Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2011 ] Volume 5 ] No. 24 Preemption— Medical Marijuana Dispensary Operator Challenges Municipal Ban on MMDs Operator argues state statutes preempt municipalities from enacting such bans Citation: City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 200 Cal. App. 4th 885, 2011 WL 5386590 (4th Dist. 2011) CALIFORNIA (11/09/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether state medical marijuana statutes preempt municipal zoning ordinances banning medical marijuana dispensaries . The B ackground/Facts: Larry Swerdlow ( "Swerdlow ") leased property in the city of Riverside ("Riverside") on which he operated Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center Inc. (the "Center"). The Center was a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary ("MMD"). Riverside's zoning code specifically prohibits MMDs. It also prohibits any use which is prohibited by state and/or federal law. Any violation of Riverside's municipal code is deemed a public nuisance under the code. In January 2009, Riverside advised Swerdlow that Riverside's zoning code prohibited MMDs. Nevertheless, Swerdlow continued to operate the Center. Riverside then brought a legal action against Swerdlow and others (in- cluding the owners of the property and a board member and manager of the Center). Riverside alleged public nuisance, and asked the court to en- join the Center from operating its MMD in the city. The trial court found that Riverside could use zoning regulations to prohibit MMDs. It entered an order enjoining the Center from operating its MMD in the city. The Center appealed. Among other things, the Center argued that, while cities and counties could zone where MMDs may be located, Riv- erside could not lawfully ban all MMDs from the city. The Center argued that Riverside's ordinance banning MJvIIDs throughout the city was pre- empted by state law specifically, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("CUA") (Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program ( "MMP" ) (SS 11362.7-11362.83). DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California, held that local governments, such as Riverside, are not preempted by the CUA and MMP from enacting zoning ordinances banning MMDs. Because River- side's ordinance banning MMDs was not preempted by state law, it was valid and enforceable. The court explained that Riverside's zoning ordinance banning MMDs would be preempted by state law if it: (1) duplicated state law; (2) con- tradicted state law; or (3) entered into an area fully occupied by state law, either expressly or by legislative implication. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9