AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ADDING CHAPTER 6

Similar documents
ORDINANCE NO The City Council of the City of Manteca does ordain as follows:

ORDINANCE NO. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Yolo hereby ordains as follows:

Gerald L. Hobrecht, City Attorney (Staff Contacts: Gerald Hobrecht (707) and Scott Whitehouse, (707) )

ORDINANCE NO. C.S AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 9.86 OF THE STANISLAUS COUNTY CODE PROHIBITING CANNABIS ACTIVITIES

WHEREAS, the City of Westminster, pursuant to its police power, may adopt

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach is a General Law city organized pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution; and

/ 8 ~Qb ORDINANCE NO.

City Attorney s Synopsis

AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION TO THE EL DORADO COUNTY CODE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

ORDINANCE NO. City Attorney s Synopsis

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTIONS AND OF CHAPTER 18.

Agenda Item A.2 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: June 16, 2009

ORDINANCE NO The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, ordains as follows:

ORDINANCE NO

require that cities provide for or allow the establishment and or operation of medical marijuana

IMPERIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM

ORDINANCE No. 17- WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach is a General Law city organized pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution; and

ORDINANCE NO

INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1417

ORDINANCE NO. 730 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA AMENDING THE CALISTOGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT. Jonathan P. Hobbs, City Attorney

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ELDORADO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

ORDINANCE NO

Medical Marihuana Facilities Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO IT IS ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Carlos as follows:

SCC NO. The Board of Supervisors of the County Of Sacramento ordains as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Choteau, Montana, that:

ORDINANCE ADDING COUNTY OF MARIN CODE CHAPTER 6.86, MEDICINAL CANNABIS DELIVERY-ONLY RETAILER LICENSING

TOWN OF KIOWA ORDINANCE NO

ORDINANCE NO ; CEQA

CITY Of RANCHO SANTA MAR GAR IT A CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

ORDINANCE NO

CITY OF HEMET Hemet, California ORDINANCE NO. 1850

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE NO Effective: Upon Publication After Adoption Published: March 16, 2011 OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE NO. 925 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROHIBITING MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DECLARING MARIJUANA CULTIVATION TO BE A NUISANCE

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE ORDINANCE NO.

TOWNSHIP OF WILBER IOSCO COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO ADOPTED: January 7, 2013 PUBLISHED: January 16, 2013

Appendix P.1 Kern County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Project Option A: Revisions to Title 19 Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Title 5 Business Licenses

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AMENDING SECTIONS 35-2 AND 35-5 TO CHAPTER 35 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED THE RIGHT TO FARM ORDINANCE.

Title 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Grover Beach is a General Law city organized pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution; and

CITY OF READING COUNTY OF HILLSDALE, STATE OF MICHIGAN. ORDINANCE NO ADOPTED: November 14, 2017 EFFECTIVE: December 1, 2017

ORDINANCE NO THE CITY OF WOODLAND, WASHINGTON

ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of American Canyon unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance; and

STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WAYNE CITY OF ALLEN PARK

ARTICLE III. - MEDICAL MARIJUANA. Sec Distribution. Page 1

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, do ordain as follows:

BLAIR TOWNSHIP MEDICAL MARIHUANA ORDINANCE #140-12

ORDINANCE NO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the CSA is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any conflicting State enactments; and

(Ord. No , 2, )

SUMMARY: BILL NUMBER: ORDINANCE NUMBER:

CHAPTER 8.56 MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION

ORDINANCE NO

TOWNSHIP OF MUELLER COUNTY OF SCHOOLCRAFT, STATE OF MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE:

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Certified copy of portion of proceedings, Meeting of November 14,2017

TOWNSHIP OF CHESTER OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Assembly Bill No. 243 CHAPTER 688

NEW BUSINESS Agenda Item No. : 8b CC Mtg. : 7/12/2005

STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WAYNE CITY OF ALLEN PARK

ORDINANCE NO. 725 (AS AMENDED THROUGH 725

ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 66, (OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS), ARTICLE III (CURFEW FOR MINORS)

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Perris hereby ordains as follows:

Ordinance No. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, TEXAS: 1.

ORDINANCE NO CITY OF EVART OSCEOLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN

ORDINANCE NO. 08- THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. November 2, 2010

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, do ordain as follows:

BILL NO ORDINANCE NO.

STAFF REPORT. MEETING October 24, City Council. Adam McGill, Chief of Police. PRESENTER: Michael Howard, Patrol Lieutenant

TOWNSHIP OF BRUCE MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 194 PROHIBITION OF MARIHUANA ESTABLISHMENTS ORDINANCE TITLE

STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WASHTENAW ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ORONOKO CHARTER TOWNSHIP COUNTY OF BERRIEN STATE OF MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 68

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO CENTRAL DIVISION UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Staff Report. Susanne Brown, City Attorney Victoria Walker, Director of Community and Economic Development Laura Simpson, Planning Manager

AGENDA. Rules of Decorum. Under the Government Code, the City Council may regulate disruptive behavior that impedes the City Council Meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAMAR, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:

The City Council of the City of Etna does hereby ordain as follows: Chapter 8.10 Medical Marijuana

ORDINANCE NO Town of Rising Sun. Cecil County, Maryland

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

purpose of regulating electronically amplified loud and raucous noise within the City of Santa Ana.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA

ORDINANCE NO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

ORDINANCE NO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA: Permitting or Encouraging Underage Drinking

ACME TOWNSHIP MEDICAL MARIHUANA LICENSING ORDINANCE

VILLAGE OF ALANSON MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITIES ORDINANCE Ordinance No. of 2018

Village of Kalkaska Ordinance No

TOWNSHIP OF ACME GRAND TRAVERSE COUTNY, MICHIGAN ACME TOWNSHIP MEDICAL MARIHUANA LICENSING ORDINANCE

SCC NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO TOBACCO RETAILERS

PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Peoria, Arizona as follows:

ORDINANCE NO N.S.

ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PERRIS ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, ordains as follows:

GALITY INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORDINANCE NO C.M.S

Req. # SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE NO

CITY OF MELISSA, TEXAS

Transcription:

ORDINANCE NO. 2016- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ADDING CHAPTER 6.106 TO THE GENERAL ORDINANCE CODE RELATED TO THE PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DELIVERY WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (codified as California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and titled the Compassionate Use Act of 1996"); and WHEREAS, the intent of Proposition 215 was to enable persons who are in need of marijuana for medical purposes to be able to obtain and use it without fear of criminal prosecution under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2004, Senate Bill 420 was enacted (codified as California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. and titled the "Medical Marijuana Program Act") to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The Medical Marijuana Program Act allows counties to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with its provisions; and WHEREAS, in 2011, Assembly Bill 2650 was enacted (codified as California Health and Safety Code section 11362.768). This law affirms that counties can adopt ordinances that restrict the location and establishment of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives; and WHEREAS, in 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 were enacted (codified as California Business and Professions Code section 19300 et seq. and titled the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act"). These bills also amended provisions of the Medical Marijuana Program Act related to the cultivation of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 19315(a), nothing in the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act shall be interpreted to supersede or limit existing local authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement of local zoning requirements or local ordinances, or enforcement of local permit or licensing requirements; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is enacted, consistent with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, and the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of Alameda County residents in relation to the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, in Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, the court held that neither the Compassionate Use Act nor the Medical Marijuana Program Act preempt a local jurisdiction's police power to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, the California Supreme Court concluded that nothing in the Compassionate Use Act nor the Medical Marijuana Program Act preclude a local jurisdiction from regulating or prohibiting facilities that distribute medical marijuana; and 1

WHEREAS, although banned in Alameda County under the principles of permissive zoning, it is believed that the cultivation of medical marijuana has been occurring in the unincorporated area of Alameda County; and WHEREAS, marijuana cultivation has been shown to involve avoidance of environmental laws and regulations and resulted in the pollution of waters and navigable waterways in the State of California. Unregulated marijuana cultivation can be harmful to the welfare of the surrounding community and its residents and constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, absent appropriate regulation, marijuana cultivation and delivery in the unincorporated area of Alameda County poses a potential threat to the public peace, health, and safety; and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda intends to proceed with a study and public meetings to consider a revised ordinance that most effectively regulates and licenses all facets of medical marijuana activities; and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, in preserving the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the unincorporated areas of the County by prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana until a comprehensive study is conducted and regulations adopted; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is reflective of existing law and intended to clarify the County of Alameda's position with regard to the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to conflict with federal law as contained in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 841 or to license any activity that is prohibited under said Act except as mandated by State law; and WHEREAS, nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to: (1) allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance; (2) allow the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes; or (3) allow any activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is illegal under state or federal law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA THAT: SECTION 1. Chapter 6.106 of the Alameda County Ordinance Code is added to the General Ordinance Code to read as follows: 6.106.010 Purpose and intent. It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to reflect existing law in the County of Alameda, clarifying and expressly prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana in order to 2

protect the environment and preserve the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens and residents of, and travelers through, the County of Alameda. 6.106.020 Relationship to other laws. This Chapter is not intended to apply to, nor shall it be construed or given effect in a manner that causes it to apply to, any activity that is regulated by federal or state law to the extent that application of this Chapter would conflict with such law or would unduly interfere with the achievement of federal or state regulatory purposes. This Chapter shall be interpreted to be compatible and consistent with federal, state, and county enactments and in furtherance of the public purposes which those enactments express. The provisions of this Chapter will supersede any other provisions of this Code found to be in conflict. 6.106.030 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, these words and phrases shall be defined as follows: A. Caregiver or primary caregiver shall have the same definition as set forth in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7(d) as it now reads or as amended. B. "Cultivate" or "cultivation" shall have the same definition as set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(l) as it now reads or as amended. C. Delivery shall have the same definition as set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(m) as it now reads or as amended and shall include 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 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code, or a testing laboratory. D. Dispensary shall have the same definition as set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(n) as it now reads or as amended, and shall include those facilities regulated by Chapter 6.108 of this Code. E. "Marijuana" shall have the same definition as cannabis as set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(f) as it now reads or as amended. F. "Medical marijuana" shall have the same definition as medical cannabis and medical cannabis product as set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(ag) as it now reads or as amended. G. Qualified patient shall have the same definition as set forth in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7(f) as it now reads or as amended. 6.106.040 Medical marijuana cultivation and delivery prohibited. A. The cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana are prohibited in all areas of 3

unincorporated Alameda County. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to: 1. Cultivation of marijuana, either indoors or outdoors. 2. Operation of a marijuana nursery, as defined by California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(ah) as it now reads or as amended. 3. Medical marijuana manufacturing sites, as defined by California Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(af) as it now reads or as amended. B. Notwithstanding Subsection A, nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit: 1. The carriage of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products on public roads by licensees acting in compliance with California Business and Professions Code section 19340 and any adopted state and local regulations. 2. Licensed transporters operating in compliance with California Business and Professions Code sections 19337 and 19338 and any adopted state and local regulations. 6.106.050 Enforcement. A. The remedies provided by this Chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. B. Violations of this Chapter are subject to a civil action brought by the district attorney or the county counsel, punishable by a civil fine not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation. C. Any violation of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor. Violations of this Chapter may, in the discretion of the district attorney, be prosecuted as infractions or misdemeanors. Notwithstanding this declaration, consistent with the holding in Kirby v. County of Fresno (2015) 242 Cal.App.4 th 940, neither a qualified patient nor a primary caregiver who cultivates or delivers marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician shall be subject to arrest or criminal prosecution for a violation of this Chapter as a misdemeanor. D. Violations of this Chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances and may be enforced pursuant to the procedure in chapter 6.65 of this Code. E. Any person that violates this chapter shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which such person commits, continues, permits, or causes a violation thereof, and shall be penalized accordingly. F. In addition to other remedies provided by this chapter or by other law, any violation of this Chapter may be remedied by a civil action brought by the planning director or his designee, including, for example, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil or 4

criminal code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. 6.106.060 Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part of this Chapter or the application thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional by any final court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Chapter. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be repealed by its own terms upon the adoption of state legislation repealing or eliminating the March 1, 2016 deadline in Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4). SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once with the names of the members voting for and against the same in the Inter-City Express, a newspaper published in the County of Alameda. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, State of California, on January, 2016, by the following called vote: AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: President of the Board of Supervisors County of Alameda, State of California ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOARD By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DONNA R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL By: Andrea L. Weddle, Assistant County Counsel 5