Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/18/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 12, prohibited use of property within the city's boundaries. Conversely, [the City's] ordinance requires no conduct that is forbidden by the state statutes. Persons who refrain from operating medical marijuana facili- ties in [the City] are in compliance with both the local and state enactments." Finally, the court found no attempt by the Legislature to fully oc- cupy the field ofmedicalmarijuana regulation as a matter of statewide concern. On the contrary, the court found that the CUA and MMP took only modest steps to exempt particular medical marijuana activities from state laws that would otherwise prohibit them; they offered "no comprehensive scheme or system for authorizing, controlling, or regulating the processing and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, such that no room remains for local action." The court affirmed the grant of the preliminary injunction, prohibit- ing the Dispensary and all persons associated with them, from using, or allowing use of, the Property to conduct "any activities or operations related to the distribution of marijuana." See also: City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2d Dist. 2009). See also: Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 920, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382, 174 P.3d 200, 20 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 223, 155 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P 60553, 57A.L.R.6th 727 (2008). See also: People v. Mentch, 45 Cal. 4th 274, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 480, 195 P.3d 1061, 50 A.L.R.6th 673 (2008), as modified, (Dec. 17, 2008). See also: County of Los Angeles v. Hill, 192 Cal. App. 4th 861, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 722 (2d Dist. 2011), review denied, (May 11, 2011). Case Note: In its discussion, the court made clear that the CUA and MMP did not " 'au- thorize' [medical marijuana dispensaries], to the exclusion of local bans, simply by exempting those activities from otherwise applicable state prohibitions." The Dispensary had urged that by exempting the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients and their designated caregivers from treatment as a nuisance under the state's drug abatement laws, the MMP barred local jurisdictions from adopting and enforcing ordinances that treated those very same activities as nuisances subject to abatement. The court, however, disagreed. It noted that "[n]uisance law is not defined exclusively by what the state makes subject to, or exempt from, its own nuisance statutes. Unless exercised in clear conflict with general law, a city's or county's inherent, constitutionally recognized power to determine the appropriate use of land within its borders allows it to define nuisances for local purposes, and to seek abatement of such nuisances. "Here, © 2013 Thomson Reuters 5