10F Action 2012 0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

File Number: 12 -341 being able to regulate or prohibit the establishment of medical marijuana collectives, cooperatives, and dispensaries as legitimate land uses. DISCUSSION Of the two opinions up for California Supreme Court review (Riverside and Lake Forest), 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 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.. City of Riverside and City of Lake Forest have been de- published pursuant to the California Supreme Court's grant of certiorari. On July 2nd, County of Los Angeles became the current law, which is that a local jurisdiction's ordinance prohibiting the establishment of dispensaries, or other facilities to cultivate or distribute medical marijuana by collectives or cooperatives as defined under the MMPA is unlawful; State law prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, grow facilities, collectives, or cooperatives. Since the appellate court's July 2nd decision in County of Los Angeles, the City Attorney's Office learned of the following: ❖ City attorneys throughout the State think that the California Supreme Court will grant review of the County of Los Angeles decision, or de- publish the opinion. The timing for the Supreme Court's grant of review, or a decision on de- publishing could be quicker than when City of Lake Forest was ultimately granted certiorari, which was three months after the opinion was filed in February of this year. ❖ The California Supreme Court will ultimately decide the state law pre - emption issue. How soon is unclear, but other city attorneys think by the end of this year, or early 2013 at the latest. In the meantime, several jurisdictions with existing bans in place are awaiting the outcome of the issue before making any decisions on their existing ordinances. City of San Leandro Page 4 Printed on 711012012