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

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2013 Volume 7 1 Issue 10 medical marijuana collectives or dispensaries." Moreover, the court found that the CUA "does not expressly prohibit further legislation in the area of medical marijuana use," but in fact "expressly acknowledges the potential validity of other legislation intended to prevent or regulate related conduct that might endanger the general citizenry." Accordingly, the court concluded that the referenced City ordinances were not coextensive with the CUA and therefore did not duplicate it. The court also found that since the CUA does not create a right to cultivate, distribute, or otherwise obtain medical marijuana collec- tively, local prohibition of such conduct does not contradict it. Also, the court found that, given its limited scope and express recognition of the validity of additional legislation in the area, the CUA was not intended explicitly or implicitly to occupy fully the entire field of medi- cal marijuana use. The court also explained that although the MMPA extends immunity from prosecution to include those who "collectively or cooperatively . . . cultivate marijuana for medical purposes," it similarly does not af- fiiniatively create any right, constitutional or otherwise, to cultivate or distribute medical marijuana through collectives or dispensaries. Nor, said the court, does the MMPA expressly forbid local regulation in the area of medical marijuana use. In fact, the MMPA expressly permits "civil and criminal enforcement" of local ordinances "that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana coopera- tive or collective." The court concluded that "none of the three bases for preemption exist[ed] here": The [City] ordinances were not coextensive with and. therefore [did] not duplicate the MMPA. Further, the [City] ordinances [did] not contradict the MMPA [since the MMPA did not prohibit the City's ban of dispensaries]." Finally, the court held that the MMPA does not preempt by field occupation the City ordinances; the MMPA, in fact, contemplated additional local regulation of medical marijuana. See also: Nordyke v. King, 27 Cal. 4th 875, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 761, 44 P.3d 133 (2002). See also: City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d I (2d Dist. 2009). Case Note: Conejo has also asserted that the permit requirements of Ordinance No. 10- 379 deprived it of a vested property right in the continued operation of a dis- pensary from its leasehold, and thus violated its "substantive and procedural due process rights." The court rejected this argument based on: the fact that Conejo's operation of the collective medical marijuana dispensary was never a lawful use within the City's Manufacturing District; and on the court's de- ©2013 Thomson Reuters 5