Chapter 4.20 Medi-
cal Marijuana Dispensaries) of Title 4 (Business Regulation)of the Anaheim Municipal
Code to declare the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary to be a public nuisance.
u 1,Linda N.Andel,City Clerk of the City of Anaheim,do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of summary of Ordinance No.6315 which ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Anaheim on the 3rd day of February,2015 and was duly
perjury under the laws of the State of California
passed and adopted ata regular meeting of said Council on the 24th day of February,
2015 by the following roll call vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Council Members Kring,Murray,Brandman and Vanderbilt
that the foregoing is true and correct":
NOES: Mayor Tait
ABSENT: None
Executed at Santa Ana, Orange County, ABSTAIN:None
California,on The above summary is a brief description of the subject matter contained in the text of Or-
dinance No.6315,which has been prepared pursuant to Section 512 of the Charter of the
City of Anaheim. This summary does not include or describe every provision of the ordi-
Date• March 5, 2015 nance and should not be relied on as a substitute for the full text of the ordinance.
To obtain a copy of the full text of the ordinance,please contact the Office of the City
Clerk,(714)765-5166,between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM,,Monday through Friday. There is no
AT: ?/ 41I-•ff
- PublhAnaheimetinMarch52010022688
�Signature i
Anaheim Bulletin
625 N.Grand Ave.
Santa Ana,CA 92701
(714)796-2209 Y.) b' q
,1 ry
c
1