Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

December 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin operation of a medical marijuana dispensary that had a history of unpaid taxes. The City argued that Ordinance No. 1715 did not, as the trial court had held, impermissibly amend Measure C's tax provisions to increase the penalty for nonpayment of taxes but simply "limit[ed] the many aspirants to sell medical marijuana in the city to a manageable number by preferring those who have demonstrated a willingness and ability to comply with local law by paying the Measure C tax when the [C]ity enforced it . . . and to continue paying taxes as a condition of immunized operation." DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court reversed, and matter re- manded with directions to issue the City's requested preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California, agreed with the City. The court said that "[l]ocal governments may rationally limit medical marijuana dispensaries to those already in operation and compliant with prior law as past compliance shows a willingness to follow the law, which suggests future lawful behavior." Thus, the court characterized Ordinance No. 1715 as "essentially a grandfather provision." The court determined that a marijuana dispensary's timely payment of business taxes provided the City "with a rational basis to conclude that the dispensary will continue to act in a law- abiding manner." Since NCORP4 did not pay its business taxes, the court concluded that the City reasonably denied NCORP4 immunity to continue operations. Addressing the NCORP4's argument and the trial court's conclusion —that Ordinance No. 1715 impermissibly amended Measure C as an ex post facto law, the appellate court noted that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applied only to criminal statutes and was inapplicable to local ordi- nances regulating the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Moreover, the court concluded that Ordinance No. 1715 did not'amend Measure C's tax provisions retrospectively, but rather was a separate ordinance that used past compliance with Measure C as one of several standards for granting dispensa- ries immunity from prosecution as a public nuisance. See also: 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal. App. 4th 1316, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17 (2d Dist. 2012). See also: City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 729, 156 Cal. Rptr 3d 409, 300 P.3d 494, 28 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 144 (2013). 4 © 2017 Thomson Reuters