JUDGE UPHOLDS CITY'S POT ORDINANCE

A legal challenge to Palm Spring's recent ordinance regulating
medical marijuana collectives was overruled Tuesday by a Riverside
County Superior Court judge, court records show.

Judge Harold W. Hopp's decision to uphold Palm Spring's "authority to
enact reasonable zoning restrictions" on collectives leaves the fate
of several collectives in the city up in the air, said J. David Nick,
attorney for Palm Springs-based The Holistic Collective.

The collective, at 2235 N. Palm Canyon Drive, filed a June 4
demurrer, which Hopp overruled. The collective challenged the
legality of a city ordinance enacted in April that limits the number
of collectives to two and prohibits them from operating outside of
industrial and manufacturing zones.

Palm Springs is the only city in Riverside County to pass a law
allowing medical marijuana dispensaries.

The state laws on dispensaries should trump any local laws, Nick said
Tuesday. Hopp's decision, however, found the state laws to be
"limited in scope, exempting medical users and their primary
caregivers from criminal liability."

The Holistic Collective's demurrer was a response to a complaint the
city filed against the collective in April. The suit alleges Holistic
violated Palm Spring's 2006 moratorium on pot dispensaries, and that
it later operated without the proper permits under the April
ordinance, according to Deputy City Attorney Ben Ammerman.

Holistic was among several collectives operating in the city before
the April ordinance, Ammerman said.

The city received by its July 6 deadline 11 applications to fill the
two collective slots allowed under the ordinance, according to
Director of Planning Services Craig Ewing. The City Council is
expected to select up to two collective operators from the applicants
this fall, Ewing said.

Holistic is considering its next legal move, Nick said Tuesday. It
could file a writ with the 4th District Court of Appeals, or it could
challenge the legality of limiting the city's number of collectives.
Hopp's decision did not address specifically that issue, Nick and
Ammerman said.