The permit process for medical marijuana dispensaries came to a screeching halt Tuesday after the City Council adopted an interim city marijuana ordinance that puts applications on hold for nine months.

The unanimous vote to approve the ordinance came as a reaction to recent changes in the federal government’s position on enforcing marijuana regulations.

Greg Bitter, principal planner with the city’s Community Development Department, told council members Tuesday that the city attorney became concerned with the current Sacramento medical marijuana ordinance after learning about two legal situations – a court case in Long Beach and a press release from the four state attorneys general.

The Second District Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 1 that an ordinance in Long Beach – very similar to the one in Sacramento – was preempted by federal law, Bitter said.

“As long as this court case is the published decision, it effectively puts our ordinance at risk,” Bitter said.

The public announcement by the attorneys general stating that they were increasing enforcement efforts in California against for-profit dispensaries also “put cities on notice,” Bitter said.

“We’re not on solid legal ground at this point,” Bitter added.

At the end of the Oct. 11 City Council meeting, Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy requested city staff to draft amendments to the city ordinance in an effort to “buy everyone some time” while the city took stock of the discrepancies between federal and local government enforcement of medical marijuana laws.

City staff took immediate action to freeze the processing of applications for medical marijuana dispensary permits, according to a city staff report, and the interim ordinance is the initial result.

Max Del Real, a lobbyist with California Capitol Solutions, which represents several dispensaries in the city, said Tuesday that all of his clients are committed to working with the city.

“We support the decision to create a time-out as the dust settles on the issue of where the federal government stands on the issue,” Del Real said Tuesday. “Sacramento is not retreating form medical cannabis, nor is it turning its back on a successful (city) ordinance.”

The interim ordinance required a two-thirds vote and was approved in a 9–0 vote.

The City Council also passed formal amendments to the city ordinance to address timing conflicts with permits created by the freeze.

The city zoning code requires applicants for a special permit to be in operation within 90 days from the date the permit is issued. Because of the freeze, however, special permits are not being issued – putting dispensary operators in jeopardy of having their permit applications revoked when the 90 days runs out.

The newly amended ordinance resolves these timing conflicts by extending the previous Oct. 11 deadline to apply for Phase 2 dispensary permits to May 14, 2012, and extending the final permit completion date from Jan. 9, 2012 to Aug. 13, 2012.

The amended ordinance states that any dispensary operator who has already filed a proper permit application – and the application has not been denied – may continue to operate that dispensary without a permit until Aug. 13, 2012 while the application approval or denial is pending.

The amended ordinance doesn’t mean that dispensaries are not subject to the law in the meantime, however.

The ordinance clarifies that continuing to operate a dispensary during the “time-out” period does not automatically entitle the operator to an approved permit or grant the dispensary “legal nonconforming use.”

“Law-abiding collectives and their dispensaries welcome regulation and welcome fee structures,” Del Real said, “because, at the end of the day, they are following the law.”

City Councilman Steve Cohn voted in support of the council’s action Tuesday.

“We could see this going back to the back alleys, and I’d hate to see that,” Cohn said. “Cannabis patients don’t deserve to be treated that way.”

Tuesday’s vote did not come without opposition. Sixteen public speakers commented on the proposed changes, and some asked council members to reconsider the action.

“I know that you see green in all the green of medical marijuana, but I’m asking you to put a stop allowing the dispensaries,” said Greg Foster, 52, a criminal defense attorney.

“I am the parent of a son who started smoking marijuana because of the dispensaries,” Foster said. “I believe the notion of medical marijuana and not-for-profit are a fraud.”

Councilman Darrell Fong said he took issue with how medical marijuana dispensaries are being handled in the city.

“I’m not saying medical marijuana doesn’t have its place,” Fong said, “but federal law does preempt state law, whether I like it or not, and that is my issue.”

Fong said he has received complaints from constituents in his district about the ease of getting marijuana, especially with dispensaries located close to schools and parks.

The current city ordinance sets a distance requirement for dispensary locations of 600 feet from schools and public parks. Federal drug violation guidelines specify a minimum distance of 1,000 feet.

According to Bitter, a majority – 18 out of 28 – registered dispensaries in Sacramento are located within that 1,000-foot boundary.

Del Real said that, despite opposition, the City Council’s decision to temporarily freeze the application process is the right thing to do.

“No one knows what the feds are trying to accomplish,” Del Real said. “The politics – and the practicality – of it is that the city has to extend the deadline to allow for all the permits to continue while they assess where things stand.”

“The city is not pushing the eject button,” Del Real added. “They’re just pushing pause.”

The interim ordinance takes effect immediately. The formal revised ordinance will be adopted by the City Council Nov. 15.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.