Riverside County Takes Next Step Toward Legalization of Cannabis Businesses

Riverside County

On March 20, 2018, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, California, held a Workshop to consider a County-wide regulatory framework for the legalization of cannabis businesses.  The County previously banned medical cannabis and reinforced the ban of all commercial cannabis in September 2017.  However, two members of the Board, Chairman Chuck Washington and Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, were concurrently appointed to an ad-hoc committee of the Board to work with staff to research the potential marijuana licensing and revenue generation opportunities for the unincorporated areas of Riverside County.

According to the staff presentation, nearly 50% of the incorporated cities in Riverside County have adopted regulations permitting various cannabis businesses to obtain a cannabis license, including Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, and Perris.

Similar to statements made by Lori Ajax, Chief of the California Bureau of Cannabis Control in February 2017, County staff suggested to the Board of Supervisors that the first set of cannabis regulations may not resolve all of Riverside County’s issues and that an annual review of the processes and regulations is recommended.

County planning staff recommended a maximum of 19 marijuana dispensaries and 50 marijuana cultivation sites in the first year based on land use and permit processing concerns.  These recommended maximums do not comport with the primarily agricultural nature of unincorporated Riverside County which allegedly hosts hundreds of outdoor marijuana cultivation sites.  In addition, planning staff suggested limiting all cannabis cultivation to indoor sites of less than one acre.  (See the Riverside County Cannabis Businesses Board of Supervisors Submittal and Staff Report.)

On the other hand, County staff acknowledged the opportunity for legally established distribution and testing laboratories in the County to permit active participation of local businesses in the supply chain of the cannabis market both inside and outside the County of Riverside.  To their credit, County staff recommended the zoning for marijuana nurseries, manufacturing, distribution, and testing facilities mirror the zoning for similar non-cannabis businesses without any recommended maximum of locations.

Regarding financing, the County staff provided three distinct choices for the Board of Supervisors:

(1) Cannabis taxation requiring a vote of the people;

(2) an Annual License Fee limited to the recovery of costs of processing cannabis license applications and regulating conduct of licensed facilities; and

(3) negotiating cannabis development agreements through specific applications of potential cannabis licensees to secure a public/community benefit via a neutral point system.

County staff relied upon data from Cathedral City and estimated potential cannabis tax revenues from $8.7 million to $46.1 million annually depending on the number of licensed cannabis businesses and a tax rate between 2 and 4%.  A representative from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters presented an estimate of $750,000 for the County to place a cannabis tax measure on the ballot for November 2018.

Development agreements are legally exempt from a vote of the people.  However, according to County Counsel, a cannabis development agreement would generally require a protection of land use approvals for five to ten years, regardless of future decisions of the Board of Supervisors.

After a very thorough and thoughtful staff presentation on both the land use and financial opportunities of permitting medical and recreational marijuana in the jurisdiction, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to continue to work on the legalization of cannabis businesses by a vote of 4-1.  In addition, the Board directed staff by a vote of 3-2 to work toward a Development Agreement process through a Request for Proposals instead of placing a cannabis tax measure on the ballot for November 2018.

County staff intends to present an ordinance for permitting commercial cannabis in Riverside County to the Planning Commission in late Spring/early Summer with a hearing for final approval before the Board of Supervisors in July 2018.

Contact us to learn more about California state or local cannabis regulations, cannabis regulatory compliance, and cannabis litigation.

State Medical Marijuana Programs Protected by Congress

US Congress Rohrabacher Farr Amendment

State medical marijuana programs have again been protected by the U.S. Congress despite a request by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the protections be removed (see Jeff Sessions Letter).  Congress and the President signed off on the fiscal year 2018 omnibus funding legislation which keeps medical marijuana protection in place through September 30, 2018.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said:

“While I’m glad that our medical marijuana protections are included, there is nothing to celebrate since Congress only maintained the status quo.  These protections have been law since 2014.  This matter should be settled once and for all.  Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans, across every party, strongly favor the right to use medical marijuana.”

“Instead, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is doubling down on the failed War on Drugs and Republican leadership in Congress—led by Chairman Pete Sessions—is stonewalling.  They’re ignoring the will of the American people by blocking protections for state adult-use laws and cannabis banking.  They even refused our veterans access to lifesaving medicine.”

The 2018 omnibus funding legislation extends the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment (Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon) which prohibits the use of federal funds to prevent certain States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.  That language was initially passed by Congress in 2014 as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment (H.Amdt.748) and is now known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment.

Because the provision is included as part of a Congressional spending package and does not explicitly amend the US Controlled Substances Act, members must re-authorize the amendment annually.  This is the ninth time the amendment has been temporarily extended by Congress.

The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment was supported by a bipartisan group letter to House and Senate leadership from 66 Congress members including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

Also in support of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment was a letter from California State Treasurer John Chiang.  Read more about state cannabis law at California Cannabis Law.

In August, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016), unanimously ruled that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment bars the federal government from taking legal action against any individual involved in medical marijuana related activity absent evidence that the defendant is in clear violation of state law.

(Update: On May 17, 2018, for the first time ever, the US House Appropriations Committee approved inclusion of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019.  On June 12, the US Senate Appropriations Committee also approved a base CJS appropriations bill with the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment included.)

Contact us to learn more about California state or local cannabis regulations, cannabis regulatory compliance, and cannabis litigation.