Yreka Municipal Code Art. 1 General Provisions

Pursuant to authority granted by Article XI Section 7 of the California Constitution, Section 372 of the California Penal Code, California Code of Civil Procedure § 731 and California Civil Code §3491 the City Council of the City of Yreka does hereby enact this Chapter.

(Ord. No. 842, § 1, 6-2-2016)

The purpose and intent in adopting this chapter is to acknowledge state law as it relates to medical cannabis and to reduce conditions that create public nuisances through enacting these regulations including without limitation, the prohibition of cannabis cultivation in order to effectively control the adverse impacts associated with cannabis cultivation as stated herein, while considering the desires of qualified patients qualified patients and primary caregivers, in furtherance of the public necessity, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare within the city's jurisdictional limits. While in 1996, the voters of the state of California approved Proposition 215 (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" referred to herein as the "CUA"). In 2003, the California Legislature adopted SB 420, the medical marijuana program ("MMP"), codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et seq., which permits qualified patients and their primary caregivers to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate cannabis for medical purposes without being subject to criminal prosecution under the California Penal Code. Yreka presently does not permit cannabis dispensaries certain locations. Neither the CUA nor the MMP require or impose an affirmative duty or mandate upon a local government to allow, authorize, or sanction the establishment of facilities that cultivate or process medical cannabis within its jurisdiction. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any use, possession, cultivation, or distribution of cannabis for non-medical purposes or that is in violation of state or federal law.

(Ord. No. 842, § 1, 6-2-2016; Ord. No. 885, § 6, 10-21-2025)

A. The Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., classifies cannabis as a schedule I drug, which is defined as a drug or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, that has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and that has not been accepted as safe for use under medical supervision.

B. The Federal Controlled Substances Act makes it unlawful, under federal law, for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense, cannabis. The Federal Controlled Substances Act contains no exemption for the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, dispensation, or possession of cannabis for medical purposes.

C. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, "The Compassionate Use Act," (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 through 11362.83) clarify the scope of The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 by creating the medical marijuana identification card program, creating reasonable regulations for cultivating, processing, transporting and administering marijuana, as well as limiting the amount cannabis a qualified individual may possess. The Medical Marijuana Program Act (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775) defines a "primary caregiver" as an individual who is designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, and who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person and is further defined in the California Supreme Court decision People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal. 4 th 274.

D. In City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729 the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the CUA and the MMP did not preempt a local agency's own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders. The court held that the CUA and the MMP: "…remove state-level criminal and civil sanctions from specified medical marijuana activities, but they do not establish a comprehensive state system of legalized medical marijuana; or grant a 'right' of convenient access to marijuana for medicinal use; or override the zoning, licensing, and police powers of local jurisdictions; or mandate local accommodation of medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives, or dispensaries." This ruling has been applied to a city's right to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana by numerous appellate court decisions.

E. Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, codified in 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., the use, possession, and cultivation of cannabis are unlawful and subject to federal prosecution without regard to a claimed need.

F. In 2015 the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act" ("Act"), which is comprised of the state legislative bills known as AB 243, AB 266, and SB 643, created a comprehensive state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of cannabis, as well as physician recommendations for cannabis. It created the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation within the Department of Consumer Affairs. It has primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the MMRSA. That scheme also provided for the protection of a local government agency's police powers in Business and Professions Code §§ 19315(a), 19316(a) and 19316(c). Thus all local remedies for any violation of this chapter have been retained including the following enforcement actions: 1) Administrative citations; 2) Administrative abatement proceedings; 3) License revocation; 4) Civil action for injunctive relief and 5) Criminal enforcement following the failure to abate a public nuisance.

G. The city's geographic and climatic conditions provide conditions that are favorable to outdoor cannabis cultivation, thus growers can achieve a high per-plant yield. The Federal Drug Enforcement Administration reports that various types of cannabis plants under various planting conditions may yield averages of two hundred thirty-six grams, or about one-half pound, to eighth hundred forty-six grams, or nearly two pounds.

H. The strong distinctive odor of cannabis plants creates an attractive nuisance, alerting persons to the location of the valuable plants, and has resulted in burglary, robbery and armed robbery.

I. The strong and distinctive odor of cannabis plants creates a need to ensure that smells that disrupt the use of adjacent properties are minimized, much in the same way that many cities have ordinances currently in place to minimize the smells associated with raising livestock.

J. Children (minors under the age of eighteen) are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis use and the presence of cannabis plants is an attractive nuisance for children, creating an unreasonable hazard in areas frequented by children (including schools, parks, and other similar locations).

K. The cultivation of cannabis in the incorporated area of the city of Yreka can adversely affect the health, safety, and wellbeing of the city, its residents and environment. Comprehensive civil regulation of premises used for cannabis cultivation is proper and necessary to avoid the risks of criminal activity, degradation of the natural environment, malodorous smells, and indoor electrical fire hazards that may result from unregulated cannabis cultivation, and that are especially significant if the amount of cannabis cultivated on a single premises is not regulated and substantial amounts of cannabis are thereby allowed to be concentrated in one place.

L. The indoor cultivation of substantial amounts of cannabis within a residence presents potential health and safety risks to those living in the residence, especially to children, including, but not limited to, increased risk of fire from grow light systems, exposure to fertilizers, pesticides, anti-fungus/mold agents, and exposure to potential property crimes targeting the residence.

M. Comprehensive restriction of premises used for cannabis cultivation is proper and necessary to address the risks and adverse impacts as stated herein, that are especially significant if the amount of cannabis cultivated on a single premises is not regulated and substantial amounts of cannabis are thereby allowed to be concentrated in one place.

N. Outdoor cannabis cultivation is creating devastating impacts to California's surface and groundwater resources and environmental damage. The state Water Resources Control Board, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have seen a dramatic increase in the number of cannabis gardens, and corresponding increases in impacts to water supply and water quality, including the discharge of sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum hydrocarbons, trash and human waste. The sources of these impacts result from unpermitted and unregulated timber clearing, road development, stream diversion for irrigation, land grading, erosion of disturbed surfaces and stream banks, and temporary human occupancy without proper sanitary facilities.

O. The immunities from certain prosecution provided to qualified patients and their primary caregivers under state law to cultivate cannabis plants for medical purposes does not confer the right to create or maintain a public nuisance. By adopting the regulations contained in this chapter, the city will achieve a significant reduction in the complaints of odor and the risks of fire, crime and pollution caused or threatened by the unregulated cultivation of cannabis in the city of Yreka.

P. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow the use of cannabis for non-medical purposes, or allow any activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis that is otherwise illegal under state law. No provision of this chapter shall be deemed a defense or immunity to any action brought against any person by the city of Yreka, the Yreka City Attorney, the Siskiyou District Attorney, the Attorney General of State of California, or the United States of America.

Q. The Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use recognizes that the cultivation or other concentration of cannabis in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that nearby homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime.

R. Based on the findings above, the potential establishment of the cultivation, and processing of medical cannabis in the city without an express ban on such activities poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare in the city due to the negative impacts of such activities as described above;

S. The issuance or approval of business licenses, subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for cannabis cultivation and processing will result in the aforementioned threat to public health, safety, and welfare; and

T. It is in the interest of the city, its residents, and its lawfully permitted businesses that city adopts this chapter to expressly prohibit the establishment and operation of cannabis cultivation, processing, delivery, and dispensary activities as well as the issuance of any use permit, variance, building permit, or any other entitlement, license, or permit for any such activity, except where the city is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on any such activity or a prohibition on the issuance of any use permit, variance, building permit, or any other entitlement, license, or permit for any such activity;

U. The California Constitution, Article XI, section 7, provides cities with broad authority to determine, for purposes of health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a city's boundaries.

V. The planning commission of the city of Yreka, after due notice, at the public hearing of January 20, 2016, reviewed similar proposed ordinances and accompanying documents, considered testimony regarding similar proposed ordinances both a complete prohibition and a regulation of outdoor cultivation, and voted ayes three and nays two to adopt the ordinance referred to in Resolution Number 2016-3a and recommend approval to the city council.

W. The planning commission of the city of Yreka, also reviewed similar proposed ordinances and found that the imposition of restrictions, such as those imposed here, are consistent and compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan.

X. All legal prerequisites for the adoption of this chapter have occurred.

Y. The above recitals are all true and correct and are incorporated in the substantive portion of this chapter.

(Ord. No. 842, § 1, 6-2-2016; Ord. No. 885, § 6, 10-21-2025)

The provisions of this chapter shall apply generally to all property throughout the incorporated area of the city of Yreka, as from time to time, annexed and expanded.

(Ord. No. 842, § 1, 6-2-2016)

A. Regardless of whether an owner is in actual possession of his or her real property, it is the duty of every owner of real property within the incorporated area of city of Yreka to prevent a public nuisance from arising on, or from existing upon, his or her real property.

B. No person or entity shall cause, permit, maintain, conduct or otherwise allow a public nuisance as defined in this chapter to exist upon any property within their control and shall not cause a public nuisance to exist upon any other property within the incorporated limits of the city of Yreka. It shall be the duty of every owner, occupant, and person that controls any land or interest therein within the incorporated area of the city of Yreka to remove, abate and prevent the reoccurrence of any public nuisance upon such land.

(Ord. No. 842, § 1, 6-2-2016)

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the right of any person or public or private entity damaged by any violation of this chapter to institute a civil proceeding for injunctive relief against such violation, for money damages, for compensatory damages, for injunctive relief, and for the cost of suit and reasonable attorney's and expert witness' fees, or for whatever other or additional relief the court deems appropriate. The remedies available under this chapter shall be in addition to, and shall not in any way restrict other rights or remedies available under law.

(Ord. No. 842, § 1, 6-2-2016)