Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

May 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin Nonconforming Use/Marijuana— City orders medical marijuana collective operation to cease as a use not permitted under city code Collective argues its use is permitted as an allowed "medical office" under the code Citation: J. Arthur Properties, II, LLC v. City of San Jose, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2018) CALIFORNIA (03/19/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a medical marijuana collective was a "medical office" as permitted in the relevant zoning district by the municipal zoning ordinance. The Background/Facts: J. Arthur Properties, II, LLC owned prop- erty in a Commercial Office zoning district in the City of San Jose (the "City"). SV Care leased that property, and since 2010 operated a medi- cal marijuana collective at the property. In 2010, the City's Municipal Code (the "Code") did not list medical marijuana collective or any other marijuana -specific uses in the table of permitted uses in the Commercial Office zone. "Medical offices," however, were on the list of permitted uses in the Commercial Office zone. Starting in 2014, "medical marijuana collective" was allowed as a restricted use in certain industrial zoning areas in the City, however, it still was not permitted in the Commercial Office zone. In 2014, J. Arthur Properties, II, LLC, and SV Care (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") received from the City a compliance order stating that their medical marijuana collective was never allowed in the Commercial Of- fice zone and was in violation of the Code. The Plaintiffs disputed the compliance order to a City hearing officer. They argued that their medi- cal marijuana collective was a legal nonconforming use because it met the definition of "medical office," which was a permissible use when the collective opened. The hearing officer upheld the compliance order. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the City's Appeals Hearing Board, which also upheld the compliance order. The Plaintiffs then petitioned the trial court. Again, they argued that the medical marijuana collective was a legal nonconforming use because it met the definition of a "medical office," which, under the Code, was permitted in the Commercial Office zone at the time the col- 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters