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

Home

June 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin MMC to 99 did not conflict with the CUA or the MMP. The court found that since the CUA is narrow in scope, merely provides a defense to certain crimes, and does not provide for collectives or cooperatives, the Ordinance's quantity limitation applicable to MMC's did not conflict with the CUA. The court also found that the Ordinance's quantity limitation did not conflict with a provision of the MMP (§ 11362.77) that outlined amounts of medical marijuana that qualified patients and caregivers could possess. The MMP provision was not a guarantee but merely an outer limit on possession amounts without prosecution, said the court. The Court of Appeal also held that the Ordinance did not violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. The court acknowledged that the Ordinance did single out MMC's for special zoning restrictions (as to location). However, the court also found that it did not appear that MMC's were similarly situated to individuals for purposes of the Ordinance. Moreover, the court found the different treatment of MMC's bore a rational relationship to legitimate govern- ment interests: Since an MMC would involve a number of individuals associating, cooperating, or operating together, there would be an increased likelihood of a higher concentration of plants in cultivation and/or a greater quantity of medical marijuana present in one place. As such, found the court, it would be "reasonable for the County to as- sume that MMC's would tend to increase the risk factors of such a land use above that of individual cultivation." See also: People v. Kelly, 47 Cal. 4th 1008, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733, 222 P.3d 186 (2010). Case Note: The Collective had also argued that the Ordinance conflicted with the MMP because the Ordinance defined MMC's and the MMP did not. The court found no conflict, and determined that the Ordinance merely gave the "collective" and "cooperative " concepts reasonable specification and parameters. Case Note: The Collective had also argued that, since one of the objectives of the MMP was greater uniformity in applying the CUA in each county, the Legislature could not have intended that medical marijuana collectives, cooperatives, or dispensaries would be regulated or restricted by local zoning laws such as the County's Ordinance. The court here disagreed. It noted that the Legislature has rejected that proposition in the recent amendments to the MMP, which clarified that a city or other local governing body may "[a]dopt[J local ordi- nances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical 10 ©2013 Thomson Reuters