HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - PH-1 - Ordinance Adopt Code Amendment CO-15-06 - 1/5/2016CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PH -1
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT CODE AMENDMENT CO -15-06: AN AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CULTIVATION OF
MARIJUANA AND/OR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2015
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI, AIA (714) 754-5610
minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov
RECOMMENDATION
Give first reading to Ordinance 16-01 to adopt Code Amendment CO -15-06 amending
Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter I definitions and enforcement, Chapter IV
City Wide Land Use, and adding new Article 20 to Chapter IX, Special Land Use
Regulations.
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and with a 5-0
vote recommended approval of Code Amendment CO -15-06. This code amendment is
recommended based on the recent bills signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 9,
2015 related to the regulation of medical marijuana. City Staff reviewed the current zoning
ordinance related to prohibition of marijuana cultivation within the City. City Staff
determined that a new ordinance would need to be adopted and in effect by March 1, 2016
in order to allow the City to prohibit or otherwise regulate this use. Should the City fail to
have an ordinance in effect by March 1, 2016, regulation of marijuana cultivation within the
City will be permitted and regulated by the state. Under the current state law, the City will
be unable to thereafter regulate or prohibit marijuana cultivation.
In the state of California, cities have the authority to adopt and enforce local laws so long
as they are not in conflict with state or federal law. On the basis of this authority, the City
has adopted a zoning ordinance that provides the permissible uses of and development
standards for all land within the City's boundaries. To this end, the City has adopted a
host of `use classifications,' which define uses within the City. Under the zoning
ordinance, a use classification not listed within a given zoning district is prohibited, unless
otherwise authorized by the Planning Commission. Currently, the outdoor cultivation of
marijuana is not a listed use and therefore prohibited. The proposed ordinance
prohibiting marijuana cultivation, however, will make the prohibition explicit as required by
state law effective January 1, 2016.
Marijuana cultivation is known for persistent strong odors as marijuana plants mature,
which could be offensive to many people and creates an attractive nuisance, alerting
persons to the location of valuable marijuana plants and creating an increased risk of
crime. Comprehensive regulation of premises used for marijuana cultivation is proper
and necessary to avoid the risks of criminal activity, degradation of the natural
environment, smells and indoor electrical fire hazards that may result from marijuana
cultivation. The indoor cultivation of substantial amounts of marijuana also frequently
requires excessive use of electricity, which often creates an unreasonable risk of fire
from the electrical grow lighting systems used in indoor cultivation.
It has been reported that the cultivation of marijuana in other cities has resulted in calls
for service to the police department, including calls for robberies thefts, and physical
assaults from marijuana that is grown outdoors; Marijuana growth poses significant
safety risks for surrounding neighbors, including but not limits to, risks of violent
confrontation in connection with attempts to steal marijuana, risk of fire from improperly
wired electrical lights within structures growing marijuana, risk of guard dogs and
security measures associated with structures and properties growing marijuana.
Furthermore, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has not established
appropriate pesticide tolerances for, or permitted the registration and lawful use of,
pesticides on cannabis crops intended for human consumption under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.). The use of pesticides is
therefore inadequately regulated and cannabis cultivated in California can and often does
contain pesticide residues. These substances can run off of outdoor cultivation sites onto
neighboring properties and/or leach into the groundwater.
There are thus serious nuisance impacts associated with the outdoor cultivation of
marijuana. Cultivation bans in other cities have been reviewed by the courts and have
been upheld in a variety of forms, including complete bans on cultivation within city limits
(see Maral v. City of Live Oak (2014)).
To ensure that the zoning code adequately address cultivation of medical marijuana,
staff recommends an amendment to the zoning ordinance to make explicit the fact that
cultivation of marijuana and/or medical marijuana is prohibited in the City.
STATE LAW GOVERNING MARIJUANA CULTIVATION
The laws governing medical marijuana cultivation, sale, and use in California have
evolved rapidly, and are presently in flux at the state level. As has been widely reported
in the media, the State of California is attempting to create a new statewide framework to
regulate medical marijuana cultivation, sale, and use (see AB 243 (Wood), AB 266
(Bonta, Cooley, Jones -Sawyer, Lackey, and Wood), and SB 643 (McGuire)). All three of
these bills have been passed by the Legislature and were signed by Governor Brown on
October 9, 2015. Their passage significantly affects the City's regulation of this subject.
Generally, the new laws continue to recognize the power of local governments to
regulate marijuana cultivation. However, under AB 243, the State Department of Food
and Agriculture will establish a 'Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program,' which will be
administered by the Department's secretary "except as specified in subdivision (c)" and
will administer the new state laws pertaining to the cultivation of medical marijuana.
Under subdivision (c):
If a city ... does not have land use regulations or ordinances regulating or
prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under
principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional
permit program pursuant to this section, then commencing March 1, 2016,
the [State Department of Food and Agriculture] shall be the sole licensing
authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city... (Health &
Safety Code § 11362.777(c)(4).)
Since this new framework has been signed into law, it is appropriate that the City ensure
its prohibition on the cultivation of marijuana is clear, so there is no question of the need
for the State to act as the only licensing authority under the new laws'.
ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment is intended to further fortify the existing prohibition of the
Zoning Code and explicitly provide for prohibition of marijuana cultivation in all zoning
districts.
On November 16, 2010, the City adopted Ordinance No. 10-14 that prohibited "Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries" in all zoning codes and added a new definition to Chapter 1 of
the zoning code as follows:
Medical marijuana dispensary. A facility or location where medical marijuana is
cultivated or by any other means made available to and/or distributed by or to three
(3) or more of the following: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person
with an identification card in strict accordance with State Health and Safety Code
Sections 11362.5 et seq and 11362.7 et seq., which shall include, but not be
limited to any facility or location engaging in the retail sale, dispensation, or
distribution of marijuana for medical purposes that does not have an active role in
the cultivation of the marijuana product that it sells, dispenses, or distributes, or
when its cultivation of the marijuana product is off-site from the facility or location
for retail sale, dispensation, or distribution.
Even though the ordinance referred to marijuana cultivation, the new proposed
amendment is suggested to ensure this specific use is affirmatively prohibited throughout
the City pursuant to the requirements of Health & Safety Code § 11362.777(c)(4).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that this new legislation could be overturned by the
voters. The Secretary of State has recently announced that an initiative to amend the California
Constitution with regard to medical marijuana issues has been cleared for circulation. According to the State
Attorney General's summary, if passed, the initiative would, among other things, bar "state and local laws
that restrict patients' ability to obtain, cultivate, or transport medical marijuana, including concentrated
cannabis, in any way that does not apply equally to other plants." (Emphasis added.) A second marijuana
initiative to amend the State Constitution ("The Control, Regulate and Tax Cannabis Act of 2016") was just
submitted to the state Attorney General on October 5th and would likewise impact local regulation of
cultivation. While there is no way of predicting whether either of these initiatives (or another that has not yet
surfaced) might pass, it is certain the City will need to continue to monitor and revise regulations governing
marijuana.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Code requires publication of a display Ad in the local newspaper (Daily Pilot) for Title 13
Code Amendments. At the time of publication of this report, no public comments have
been received. Any correspondence will be forwarded to the City Council under separate
cover. In addition to the newspaper ad, homeowners associations and other neighboring
cities and government agencies were notified by mail.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been
found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) (general rule) of the CEQA
Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Code will have a significant effect on the environment.
ALTERNATIVES
Direct staff to make modifications to the draft. However, the City will need to have an
ordinance in effect prior to March 1, 2016 if it wishes to retain local control over marijuana
cultivation. Continuing the introduction of the ordinance may compromise the ability to meet
the state mandated deadline.
LEGAL REVIEW
The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.
CONCLUSION
In response to AB 243, AB 266 and SB 643 that were signed into law by Governor Jerry
Brown on October 9, 2015 related to regulation of medical marijuana the Planning
Commission recommended that an ordinance be adopted and in effect by March 1, 2016
in order to allow the City to prohibit this use.
MINOO ASHABI, AIA
Principal Planner
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance
2. Information from
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Public Services Director
City Attorney
Transportation Services Manager
City Engineer
City Clerk (9)
Staff (7)
File (2)
GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP
Economic and Development Services
Director
e of California Cities
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 16-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENT
CO -15-06, AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER I (DEFINITIONS
AND ENFORCEMENT) AND CHAPTER IV (CITYWIDE LAND
USE MATRIX), AND ADDING ARTICLE 20 TO CHAPTER IX
ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS RELATED TO PROHIBITING
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND DECLARES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Costa Mesa, pursuant to its police
power, may adopt regulations to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public,
Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7, Cal. Govt. Code § 37100, and thereby is authorized to declare
what use or condition constitutes a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, Section 38771 of the California Government Code authorizes the
City through its legislative body to declare actions and activities that constitute a public
nuisance; and
WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import,
manufacture, distribute, possess, or use marijuana for any purpose in the United
States and further provides criminal penalties for marijuana possession, cultivation
and distribution; and
WHEREAS, the People of the State of California have enacted Proposition 215,
the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (codified at Health and Safety Code Section
11362.5 et seq.) (the "CUA"), which exempts qualified patients and their primary
caregivers from criminal prosecution under enumerated Health and Safety Code
sections for use of marijuana for medical purposes; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 420 in 2003, the
Medical Marijuana Program Act (codified at Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7
et seq.) (the "MMPA"), as amended, which created a state-wide identification card
scheme for qualified patients and primary caregivers; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2015, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 643,
Assembly Bill 266, and Assembly Bill 243, collectively referred to as the Medical
Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"), effective January 1, 2016, which
establishes a state licensing system for medical marijuana cultivation, manufacturing,
delivery, and dispensing, regulating these activities with licensing requirements and
regulations that are only applicable if cities and counties also permit marijuana
cultivation, manufacturing, dispensing, and delivery within their jurisdictions. Under
the MMRSA, cities and counties may continue to ban medical marijuana cultivation,
manufacturing, dispensing, and delivery, in which case the new law would not allow or
permit these activities within the cities and counties; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the CUA, the MMPA, and the MMRSA, marijuana
remains a schedule I substance pursuant to Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 11054 (d)(13);
and
WHEREAS, marijuana also remains a schedule I substance pursuant to federal
law, 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule 1 (c)(10), and federal law does not provide for any
medical use defense or exception (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005); United
States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001)); and
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court has established that neither the CUA
nor the MMPA preempt local regulation in the case of City of Riverside v. Inland
Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 729 (2013); and
WHEREAS, the MMRSA expressly allows cities and counties to ban marijuana
cultivation consistent with current state law including the City of Riverside v. Inland
Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 729 (2013); and
WHEREAS, the MMRSA provides that if a city, county, or city and county does
not have land use regulations or ordinances regulating or prohibiting the cultivation of
marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under the principles of permissive zoning, or
chooses not to administer a conditional permit program pursuit to the MMRSA, then
commencing March 1, 2016, the state will be the sole licensing authority for medical
marijuana cultivation applicants (Health & Safety Code section 11372.777(c)(4)); and
WHEREAS, the City intends by the adoption of this ordinance to prohibit
marijuana cultivation within the City for the express and specific purpose of preserving
the City's authority to ban and/or adopt future regulations pertaining to marijuana
cultivation as is required by California Health and Safety Code section
11372.777(c)(4), effective January 1, 2016, added by the MMRSA; and
WHEREAS, per Title 13, Zoning Code of the City of Costa Mesa, marijuana
cultivation is not a permitted use in any of the zoning districts in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa finds that it is in the
interest of the health, safety and welfare of the City to make explicit that marijuana
cultivation is prohibited anywhere in the City and is a public nuisance per se; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the cultivation of marijuana significantly
impacts, or has the potential to significantly impact, the City's jurisdiction. These
impacts include the following:
A. In Orange County, public safety agencies, city residents, and other public
entities have reported adverse impacts from marijuana cultivation, including
disagreeable odors and release of pollen that can aggravate the respiratory
system; increased risk of burglary and other property crimes; and acts of
violence in connection with the commission of such crimes or the occupants'
attempts to prevent such crimes;
B. The creation of persistent strong odors as marijuana plants mature and flower
is offensive to many people and creates an attractive nuisance, alerting
persons to the location of valuable marijuana plants and creating an increased
risk of crime;
C. The unregulated cultivation of marijuana can adversely affect the health, safety
and well-being of the city and its residents. Comprehensive regulation of
premises used for marijuana cultivation is proper and necessary to avoid the
risks of criminal activity, degradation of the natural environment, smells and
indoor electrical fire hazards that may result from marijuana cultivation,
D. The indoor cultivation of substantial amounts of marijuana also frequently
requires excessive use of electricity, which often creates an unreasonable risk
of fire from the electrical grow lighting systems used in indoor cultivation;
E. The cultivation of marijuana in other cities has resulted in calls for service to
the police department, including calls for robberies thefts, and physical
assaults from marijuana that is grown outdoors; and
F. Marijuana growth poses significant safety risks for surrounding neighbors,
including but not limits to, risks of violent confrontation in connection with
attempts to steal marijuana, risk of fire from improperly wired electrical lights
within structures growing marijuana, risk of guard dogs and security
measures associated with structures and properties growing marijuana; and
Whereas the City Council finds that sanctioning the cultivation of marijuana
would be inconsistent with federal law; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental
procedures, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General
Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the provisions of this Ordinance are
consistent with the City of Costa Mesa's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance will not adversely affect
property values and will not be detrimental to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered evidence presented by the
Planning Commission and City Staff at a duly noticed public hearing held on
December 14, 2015; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this ordinance have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Title 13, Chapter I, Article 2, Definitions, Section 13-6 of the Costa Mesa
Municipal Code is hereby amended to include the following new definitions within an
alphabetized series of definitions:
"Marijuana. Has the same definition as that set forth in California Health & Safety Code
Section 11018."
"Medical marijuana. Marijuana used for medical purposes in accordance with California
Health and Safety Code section 11362.5."
"Marijuana cultivation and/or Medical Marijuana Cultivation. The planting, growing,
harvesting drying or processing of marijuana plants or any part thereof for any purpose,
including medical marijuana, and shall include both indoor and outdoor cultivation."
Section 2: Title 13, Chapter I, Article 4, Enforcement, Section 13-16(d), of Costa Mesa
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 13-16. Enforcement
" (d) No criminal prosecution, citation or penalty. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (a) and (b) of this section, no person shall be criminally prosecuted or cited,
or suffer any criminal penalty, for any violation of the provisions of section 13-30, Table
13-30, rows 31 a and/or 31 b relating to the prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries
or medical marijuana cultivation within the city, or for a violation of the provisions of
Chapter IX, Article 20 related to the prohibition against medical marijuana cultivation. "
Section 3: Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 20 of Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby
added as follows:
"Article 20. Marijuana and/or Medical Marijuana Cultivation
Sec. 13-200.84 PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to prohibit marijuana cultivation, in order to promote
the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the residents and the businesses
within the City by maintaining local control over the ability to authorize and regulate
marijuana -related businesses, including cultivation.
Sec. 13-200.85 APPLICABILITY
1. Nothing in this article is intended, nor shall it be construed, to burden any defense
to criminal prosecution under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
2. All the provisions of this article shall apply to all property, public and private,
within the City.
3. All the provisions of this article shall apply indoors and outdoors.
Sec. 13-200.86 DEFINITIONS
The following definition applies to this article:
"Person" shall mean any person, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other
organization. The term person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee,
volunteer and/or salesperson.
Sec. 13-200.87 CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITED
Marijuana and/or medical marijuana cultivation by any person, including primary
caregivers, qualified patients and dispensaries, is prohibited in all zone districts within
the City of Costa Mesa.
Sec. 13-200.88 DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
Any use, structure, or property that is altered, enlarged, erected, established, maintained,
moved, or operated contrary to the provisions of this article, is hereby declared to be
unlawful and a public nuisance and may be abated by the city through civil and/or
administrative proceedings by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent
injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances.
Sec. 13-200.89 VIOLATIONS
Violations of this article shall be punishable pursuant to the provisions of section 13-16. "
Section 4: Title 13, Table 13-30 of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Costa
Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to add row 31 b as follows:
"31 b. Marijuana and/or medical marijuana cultivation." [prohibited in all zones]
[See attachment A]
Section 5: Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or
appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of
such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 6: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to
any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective
of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases,
or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or
unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal
law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors.
Section 7: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from
and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its
passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative,
the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified
copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5)
days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after
adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and
shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with
the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same.
Adopted this day of 12016
Stephen Mensinger, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Green
City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City
Council held on the day of 2016, and thereafter at the regular meeting of
said City Council duly held on the day of , 2016, was duly passed and
adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Brenda Green
City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
TABLE 1330
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
Z O N E S
LAND USES
R
R
R
R
A
C
C
C
C
T
M
M
P
P
P
P
P
P
I
I
P
1
L
C
M
H 3
P
1
2
1
C1
P
❑
D
D
D
D
D
&
&
D
D
S1
R
R
R
R
C1
11
RI
51
L
M
H
N
Di
D1
D1
C
M{
INSTTFUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL USES
23. Cemeteries
,
C
24. Chi;,_ -,es aid c'he, glace, c` -e is ..is
C2
C2
C2
C2
Cs
C2
p2
p2
C2
C2
p2
p2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
p2
C2
assembly (Sunject to J -t-, q- sme-its of
ARTICLE 4.5 DEVE_:)F''JI \TSTANDARCS
FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF
RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY)
25. Civic and community clubs
C
C
C
C
C
C
p
p
p
p
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
25. Convalescent hospitals; Nursing homes
■
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
■
.
,
■
,
■
■
■
.
■
p
■
■
27. Country clubs; golf courses
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
p
C
28. Crematories - See also Mortuaries services
C
C
C
■
C
29. Fairgrounds; Outdoorfestival (permanent)
■
■
■
■
■
.
■
.
.
.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
C
■
30. Hospitals, general
.
.
.
.
.
■
.
■
■
.
■
.
■
■
.
■
.
.
P
.
31. Libraries; privately -operated
C
C
C
C
■
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
. Medical marijuana dispensary
3U. Marijuana andlor medical marijuana
,
cultivation
A17ACHMENT2
Informational Briefing:
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• This briefing is designed to educate our members on the
three bills comprising the Medical Marijuana Regulation
and Safety Act (MMRSA). Its goals are to:
• Explain how this legislation protects local control;
• Review the details of what each bill does;
• Highlight specific regulatory issues that require
immediate attention from local governments;
• Discuss timelines for implementation
• Field your questions
Note: Some of the provisions of the new laws discussed in this briefing are not included in the
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.
,13_
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act consists of
three discrete pieces of legislation:
• AB 266 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones -Sawyer, Lackey, Wood) -
Establishes dual licensing structure requiring state license and a local
license or permit. Department of Consumer Affairs heads overall
regulatory structure establishing minimum health and safety and testing
standards.
• AB 243 (Wood)— Establishes a regulatory and licensing structure for
cultivation sites under the Department of Food and Agriculture.
• SB 643 (McGuire) - Establishes criteria for licensing of medical
marijuana businesses, regulates physicians, and recognizes local
authority to levy taxes and fees.
Lll1\ LEAGUE'
CITIES
2
f-ZA
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• This legislation protects local control in the following ways:
• Dual licensing: A requirement in statute that all marijuana businesses must have both a
state license, and a local license or permit, to operate legally in California. Jurisdictions that
regulate or ban medical marijuana will be able to retain their regulations or ban.
• Effect of Local Revocation of a Permit or License: Revocation of a local license or
permit terminates the ability of a marijuana business to operate in that jurisdiction under
its state license.
• Enforcement: Local governments may enforce state law in addition to local ordinances, if
they request that authority and if it is granted by the relevant state agency.
• State law penalties for unauthorized activity: Provides for civil penalties for unlicensed
activity, and applicable criminal penalties under existing law will continue to apply.
• With certain exceptions, expressly protects local licensing practices, zoning
ordinances, and local actions taken under the constitutional police power.
�,\ 1.EAGUP
CITIL`
3
V5-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• This legislation protects public safety in the following ways:
• SBS 643: Establishes a track and trace program for all marijuana.
• AB 266:
• Limits vertical integration by requiring third party distribution,
transportation and testing.
• Requires the development of a study that identifies the impact and
impairing effect that marijuana has on motor skills.
• Establishes uniform security requirements at dispensaries as well as
for transporters.
IIP—
Key State Medical Marijuana Laws
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (Business and Profession
Code section 19300 through 1936o). Governs the licensing and control of
all medical marijuana businesses in the state and provides criminal
immunity for licensees.
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health and Safety Code section 11362.5).
Criminal violations relating to possession and cultivation of marijuana do
not apply to patients and primary caregivers for possession and
cultivation of marijuana for personal medical use with doctor's approval.
Medical Marijuana Program (Health and Safety Code section 11362.7
through 11362.9). Establishes voluntary program for identification cards
issued by county for qualified patients and primary caregivers and
provides criminal immunity to qualified patients and primary caregivers
for certain activities involving medical marijuana. L rpt E
LCIT IGS
5
-19-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
Two areas will require immediate attention from local
governments:
• Deliveries and mobile dispensaries: Delivery is permitted with
a State license unless a city adopts an express prohibition on
delivery (AB 266).
• Cultivation ordinances: Cities must adopt an ordinance
prohibiting or regulating cultivation prior to March i, 2oi6.
Otherwise the State will be sole licensing authority.
L,\ LE,aGU[-
CITIES
6
—e—
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• AB 266 Medical Marijuana — what the bill does:
• Establishes a statewide regulatory scheme administered by the Bureau of
Medical Mari''uana Regulation (BMMR) within the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA).
• Provides for dual licensing: both a state license, and a local permit or
license, issued according to local ordinances, are required.
• Caps total cultivation for a single licensee at 4 acres statewide, subject to
local ordinances.
• Creates four licensing categories: Dispensary, Distributor, Trans ort, and
Special Dispensary Status for licensees who have a maximum ofphree
dispensaries. Specifies various sub -categories of licensees (indoor
cultivation, outdoor cultivation, etc.)
• Limits cross -licensing: Operators may hold one state license in up to two
separate license categories. Prohibits medical marijuana licensees from
also holding licenses to sell alcohol. �LEAGUE' CITiES
7
_kq-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• AB 266 Medical Marijuana - what the bill does:
Grandfathers in vertically integrated businesses (i.e. businesses that
operate and control their own cultivation, manufacturing, and dispensing
operations) if a local ordinance allowed or required such a business
model and it was enacted on or before July 1, 2015. Requires businesses to
operate in compliance with local ordinances, and to have been engaged in
all the specified activities on July 1, 2015.
Requires establishment of uniform state minimum health and safety
standards, testing standards, and security requirements at dispensaries
and during transport of the product. Product testing is mandatory.
Specifies a standard for certification of testing labs, and specified
minimum testing requirements. Prohibits testing lab operators from
being licensees in any other category, and from holding a financial or
ownership interest in any other category of licensed business.
LVAGUE'
CIT(E4
s
—20—
Medical
20—
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• AB 266 Medical Marijuana - what the bill does:
• Labor Peace: Includes a labor peace agreement under which unions agree
not to engage in strikes, work stoppages, etc. and employers agree to
provide unions reasonable access to employees for the purpose of
organizing them. Specifies that such an agreement does not mandate a
particular method of election.
• Specifies that patients and primary caregivers are exempt from the state
licensing requirement, and provides that their information is not to be
disclosed and is confidential under the California Public Records Act.
• Phases out the existing model of marijuana cooperatives and collectives
one year after DCA announces that state licensing has begun. Thereafter
license will be required.
�1\ LF iGUF
GIl- IEJ
9
-21-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• AB 243 Medical Marijuana - what the bill does:
• Places the Dept. of Food and Agriculture (DFA) in charge of State
licensing and regulation of indoor and outdoor cultivation sites.
• Mandates the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to develop
standards for pesticides in marijuana cultivation, and maximum
tolerances for pesticides and other foreign object residue.
• Mandates the Dept. of Public Health to develop standards for
production and labelling of all edible medical cannabis products.
• Assigns joint responsibility to DFA, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to prevent
illegal water diversion associated with marijuana cultivation from
adversely affecting California fish population.
L LF AGUE°
CITIES
10
—'.2—
Medical Marijuana Regulation
AB 243 Medical Marijuana - what the bill does:
• Specifies that DPR, in consultation with SWRCB, is to develop
regulations for application of pesticides in all cultivation.
• Specifies various types of cultivation licenses.
• Directs the multi -agency task force headed by the Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife and the SWRCB to expand its existing enforcement efforts to a
statewide level to reduce adverse impacts of marijuana cultivation,
including environmental impacts such as illegal discharge into waterways
and poisoning of marine life and habitats.
�`\ IJACitIr'
CI1iES
11
-Z3-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
. SB 643 Medical Marijuana - what the bill does:
• Directs California Medical Board to prioritize investigation
of excessive recommendations by physicians;
• Imposes fines ($5000.00) vs. physicians for violating
prohibition against having a financial interest in a marijuana
business;
• Recommendation for cannabis without a prior examination
constitutes unprofessional conduct;
• Imposes restrictions on advertising for physician
recommendations;
l� LF \GaP
cIT1ES
12
,— Z-1—
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• SB 643 Medical Marijuana - what the bill does:
• Places Dept. of Food and Agriculture in charge of cultivation
regulations and licensing, and requires a track, and trace
program;
• Codifies dual licensing (state license and local license or
permit), and itemizes disqualifying felonies for state
licensure;
• Places DPR in charge of pesticide regulation; DPH in charge
of production and labelling of edibles;
• Authorizes counties to tax - declaratory of existing law.
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• SB 643: Disqualifying felony convictions for
licensure
• These include felony narcotics convictions, violent felony
convictions, serious felony convictions, and felony
convictions involving fraud, deceit or embezzlement.
• Applications cannot be denied if the denial is based solely
on the applicant's conviction of a crime for which the
applicant was subsequently granted a certificate of
rehabilitation, or if the applicant's conviction was
subsequently dismissed.
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• Delivery of Medical Marijuana (AB 266)
• "Delivery" means the commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical
cannabis products from a dispensary, up to an amount determined by the
bureau to a primary caregiver or qualified patient as defined in Section
u362.7 of the Health & Safety Code, or a testing laboratory.
• "Delivery" also includes the use by a dispensary or any technology
platform owned and controlled by the dispensary or independently
licensed under this chapter that enables qualified patients or primary
caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a
licensed dispensary of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products.
(Business & Professions Code 19300.5(m))
`L IFAGUP
CII IES
15
-Zq-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• Delivery of Medical Marijuana (AB 266)
• "Deliveries" can only be made by a dispensary and in a city, county, or city and
county that does not ex licitly prohibit it by local ordinance. Business &
Professions Code 1934of a). See also Section 19340(b)(1).
• Therefore, if your city wishes to prohibit delivery of medical marijuana within your city, an
ordinance must be adopted to exnlicitlyprohibit deliveries.
• Timing: State licenses are expected to be issued starting January 1, 2o18. A facility or entity
that is operating in compliance with local zoning ordinances and other state and local
requirements may continue its operations until its application for licensure is approved or
denied effective January 1, 2o18 (Business & Professions 19321(c)).
• Ordinance explicitly prohibiting deliveries should include (1) an amendment to the zoning
code prohibiting "delivery" (as defined in AB 266) in any zoning district; or (2) an
amendment to the Municipal Code relating to business operations prohibiting "delivery" of
`medical marijuana" and "medical cannabis products" (as defined in AB 266) as a business
within the city.
11 1, FAG P
CITIES
16
2s-
✓ Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• Cultivation (AB 243)
• AB 243 (Wood) prohibits cultivation of medical marijuana without
first obtaining both a local license/permit/other entitlement for use
and a state license. A person may not apply for a state license without
first receiving a local license/permit/other entitlement for use.
• A person may not submit an application for a state license if
proposed cultivation will violate provisions of local ordinance or
regulation or if medical marijuana is prohibited by city, county, or city
and county either expressly or otherwise under principles of
permissive zoning (Health & Safety 11372.777(b)).
l" LFAGUE'
CITIES
17
-2-q-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
* Cultivation (AB 243)
However ... If a city, county, or city and county does not have land use
regulations or ordinances regulating or prohibiting the cultivation of
marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under the principles or permissive
zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program pursuant
to this section, then commencing Marchi, 2016, the state is the sole licensing
authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants (Health & Safety
11372.777(c)(4)). [Marchi, 2o16 deadline does not apply to cultivation for
personal medical use within ioo square foot area/500 square foot area for
primary care -taker].
Under a "permissive" zoning code, "any use not enumerated in the code is
presumptively prohibited." City of Corona v. Naulis (2oo8) 166 Cal.App.4th
418,425 cited in County of Sonoma v Superior Court (nolo) 190 Cal.App.41h
1312, FN. 3
L`\ LEAGUE'
CITIk:J
iS
-30-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• Cultivation (AB 243) - Examples:
• City #i: Municipal Code that expressly prohibits cultivation of marijuana: No
need to take any action.
• City #2: Municipal Code that expressly regulates (requires a permit or license or
other entitlement) the cultivation of medical marijuana: No need to take any
action.
• City #3: Municipal Code that does not expressly rohibit or expressly regulate
(requires a permit or license or other entitlement to cultivate medical marijuana
and is not a "permissive zoning" code. Need to take action (see next slide)
• City #4: Municipal Code that is a "permissive zoning" code and does not
enumerate cultivation of medical marijuana as a permitted or conditional use:
Need to take action (see second slide following).
1. LFr�r:'llp CITfE
19
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• Cultivation (AB 243) - Examples:
• City #3: What needs to be done before March i, 2o16?
City #3: Enact an ordinance. The Department of Food and Agriculture
will be the sole licensing authority for the cultivation of medical
marijuana within City #3 if City #3 does not have an ordinance either
expressly prohibiting or expressly regulating the cultivation of medical
marijuana before March 1, 2oi6. (Health & Safety Code 11362.777(c)(4).
Second reading of an ordinance must occur by January 29, 2oi6 or a city
may consider adopting an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government
Code 36937).
�r �c,u E•
CITILS
20
_32
Medical Marijuana Regulation
• Cultivation (AB 243) - Examples:
• City #4: What needs to be done before March 1, 2o16?
• City #4: If City #4 prohibits the cultivation of medical marijuana "under
principles of permissive zoning," then the Department of Food and
Agriculture may not issue a state license to cultivate medical marijuana
within City #4. (Health & Safety Code u362.777(b)(3)). However, the
city still needs take action (see next slide).
�i,EAcuf°
CITIES
21
Medical Marijuana Regulation
• Cultivation - General Guidelines for Cities
• Check and confirm that your city's zoning code is adopted and implemented
under the principles of permissive zoning. If not, take action recommended for
City #3.
• If confirmed that your city's zoning code is adopted and implemented under the
principles of permissive zoning: Adopt a resolution that includes the following
provisions:
• (1) States that H & S u362-777(b)O states that Department of Food and
Agriculture may not issue a state license to cultivate medical marijuana within a
city that prohibits cultivation under principles of permissive zoning;
• (i) Re -affirms and confirms that the Zoning Code is adopted and operates under
the principles of permissive zoning; ,
• (3) States this means that cultivation of marijuana is not allowed within City #4
because it is not expressly permitted and,
• (4) Therefore, the State is not allowed to issue a license for the cultivation of
medical marijuana within City #4.
L,\ LCI I -t
\ CIIiES
22
-3-4-
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
• Timeline for Implementation
• None of the bills specify a timeline for implementation
• This is partly due to various departments being at different
stages in terms of their readiness
• The rough timeline we have been given for state licensing
to begin is January 2o18
• The more immediate timeline for locals to bear in mind is
March 2o16 regarding your cultivation ordinances
L I FAGUF
LIT'IES
23
-3�5--
Medical Marijuana Regulation
• Quest ions ?
- 3Q�)-
'-4
November 6, 2015
Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs)
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act'
Topic #1: Cultivation
The State will be the sole licensing authority for the commercial cultivation of medical
marijuana unless a city adopts land use regulations or ordinances regulating or
prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana -- either expressly or otherwise under the
principles of permissive zoning -- prior to March 1, 2016.2
1. Question: If a city wants to enact a total ban on cultivation, can the ban include
cultivation for personal use?
Answer: Yes. Under Live Oak 3, a city can ban all marijuana cultivation -- even
cultivation of small amounts by qualified patients. The Live Oak ban had no exceptions
for personal use by a qualified patient. The new legislation does not change the law in
this regard.
2.Question: Must a city's ordinance prohibiting cultivation make an exception for
personal medical marijuana cultivation of up to 6 mature or 12 immature plants?4
Answer: No. In the Live Oak case, the California Court of Appeal upheld the city's
total ban on all marijuana cultivation. That authority is preserved under the new
legislation.
3. Question: Is a person who cultivates marijuana for his or her personal medical use
required to get a cultivation license from the State?
' AB 266 (Banta, Cooley, Jones -Sawyer, Lack, Wood); AB 243 (Wood); and SB 643 (McGuire). Effective
1/1/2016. Please consult your City Attorney before taking action to implement the MMRSA. The answers
to these FAQs may be different in your city based upon your municipal code, regulations, and policies.
The answers do not constitute legal advice from the League of California Cities®.
z Health & Safety 11362.777(c).
3 Moral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4`h 975.
4 Health & Safety Code 11362.77 allows a qualified patient to cultivate 6 mature or 12 immature plants without
criminal liability.
1311—
November 6, 2015
Answer: No, if the area used for cultivation does not exceed 100 square feet, or 500
square feet for a primary caregiver with no more than five patients.5 If the areas exceed
these limits, then a State license is required. The exemption from the State licensing
requirements does not prevent a city from regulating or banning cultivation by persons
exempt from State licensing requirements .6
4.Question: Can a city prevent the State from becoming the sole licensing authority for
cultivation by adopting an ordinance that permits the cultivation of six plants per
residence prior to March 1, 2016?
nswer: Yes. The State becomes the sole licensing authority for cultivation as of March
1, 2016 if a city does not have a land use regulation or ordinance "regulating or
prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana." An ordinance permitting cultivation under
certain specific conditions (not more than six plants per residence) is an ordinance
"regulating" marijuana cultivation and therefore qualifies. However, in order to be
completely clear, the City Attorney may wish to determine whether it is advisable to
prohibit all other types of cultivation as part of the ordinance.
5. tion: Must the cultivation prohibition be adopted as part of a city's zoning code?
Could it be adopted instead under the city's business licenses and regulations?
Answer: It's not possible to answer "yes" or "no." AB 243 requires a "land use
regulation or ordinance." Whether the phrase "land use" requires a zoning ordinance is
a question for the city attorney to answer based on the particular language of the city's
municipal code.
6. Question: Can a city ban large growers but still allow qualified patients to cultivate a
small amount of medical marijuana in their private residences?
Answer: Yes. There's nothing in the legislation that requires a total ban. The most
important consideration is to clearly identify cultivation that is prohibited and cultivation
that is allowed and to do so before March 1, 2016.
7.Question: Is a temporary land use moratorium (under Government Code section
65858) on medical marijuana cultivation that is effective in a city by March 1, 2016
sufficient to prevent the State from having sole licensing authority under the new law for
medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city?
5 Business & Professions Code 19319; Health & Safety 11362.777(8).
6 Health & Safety Code 11362.777(g).
IST60
November 6, 2015
Answer: Probably not. The new law requires a land use regulation or ordinance that
prohibits or regulates cultivation. Because a moratorium adopted under Government
Code 65858 would only temporarily prohibit cultivation, it may not qualify as a land use
ordinance that "prohibits" cultivation.
8. Question: Can a local medical marijuana cultivation ordinance be enacted on an
urgency basis in order to comply with the March 1, 2016 deadline in the new legislation?
Answer: Yes, with urgency findings relating to the statutory deadline.
Topic #2: Delivery
Deliveries of medical marijuana can only be made by a State -licensed dispensary in a
city that does not explicitly prohibit deliveries by local ordinance. If a city wants to
prevent deliveries within its jurisdiction, it must adopt an ordinance expressly prohibiting
them.'
9.Question: Is there a deadline for adopting an ordinance explicitly prohibiting
deliveries?
wer: There is no deadline in the new law. However, best practice would be to
adopt the ordinance prior to the date the State begins issuing licenses allowing
deliveries so as to reduce the risk of confusion and to avoid the process of requesting
the State to terminate the operations of a dispensary making deliveries within the city.
The legislation does not specify a deadline for the State to begin issuing any category of
license. The State is generally expected to begin issuing licenses on January 1, 2018,
but it could begin sooner.
10. Question: What are the quantities that delivery services will be authorized to
transport?
Answer: The amount that local delivery services will be authorized to carry will be
determined by the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation within the Department of
Consumer Affairs. The determination will be based on security considerations, cash
value, and other factors. The amount will be a statewide threshold, authorized for
delivery primarily to patients, primary caregivers, and testing labs. Larger amounts will
not be considered "delivery' but rather "transport" triggering heightened security
requirements while the product is being moved.
Health & Safety 19340.
-39-
November 6, 2015
Topic 3: Dispensaries and Retail Operations
11. Question: Will cities still be able to ban dispensaries?
Answer: Yes. Cities currently have the ability to enact bans on dispensaries and other
marijuana retail operations. The new law will not change that, and in fact requires a
local permit and a State license before a marijuana business can begin operations within
a specific jurisdiction. Cities will retain the discretion to deny permits or licenses to
marijuana dispensaries.
12. Question: Can a city allow dispensaries and prohibit delivery services?
Answer: Yes. But cities should be aware that if they wish to prohibit delivery services,
an ordinance prohibiting delivery services is required.
Topic #4: Other Questions
13.Question: Does the new legislation make any distinction between "not-for-profit'
and "for profit' medical marijuana businesses?
Answer: No. There is no distinction in the new legislation between medical marijuana
businesses that operate "for profit' and those that operate on a "not-for-profit' basis.
The new law does not mandate that dispensaries or other businesses operate under
either business model.
14.Question: Are marijuana edibles covered under the new legislation? Is there a
separate designation for them under the new law, with additional State regulatory
requirements?
Answer: The new legislation directs the State Department of Public Health (DPH) to
develop standards for the production and labeling of all edible medical cannabis
products (Business & Professions Code section 19332(c)). A license is required from
DPH to "manufacture" edibles. The DPH standards are "minimum standards." A city
may adopt additional stricter standards, requirements and regulations regarding
"edibles" (Business & Professions Code section 19316(a)). Cities also retain their
ability to license and regulate edible sales or distribution.
15. Question: The new law says: "upon approval of the state, cities may enforce state
law". If an existing medical marijuana dispensary does not have both licenses (State
and city), then must a city wait for the State to approve shutting the dispensary down
—.Iq L)--
November 6, 2015
before a city can cite the dispensary or otherwise seek to shut it down under the city's
ordinances and regulations?
wer: No. A city may enforce its own ordinances and regulations against the
dispensary since a medical marijuana dispensary cannot operate lawfully unless it
complies with all local ordinances and regulations.
16. Question: Does a P.O. Box qualify as a medical marijuana business location? Is
that considered a "use" in a city?
Answer: The answer to this question depends upon a city's municipal code. The State
law prohibits a person from engaging in commercial cannabis activity without
possessing both a State license and a local permit, license or other authorization. A
State licensee may not commence activity under the authority of a State license until the
applicant has complied with all requirements of the applicable local ordinance (Business
& Professions Code section19320). A city's municipal code will determine whether a
"use" includes a post office box.
17. Question: Does the new law address extraction of THC, butane or other
substances from marijuana?
Answer: The new law does not specifically address the issue of extraction at all — other
than to acknowledge very generally that extraction falls within the definition of
manufacturing, and that medical marijuana or a product derived from it may contain
extracts.
18. Question: Since patients and primary caregivers are exempt from the licensing
requirement under specified circumstances, how will that work if they are also owners of
a dispensary or cultivation site?
Answer: A primary caregiver or qualified patient who seeks to operate a dispensary or
cultivation site is subject to the same State licensing requirements and local permitting
requirements as any other person.
19. Question: What types of medical marijuana businesses require a State license?
Answer: The new law creates six State licensing categories: Dispensary, Distributor,
Transport, Cultivation, Manufacturing, and Special Dispensary Status for licensees who
have a maximum of three dispensaries. Any person or entity wishing to operate under a
State license must also comply with all local requirements.
_.y 1-
November 6, 2015
20. Question: Several initiative measures to legalize recreational marijuana have been
filed with the Attorney General in advance of the November 2016 ballot. Should a city
be considering prohibiting or regulating recreational marijuana at this time?
Answer: No. The new law does not address recreational use of marijuana. It adds a
licensing structure for businesses that wish to serve those qualified patients and primary
caregivers who use medical marijuana for their personal use. The League of California
Cities is following the various recreational marijuana initiative measures that have been
filed with the Attorney General. There is no need for a city to take any action at this
time. If a city is interested in following these measures, more information can be found
at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/initiatives/active-measures.
21. Question: Does the new law protect the privacy of patients and primary
caregivers?
Answer: Yes. Patient and primary caregiver information is confidential and not subject
to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, except as necessary for
employees of the State or any city to perform official duties.
22. Question: Is there a provision in the new law giving business operators priority for
State licensing if they can show that they are in compliance with local ordinances? If so,
what is the purpose of this provision?
Answer: Yes. The State licensing authority is required to prioritize any facility or entity
that can demonstrate to the authority's satisfaction that it was in operation and in good
standing with the local jurisdiction by January 1, 2016. This provision is intended as an
incentive for business operators to be in compliance with local ordinances, to ease any
difficulties local governments may have in launching their local regulatory structures,
and to help expedite the initial phase of issuing state licenses.
23. Question: Does the new law address food trucks that sell marijuana edibles?
Answer: No. The operation of food trucks are within the control and regulation of cities
and county health departments.
PLEASE NOTE: This document will be updated periodically, as needed, and will remain available at www.cacities.ore.
As noted above, each city should consult with its city attorney on all of these issues. The answers to these FAQs do
not constitute legal advice from the League of California Cities®.