Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 13 Preemption—State law allows medical marijuana collective gardens, but city zoning ordinance prohibits collective gardens Coalition contends state law preempts the ordinance Citation: Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, 2015 WL 2418553 (Wash. 2015) WASHINGTON (05/21/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether the Washington State Medical Use of Cannabis Act, which authorizes qualifying patients to participate in "collective gardens" to pool resources and grow medical marijuana, preempts local zoning ordinances that prohibit collective gardens. The Background/Facts: Under the Washington State Medical Use of Can- nabis Act ("MUCA"), chapter 69.51A RCW, qualifying patients may partici- pate in "collective gardens" to pool resources and grow medical marijuana for their own use. (RCW 69.51A.085(1).) Under the MUGA, participating in a collective garden involves "sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use," such as by providing real estate, equipment, supplies, or labor for the collective garden. (RCW 69.51A.085(2).) The MUCA clarifies that local governments retain authority to regulate the production, processing, or dispensing of medi- cal marijuana through zoning, business licensing, health and safety require- ments, and business taxes. (RCW 69.51A.140.) In 2012, the city of Kent, Washington, enacted an ordinance (the "Ordi- nance") that prohibits collective gardens. The Ordinance defines "collective gardens" similar to how they are defined under the MUCA. The Ordinance concerns "collective gardens" wherein up to 10 individuals pool resources to grow medical marijuana in potentially large operations of up to 45 plants and 75 ounces of usable marijuana. (Kent City Code 15.02.074(A) -(C).) The Ordinance adopts zoning requirements for "the growing, production, process- ing, transportation, and delivery of cannabis" in a collective garden, if seven conditions defining a collective garden are satisfied. The Cannabis Action Coalition and a number of individuals (collectively, the "Coalition") sued the city of Kent, its city council, and its mayor (collec- tively, "Kent"), seeking to have the Ordinance declared preempted and invalid. The Coalition contended that the MUCA preempted the Ordinance. Finding no issue of material fact and deciding the matter on the law alone, the superior court issued summary judgment for Kent, upholding the Ordinance. The Coalition appealed. The court of appeals held that the MUCA did not preempt the Ordinance. The Coalition again appealed. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 5