Costa Mesa, California, Eight Medical Marijuana Businesses, Measure V (November 2016)
| Measure V: Costa Mesa Eight Medical Marijuana Businesses |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local marijuana |
| Related articles |
| Local marijuana on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Orange County, California ballot measures Measure W |
| See also |
| Costa Mesa, California |
A measure allowing up to eight medical marijuana businesses in the city was on the ballot for Costa Mesa voters in Orange County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing up to eight medical marijuana businesses in Costa Mesa and establishing a tax on medical marijuana. |
| A no vote was a vote against allowing up to eight medical marijuana businesses and establishing a tax on medical marijuana. |
Election results
| Measure V | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 24,565 | 62.19% | ||
| Yes | 14,937 | 37.81% | ||
- Election results from Orange County Elections Office
Alternative initiative
Another initiative called an "Initiative to Provide Revenue to the City of Costa Mesa Citizens" seeking to regulate and tax medical marijuana at an additional 6 percent was also being circulated. Both measures were postponed by the city until the November 2016 ballot. Petitioners protested and filed lawsuits.[1]
Background
In 2012, federal law enforcers shut down the city's medical marijuana dispensaries. Hoping the city could avoid such federal task forces through proper regulation and taxation of medicinal cannabis, activists sought to put this measure and another alternative initiative on the ballot.[1]
The city's alternative
Proponents of both initiatives expressed the willingness to compromise with the city and allow the city to draft its own ordinance to establish medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, along with appropriate taxation and regulation provisions. The city, as of the beginning of February, had a full draft of such an ordinance. The initiative proponents were disappointed, however, to hear the city's timeline for the ordinance. The city proposed a two-month discussion and feedback period, scheduling the city council to vote on the first official reading of the ordinance in April.[2]
The city released a draft of a proposed ordinance on March 6, 2015. On the following Tuesday, the city council met to discuss the draft and propose changes. Ultimately, however, the city council tabled the proposal, leading the initiative proponents to file lawsuits against the city.[3]
A copy of the initial draft of the city council's failed marijuana regulation ordinance is available here.
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[4]
| “ |
Shall the ordinance, to allow operation of up to eight medical marijuana (cannabis) businesses with: six percent tax on medical marijuana (estimated annual tax revenues $48,000 to $912,000); one percent tax on other products; exemption from permits; regulations not subject to change by City Council except for increasing businesses; precedence to prior businesses; and locations limited to commercial and industrial areas, be adopted?[5] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Costa Mesa City Attorney:
| “ |
Measure V, known as an Initiative to “Allow Operation of up to Eight Medical Marijuana (Cannabis) Businesses in City of Costa Mesa”, would amend the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to authorize up to eight medical marijuana businesses within City boundaries; such businesses could engage in retail sales, planting, cultivation, harvesting, transporting, manufacturing, processing, preparing, storing, packaging, and provision of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana businesses would be required to obtain a City business license, valid for two years, but would be exempt from requirements for any other permits, including special or conditional use permits, site plans, variances, or any other permit or certificate otherwise required by law. If not issued or denied within 45 days, the business will be permitted to operate. These business license requirements are ministerial in nature. The Measure provides no discretion to the City to approve the licensees or the location of medical marijuana businesses. Such businesses would be allowed as a matter of right certain commercial (AP, C1, C2, C1S, TC & PDC) and industrial (MG, MP & PDI) zones, but not in residential zones. Operational requirements include: authority to cultivate a “reasonable” amount of marijuana consistent with their member patient’s needs; no operations within 600’ of a public school; no operations within 1000’ from another medical marijuana business; no minors allowed during hours of operation (limited to 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week); no alcohol or marijuana to be consumed on, or within 50 feet of, the premises; employees/volunteers must annually pass a criminal background check; security guard patrol provided for the premises during all hours of operation; warning labels and packaging restrictions; odor restrictions; minimum client records; and possession of a commercial general liability insurance policy. Violations of the Measure are subject to all penalties available under the Municipal Code. If certain qualifications are met, the first eight applicants shall be granted a business license pursuant to “priority registration” status. If less than eight applicants so qualify, the City may continue to issue licenses until eight have been issued. The City may increase, but not decrease the number of business licenses below eight. Other than provided for in the specific sections of the Measure, the Measure’s provisions cannot be amended or repealed unless approved by a majority of the voters at another city wide election. The measure provides a 6% tax on the distribution, sale or transfer of medical marijuana products, and a 1% sales tax on other tangible personal property at retail. Under current law, a 6% sales tax, if construed as such by the State Board of Equalization, may cause the BOE to terminate its contract to collect the City’s sales tax. If competing medical marijuana measures appear on the same ballot, then in the event multiple measures pass, and this Measure receives the most affirmative votes, then the competing measure(s) shall be null and void. This Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters[5] |
” |
| —Costa Mesa City Attorney[4] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]
- Robert Taft, Proponent/Sponsor of the Measure ”V.”
- Natalie Dragotto, Mother of 11-year-old child with epilepsy
- Randall T. Longwith, Drafter of the Measure “V.
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[4]
| “ |
The official proponents of Initiative “V” have concluded that the City of Costa Mesa-backed Measure “X” supports the principles set forth in our initiative. While we believe that the use of medical marijuana will provide multiple benefits to those who are truly in need of such medication, we have decided to change course and remove our support for our own initiative “V”. We have done so because we believe that medical marijuana operations, including the secure manufacturing, processing and development of medicine would be best suited within the industrial and commercial zones, where further research of medical marijuana’s benefits can be conducted in a safe and secure manner. This would be more in line with the state law and would provide much needed safety to patients. With that, we are now 100 percent behind the City-backed Measure “X”.[5] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[4]
- Robert Taft, Proponent of Measure V
- Randall T. Longwith, Drafter of Measure V
- Jim Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Costa Mesa
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[4]
| “ |
In November, the residents of Costa Mesa will be asked to vote on three measures that would regulate the sale and manufacturing of medical marijuana in the city. While we originally were proponents of Measure V, which would allow up to eight dispensaries in the city and impose a 6 percent sales tax, we are now supporting the city’s Measure X. We are urging voters to vote no on our Measure V and no on Measure W, which would allow for as many as four dispensaries in Costa Mesa. We support the city’s Measure X, which we believe will provide dignified and safe access to medical marijuana to individuals seeking such medication. As it’s written, the city’s initiative will be more in line with state law and we agree with the city’s Measure X that medical marijuana operations would be best suited among the industrial and commercial areas of the city. Please join us in voting no on Measures V and W and yes on the city’s Measure X.[5] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
First petition
Robert Taft, Jr. and Kevin Gardner, the petitioners who filed this initiative, needed to collect 4,896 valid signatures to qualify this measure for the ballot. They were successful in their petition campaign and expected to see their initiative on the March 2015 election ballot. The city, however, said the initiative must be postponed until the next general city election in November of 2016 since it concerned additional taxation. Petitioners threatened to the sue the city for delaying the election unless an alternative ordinance allowing medical marijuana dispensaries was quickly approved by the city.[1][2]
Election date lawsuit
Los Angeles attorney David Welch, who authored one of the proposed initiatives, said he might sue the city over delays. He specified that, since the initiative proponents claimed the city must, by law, set an election date in March, they would be giving up the option of litigation if they were to wait until after March 16. Welch said, “It’s likely that we’ll have to take some type of action to preserve our legal remedies."[2]
Ultimately, Fullerton’s Randall T. Longwith and a team consisting of David Welch and Benjamin McFadden, lawyers representing petitioners behind the initiatives respectively, launched lawsuits against the city on March 12, 2015, in Orange County Superior Court. They argued that the city must put the measures before voters at a special election early in 2015 rather than putting it off until the 2016 ballot. They were denied the preliminary requests, necessitating a court hearing. The position of the city was that, since the initiatives sought a tax on marijuana, they must go before voters at a regularly scheduled general election according to California Proposition 218. Ultimately, the judge in charge of the case ruled against plaintiffs and decided that the city could wait until November 2016 to put the marijuana initiatives before voters.[6][7][8]
Second petition
Taft, however, decided that a second petition explicitly requesting a special election would be faster than proceeding through the court system and, on April 20, 2015, filed a second initiative petition. Longwith, Taft's attorney, said, “I think 4/20 sounds like a good day to file, don’t you?” Ultimately, this petition was abandoned and the original initiative was schedule for an election on November 8, 2016.[9]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Costa Mesa local marijuana initiative Measure V. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedCostaMesa - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs nameddraft - ↑ Orange County Register, "Costa Mesa releases draft of medical marijuana law," March 6, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Orange County Registrar of Voters, "Measure V," accessed October 6, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "No medical marijuana election in Costa Mesa until 2016, judge agrees," September 22, 2015
- ↑ Orange County Register, "Marijuana advocates sue Costa Mesa to force special election," March 12, 2015
- ↑ Orange County Register, "Much ado about not much on legal pot in Costa Mesa," March 18, 2015
- ↑ Orange County Register, "Costa Mesa marijauna advocate denied special election, vows to launch petition," April 16, 2015
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
