HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd. 1442-2011 ORDINANCE NO. 1442 -2011
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 20.410 TO THE SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE
ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF
MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES AND
COLLECTIVES
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the voters of the State of California approved
Proposition 215, codified at California Health and Safety Code § 11362.5 et seq. and entitled
"The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" ( "the Act" or "the CUA "), the intent of which was to
enable persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical purposes to obtain
and use it under limited, specified circumstances; and
WHEREAS, despite voter approval of the Compassionate Use Act, various problems and
uncertainties in the Act impeded law enforcement's ability to interpret and enforce the law, and
the uncertainties also hindered persons eligible to use marijuana for medical purposes from
accessing marijuana, while many persons took advantage of the Act to use marijuana for
recreational and not medicinal purposes; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 420, effective January 1,
2004, adding Article 2.5, "Medical Marijuana Program" to Division 10 of the California Health
and Safety Code § 11362.7, et seq. ( "the Medical Marijuana Program Act ", "the MMPA" or
"Program "), which created a state - approved voluntary medical marijuana identification card
program and provided for certain additional immunities from state marijuana laws and
authorized cities and other local governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations
consistent with the Program; and
WHEREAS, while the MMPA intended to clarify the scope of the Act, neither the
Federal nor the State government has implemented a specific plan "to provide for the safe and
affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana," leaving
numerous questions unanswered as to how the CUA and the MMPA should be implemented,
particularly in regard to the distribution of medical marijuana through facilities commonly
referred to as medical marijuana dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, the chief purposes of the Compassionate Use Act are: (a) to give
Californians the opportunity to obtain and use marijuana in the medical treatment of illnesses for
which it provides appropriate relief, as recommended by a physician, and (b) to ensure that
patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes upon
recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction; as such, the
primary intention of the Compassionate Use Act was to provide seriously ill Californians with
the right to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, without facing criminal penalties otherwise
imposed under State law, and not to legalize marijuana for recreational use, legitimize illegal
drug use or fuel the market for illegal drug sales; and
WHEREAS, the Compassionate Use Act is limited in scope, in that it only provides a
defense from criminal prosecution for possession and cultivation of marijuana to qualified
patients and their primary caregivers; and
WHEREAS, the scope of the Medical Marijuana Program is also limited in that it
establishes a statewide identification program and affords qualified patients, persons with
identification cards, and their primary caregivers an affirmative defense to certain enumerated
criminal sanctions that would otherwise apply to transporting, processing, administering or
distributing marijuana; and
WHEREAS, as provided in a report issued by the California Police Chiefs Association in
September 2009, entitled "California Police Chiefs Association Position Paper on the
Decriminalization of Marijuana" the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program
Act do not appear to have facilitated the stated goals of providing access to marijuana for
patients in medical need of marijuana, but instead the predominant use of marijuana has been for
recreational and not - medicinal purposes: "[I]t has become clear, despite the claims of use by
critically ill people that only about 2% of those using crude Marijuana for medicine are critically
ill. The vast majority of those using crude Marijuana as medicine are young and are using the
substance to be under the influence of THC [tetrahydrocannabinol] and have no critical medical
condition."
WHEREAS, facilities purportedly dispensing marijuana for medicinal purposes are
commonly referred to as medical marijuana dispensaries, medical marijuana cooperatives, or
medical marijuana collectives; however, these terms are not defined anywhere in the
Compassionate Use Act nor Medical Marijuana Program Act, and significantly, nothing in the
CUA or the MMPA specifically authorizes the operation and the establishment of medical
marijuana dispensing facilities; and
WHEREAS, further, neither the CUA nor the MMPA require or impose an affirmative
duty or mandate upon local governments, such as the City of South San Francisco ( "City "), to
allow, authorize, or sanction the establishment, or operation of facilities dispensing medical
marijuana within its jurisdiction; moreover, the Compassionate Use Act did not create a
constitutional right to obtain medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code § 11362.765 specifically prohibits the cultivation or
distribution of medical marijuana for profit; and
WHEREAS, it is critical to note that the Act does not abrogate the City's powers to
regulate for public health, safety and welfare, because Health and Safety Code § 11362.5(b)(2)
provides that the Act does not supersede any legislation intended to prohibit conduct that
endangers others, and Health and Safety Code § 11352.83 authorizes cities and counties to adopt
and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the Medical Marijuana Program Act; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, Edmund G. Brown, the California Attorney General,
issued "Guidelines for the Security and Non - Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use"
( "the Attorney General Guidelines "), which sets regulations intended to ensure the security and
non - diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by qualified patients. Health and Safety Code
§11362.81(d) authorizes the Attorney General to "develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to
ensure the security and non - diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified
under" the Compassionate Use Act. Nothing in the Guidelines imposes an affirmative mandate
or duty upon local governments, such as the City of South San Francisco, to allow, sanction or
permit the establishment or the operation of facilities dispensing or cultivating medical marijuana
within their jurisdictional limits; and
WHEREAS, in adopting this Ordinance, the City Council takes legislative notice of the
following cases that it finds relevant to its actions:
1. People v. Mentch (2008), 45 Cal.4th 274 [California Supreme Court holding that
a "primary caregiver" status requires a specified showing of consistently providing care,
independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, at or before the time of
assuming the responsibility of assisting with medical marijuana];
2. People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997), 59 Cal.App.4th 1383 [California Court of
Appeal recognizing the limited scope of the CUA and the MMPA, and holding that
filling out a form that designates a commercial enterprise as the qualified patient's
"primary caregiver" is insufficient to establish a caregiver status];
3. Ross v. Raging Wire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008), 42 Ca1.4th 920 [California
Supreme Court holding that an employee may be terminated for the use of medical
marijuana];
4. Claremont v. Kruse (2009), 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 [California Court of Appeal
holding that neither the CUA nor the MMPA expressly or impliedly preempt local
exercise of land use and zoning police powers, therefore, cities retain their police power
to regulate and, if necessary, restrict the operation of medical marijuana collectives and
cooperatives];
5. People v. Mower (2002), 28 Ca1.4th 457 [California Supreme Court holding that
the defenses accorded by the CUA are limited to "patients and primary caregivers" for
the possession and cultivation of marijuana];
6. People v. Urziceanu (2005), 132 Cal.App.4th 747 [California Court of Appeal
noting that courts consistently have rejected attempts to broaden the scope of the CUA
and the MMPA and recognizing that the CUA did not create a constitutional right to
obtain marijuana];
7. People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1997 [California Court of Appeal
holding that the operators of a storefront dispensary which sold marijuana to individuals
did not operate within the CUA and the MMPA, and did not constitute a primary
caregiver such that it was entitled to protections under the CUA and MMPA];
8. City of Lake Forest v. Moen et al. (Case No. 30- 2009 - 0029887- CU- MC -CJC)
[trial court granting Lake Forest's preliminary injunction and finding that (a) a city's
power to enact land use or zoning laws, and a city's enforcement of existing local laws is
not preempted by the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program; and (b)
under Government Code Section 37100, Lake Forest could not have promulgated local
regulations allowing the use, sale or distribution of marijuana because marijuana remains
an illegal drug under the Federal Controlled Substances Act];
(9) People v. Kelly (2010), 47 Cal.4th 1008 [California Supreme Court ruling that
Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77 which limits the quantity of medical marijuana a
qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess without a physician's
recommendation, unconstitutionally amended the voter - approved Compassionate Use
Act, by burdening a qualified patient's defense to criminal charges, as individuals may
possess and cultivate any amount of marijuana reasonably necessary for his or her
medical condition, for purposes of a defense in a criminal case]; and
WHEREAS, marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled
Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. and is classified as a "Schedule I Drug," which is
defined as a drug or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, that has no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and that has not been accepted as safe for
its use under medical supervision. Furthermore, the Federal Controlled Substances Act makes it
unlawful for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent
to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana; the Controlled Substances Act contains no
statutory exemption for the possession of marijuana for medical purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in adopting this Ordinance, takes legislative notice of the
following federal cases:
1. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001), 532 U.S. 483
[finding that there is no medical necessity defense or exemption for the possession of
medical marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act];
2. Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), 545 U.S. 1 [holding that under the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress can prohibit the manufacture, cultivation,
distribution and possession of marijuana pursuant to the Federal Controlled Substances
Act, even as such prohibitions apply to marijuana manufactured, cultivated, distributed or
possessed under the auspices of the Act]; and
3. James v. City of Costa Mesa et al. (Case No. SACV 10 -402 AG (MLGx))
[District Court ruling denying plaintiffs' preliminary injunction and finding that medical
marijuana users are not qualified individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act
because marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Federal Controlled Substances Act];
and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in adopting this Ordinance, takes further legislative notice
of the existence and content of the following reports concerning the negative secondary effects
and adverse impacts of facilities dispensing medical marijuana: September 2009, "California
Police Chiefs Association Position Paper on Decriminalizing Marijuana "; April 22, 2009, "White
Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries" issued by California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force
on Marijuana Dispensaries; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented
to the California Police Chiefs Association, April through June 2010; "Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs Association,
January through March 2010; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues"
presented to the California Police Chiefs Association, July through September 2009; "Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs
Association, April to June 2009; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues"
presented to the California Police Chiefs Association, January to March 2009; "Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs
Association, September to December 2007; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated
Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs Association; and
WHEREAS, in adopting this Ordinance, the City Council also takes notice of the
existence and contents of various newspaper articles concerning negative secondary effects and
adverse impacts of facilities dispensing and/or cultivating medical marijuana. The City Council
finds that these reports are relevant to the problems addressed by the City of South San Francisco
in enacting this Ordinance to preserve and safeguard public health, safety and welfare by
protecting against the negative secondary effects and adverse impacts of facilities dispensing
and/or cultivating medical marijuana, and more specifically finds that these reports provide
convincing evidence that:
1. There is substantial evidence that other California cities that have permitted the
establishment and operation of facilities for the purpose of dispensing or cultivating
medical marijuana have experienced negative secondary effects and adverse impacts,
including an increase in crimes of marijuana and narcotics distribution and use; an
increase in other criminal activities in the vicinity of these facilities, such as robbery of
patients as they go in or leave the dispensaries; increased instances of DUIs and street
dealings of illegal drugs; burglary of facilities dispensing medical marijuana; increases in
violent crimes, such as armed robberies and murders; loss of trade for other commercial
businesses located near these facilities; organized crime involvement in the ownership
and operation of marijuana dispensaries; money laundering and firearms violations;
physicians making recommendations for questionable or potentially questionable cases of
qualified use of medical marijuana; unjustified and fictitious physician recommendations;
street dealers in the vicinity of dispensaries offering marijuana at a lower price to arriving
patrons; smoking of marijuana in the public; and increased noise and pedestrian traffic.
2. In light of the negative secondary effects and adverse impacts described above,
the City Council finds that operation of facilities dispensing or cultivating medical
marijuana will burden and strain the City's law enforcement resources, in that law
enforcement assistance would often be required to address and respond to increased
criminal activities.
3. California communities have also experienced that the operation of facilities
dispensing medical marijuana negatively impact minors. For example, medical marijuana
dispensaries advertise to high school students by leaving fliers on cars in the students'
parking lot and offering discounts on marijuana products; medical marijuana shops target
healthy minors as young as 14 years of age through street contacts, suggesting that
students obtain medical marijuana cards; high school students are reportedly obtaining
physician recommendations to use marijuana for such conditions as sleeplessness and
stress; and minors are obtaining medical marijuana cards or physical recommendation for
recreational and non - medicinal purposes. The City Council recognizes the possible
harmful effects on minors exposed to the negative secondary effects and adverse impacts
of facilities dispensing medical marijuana and recognizes the need to adopt this
Ordinance, which will minimize and /or eliminate such exposure within the City.
4. California communities have reported that the vast majority of facilities
dispensing medical marijuana, purportedly as "cooperatives" or "collectives ", are
operating in violation and contrary to the CUA and the MMPA, in that these marijuana
dispensing facilities are large money making enterprises and are generally operating for
profit and are engaging in the "sale" of marijuana, instead of distributing or making
marijuana available to qualified patients.
5. In addition to the illegal operations of these money- making entities that sell
marijuana, California communities have reported concerns over the quality of marijuana,
in that certain chemicals including pesticides and insecticides, have been discovered in
the marijuana. In 2010, testing of certain "medical marijuana" distributed through a
dispensary in Los Angeles County revealed high levels of Bifenthrin, a known form of
pesticide or insecticide. Most marijuana dispensaries do not test the marijuana for
dangerous and poisonous substances, nor are warning labels generally attached. The
unmonitored, untested and unlabeled distribution of marijuana poses serious health and
safety concerns.
6. These reports and experiences from other California cities and counties establish
by convincing evidence that facilities dispensing and distributing medical marijuana
negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the community because of the
secondary negative effects and adverse impacts described in Subparagraphs (1) -(5),
above.
7. Relying on the above, the City Council also finds that facilities dispensing and
distributing medical marijuana, may lead to the detrimental secondary effects and adverse
impacts, as specifically described in Subparagraphs (1) -(6), above. The City bases this
conclusion on the experiences of California communities that the City has a reasonable
basis to believe reflect the experiences of its own community.
WHEREAS, persons in the City of South San Francisco that may be in need of medical
marijuana have access to facilities dispensing marijuana in near -by cities, including without
limitation, San Francisco and Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's police powers authorized in Article XI, Section 7 of
the California Constitution, as well as under the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code,
the City has the power to regulate permissible land uses throughout the City and to enact
regulations for the preservation of public health, safety and welfare of its residents and
community, and, pursuant to Government Code § 38771 the City also has the power through its
City Council to declare actions and activities that constitute a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that neither the CUA nor the MMPA preempt the
City's exercise of its traditional police powers in enacting regulations, as well as legislation for
preservation of public health, safety and welfare, such as this Ordinance prohibiting the
establishment and operation of medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives, dispensaries, and
cultivation facilities within the City; and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the Legislature amended the MMPA to add Health and Safety Code
§ 11362.768 which became effective January 1, 2011, and prohibits any "medical marijuana
cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider from locating within 600
feet of a school ", which reaffirms the City's ability to regulate the location of medical marijuana
dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare of
the City and its residents necessitates and requires the adoption of this Ordinance, prohibiting the
establishment and operation of medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives, dispensaries, and
cultivation facilities in order to: (a) protect and safeguard against the detrimental secondary
negative effects and adverse impacts of facilities dispensing medical marijuana; (b) preserve and
safeguard the minors, children and students in the community from the deleterious impacts of
medical marijuana facilities; and (c) preserve the City's law enforcement services, in that
monitoring and addressing the negative secondary effects and adverse impacts will likely burden
the City's law enforcement resources. The City Council further finds that due to the negative
secondary effects and adverse impacts of facilities dispensing and /or cultivating medical
marijuana, the establishment and the operation of these facilities will negatively impact
residential uses and neighborhoods in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS
A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
B. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law, including the Federal Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq.), the Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code
§ 11362.5 et seq.), the Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code
§ 11362.7, et seq.); the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000,
et seq. ( "CEQA ")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et
seq.); the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines for the Security and Non - Diversion of Marijuana
Grown for Medical Use; the following reports concerning the negative secondary effects and
adverse impacts of facilities dispensing medical marijuana: September 2009, "California Police
Chiefs Association Position Paper on Decriminalizing Marijuana "; April 22, 2009, "White Paper
on Marijuana Dispensaries" issued by California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on
Marijuana Dispensaries; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to
the California Police Chiefs Association, April to June 2010; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
and Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs Association, January to March
2010; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California
Police Chiefs Association, October to December 2009; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and
Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs Association, July to September
2009; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California
Police Chiefs Association, April to June 2009; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated
Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs Association, January to March 2009; "Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs
Association, July to September 2008; "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues"
presented to the California Police Chiefs Association, September to December 2007; "Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues" presented to the California Police Chiefs
Association; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact
Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all written comments received;
all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly
noticed meetings on February 18, 2010, March 18, 2010, June 17, 2010, and April 21, 2011; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed
meetings on April 28, 2010, May 26, 2010, January 12, 2011, and May 11, 2011; and any other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
C. The documents and other material constituting the Record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
D. Introduction and adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to review under CEQA,
pursuant to the general exemption that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).) A
"significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15382.) This Ordinance would prohibit the establishment and operation of medical
marijuana cooperatives and collectives, as defined herein. Prohibiting establishment and
operation of medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives would preserve the status quo and
would not result in change — substantial or otherwise —in any of the physical conditions existing
in the City. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance
in question may have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the Ordinance is
exempt from CEQA review.
E. This Ordinance is consistent with the City of South San Francisco 1999 General
Plan in that the General Plan, its objectives, policies, and goals do not permit or contemplate the
establishment or operation of medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives or similar facilities that
engage in dispensing of or cultivating marijuana for medicinal purposes.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT.
Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 20.410,
entitled "Prohibition on Medical Marijuana Cooperatives or Collectives" to read in its entirety as
follows:
Chapter 20.410 PROHIBITION ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES OR
COLLECTIVES
Sections:
20.410.001 Purpose and Intent
20.410.002 Definitions
20.410.003 Medical Marijuana Cooperatives and Collectives Prohibited
20.410.004 Violation and Enforcement
20.410.001 Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to preclude the opening, establishment, and/or
operation of Medical Marijuana Cooperatives and Collectives in the City.
20.410.002 Definitions.
The words and phrases included in this Section shall have the following meanings, unless it is
clearly apparent from the context that another meaning is intended:
"Marijuana" means all or parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., pursuant to Health and Safety
Code § 11018, as amended from time to time.
"Medical marijuana" means marijuana authorized in strict compliance with Health and Safety
Code §§ 11362.5, 11362.7 et seq., or as such sections may be amended from time to time.
"Medical marijuana cooperative or collective" means a collective, cooperative, dispensary,
operator, establishment, provider, association or similar entity, whether fixed or mobile, that
cultivates, distributes, dispenses, stores, exchanges, processes, delivers, makes available,
transmits and/or gives away marijuana in the city for medicinal purposes to two (2) or more of
the following: qualified patients, persons with an identification card or primary caregivers, in
strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code §§ 11362.5, 11362.7 et seq. and the
Attorney General Guidelines for the Security and Non - diversion of Marijuana Grown for
Medical Use, or as these laws and guidelines may be amended from time to time. The terms
"primary caregiver," "qualified patient" and "person with an identification card" shall be as
defined in California Health and Safety Code § 11352.5 et seq.
20.410.003 Medical Marijuana Cooperatives and Collectives Prohibited.
(a) Medical Marijuana Cooperative or Collective is not a permitted use and is prohibited in
all zones throughout the City. No permit or any other applicable license or entitlement for use,
nor any business license, shall be approved or issued for the establishment, maintenance or
operation of a Medical Marijuana Cooperative or Collective within the City.
(b) The establishment, maintenance or operation of a Medical Marijuana Cooperative or
Collective within the City is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City
either pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code or any other available legal remedies,
including but not limited to declaratory relief and civil injunctions.
20.410.004 Violation and Enforcement.
The establishment, maintenance or operation of a Medical Marijuana Cooperative or Collective
in violation of or in non - compliance with any of the requirements of this Chapter or applicable
provisions of the Zoning Code or South San Francisco Municipal Code, shall be subject to any
enforcement remedies available under the law and /or the City's Municipal Code. In addition, the
City may enforce the violation of this Chapter by means of civil enforcement through a
restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction or by any other means authorized by the
law.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code least Section 5 days p s tr mar Council
Ordinance shall be prepared by ce.
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Within
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinan ublWithin
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Office Ordinance,
certified co r of k t e full text of this
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's
along with the names of those City Council b effective thirty days from against
nd after
its Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall bec ome
its adoption.
* *
*
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 11 day of May, 2011.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the 25 day of May, 2011 by the following vote:
Councilmembers Mark Addle .° Pedro Gonzalez and Kar 1 Matsumoto
Vice Ma or Richard Garbarino and Ma or Kevin Mullin
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTES IMP
ler ���l�lerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this 25 day of May, 2011.
til-1\ IL
Kevin Mullin, Mayor