WHITTIER PLANNING COMMISSION VOTES TO DELAY CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCE BANNING MEDICAL MARIJUANA

WHITTIER - The City Council's decision to ban medical marijuana
dispensaries is running into resistance at the Planning Commission level.

Commissioners at Monday's hearing either wanted to delay the issue in
order to get more information - they eventually voted 3-1 to do so -
or just vote it down in the first place.

I haven't heard a fundamental issue that would require a change or
tip the scale for me," said Fernando Dutra, Planning Commission
chairman. "I'd like to bring it back with more information."

"More time would help out to do additional research," Commissioner
Wes Murray said. "I want a better understanding of the
inter-relationship of federal and state law."

The issue is in the commission's hands because the City Council at
its April 28 meeting voted 3-2 to direct staff to draft a law banning
medical marijuana dispensaries.

The city now allows the businesses in limited industrial areas and
has the right to impose a variety of regulations.

Still, no matter what the commission does, the proposed ordinance
will go before the City Council, said Don Dooley, planning services manager.

It's just a matter of what kind of recommendation the commission
gives, Dooley said.

That's why Commissioner R.D. McDonnell voted against a delay. But
still, McDonnell was the strongest voice in favor of continuing to
allow the dispensaries in Whittier.

"There's absolutely nothing here to (justify) any kind of ban or why
we should change the action we took," McDonnell said, referring to
the ordinance regulating dispensaries that was approved in 2006.

"In three years we haven't had any problem," he said. "I think it's
more prudent to have laws regulating than prohibiting it," he said.

Waiting to see what the commission does are representatives from a
Pico Rivera-based nonprofit group, Seventh and Hope, that has an
application into the city to open a dispensary at 8116 Byron Road,
Suite D, Whittier.

Katherine Clifton, the group's attorney, said such a law should not
be applied to her client because they have a "completed application"
filed with the city.

And should the city approve the ordinance and attempt to block their
request, it could have "legal ramifications," Clifton said.

"I don't think the city wants to go through this and I don't think my
clients do," she said. "We don't want to be adversarial. We simply
want to open our business."

Harold W. Potter, assistant city attorney, said Clifton is wrong.

A ban would affect the group because no conditional-use permit has
been granted, Potter said.

Only and until that happens would the group have any vested rights, he said.

At this point, the group has been asked to return to the city with
more information, including a parking study. Thus, no hearing has been set.