10B Action 2012 0618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

File Number: 12 -296 isolation from grow -sites are not protected from public nuisance suits. The court also cautioned that state law only preempts complete bans on medical marijuana dispensaries within a city; it does not prevent cities from restricting the locations of dispensaries or otherwise regulating them. DISCUSSION The two conflicting cases present two possible avenues for the Supreme Court's analysis in City of Riverside. Of the two opinions, the League of California Cities believes that City of Lake Forest appears to be the better - reasoned and supported. That court analyzed the text and the intent of the CUA and MMPA to find that state law preempted Lake Forest's zoning prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries. In addition to relying on the state statutory exemptions from nuisance prosecutions, the court correctly cited the statutory purposes of the CUA and MMPA -to provide distribution of medical marijuana to all patients who need it and promote uniform application of the Acts across California counties. Local zoning bans would defeat these statutory goals. The narrow preemption finding in City of Lake Forest would preserve significant regulatory latitude for cities and counties. It limits state preemption to dispensaries that are also grow- sites. All dispensaries operating independently of grow -sites may be banned. Additionally, the opinion preserves the ability of cities to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries by limiting them to certain zoning districts, requiring business licenses for operation, and other similar measures. However, the ruling also leaves some practical questions unanswered, e.g., what if zoning regulations do not bar medical marijuana dispensaries on their face, but, as a practical matter, preclude the development of medical marijuana dispensaries anywhere in the jurisdiction? The court's analysis in City of Riverside was more cursory. The court failed to explain why Civil Code section 3482 does not preempt nuisance prosecutions against statutorily authorized and otherwise lawful medical marijuana dispensaries. Instead, it merely concluded that state law did not expressly prohibit local bans on dispensaries. If the Supreme Court ultimately finds that state law does not preempt complete local bans on dispensaries, it will need to perform a more comprehensive review of the relevant state statutes. These cases have been depublished pursuant to the California Supreme Court's grant of certiorari. Therefore, State law does not prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, grow facilities, collectives, or cooperatives. If the City enacted a ban on land uses related to medical marijuana grow facilities, cooperatives, collectives, and dispensaries, and it was challenged, there is a high likelihood that under current law, a superior court judge would uphold the City's ban, as the superior court judge did when the Anaheim case was remanded for further proceedings after the State appellate court's decision. However, the Anaheim case also held that federal law probably does not preempt State medical marijuana laws as they relate to dispensaries. Before the City enacted the current moratorium, it relied upon the Finance Director's power to reject a business license application if that proposed business would not or could not comply with applicable laws or regulations. See San Leandro Municipal Code section 2 -2 -420. The current moratorium will City of San Leandro Page 3 Printed on 611212012