(From Press Release) – Effective November 9, 2016, the adult use of marijuana by persons 21 and over is legal in California. Proposition 64 allows California residents 21 and older to legally possess up to an ounce (28.5 grams) of marijuana or up to 8 grams of concentrated marijuana products. The passage of Proposition 64 also allows for a California resident to grow up to six marijuana plants at their home. Proposition 64 does allow for jurisdictions to regulate or prohibit commercial marijuana businesses, regulate or prohibit outdoor marijuana cultivation, and regulate indoor marijuana cultivation.
Commercial Marijuana and Outdoor Cultivation
In anticipation of potential voter approval of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, at the November 1, 2016 meeting, the Davis City Council approved an interim moratorium on the establishment, creation or expansion of commercial marijuana uses, and the prohibition of outdoor cultivation of cannabis (marijuana). City staff will be developing regulations for City Council consideration related to outdoor cultivation, dispensaries, manufacturing, research and development, bakeries and mobile delivery of marijuana and related products. In the coming weeks, City staff will be bringing forward a work plan to the City Council that outlines a process for regulation development inclusive of public engagement on the matter.
Medical Marijuana
The interim moratorium does not affect or seek to restrict the rights granted to medical patients within this community under Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420, which recognizes the rights of patients and caregivers to associate under the form of collectives or cooperatives, for their medical marijuana needs.
Use of Marijuana in Public Spaces
In addition to the interim moratorium, the City Council passed an Urgency Ordinance to prohibit smoking of non-medical marijuana in all public places and publically accessible places.
Additional Information & Resources
City of Davis Zoning Regulations Related to Medical Marijuana – http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5826
Urgency Ordinance No. 2488 – Marijuana Interim Zoning Moratorium –
Urgency Ordinance No. 2489 – Marijuana Smoking Restrictions –
Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act Text –
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/pdf/text-proposed-laws.pdf#prop64
For more information, questions or inquiries related to City of Davis marijuana regulations contact:
City of Davis, City Planner
This opens up an opportunity for Davis to get in on the ground floor of a newly legal retail product. It can potentially be a good source of future tax revenue for the city. Will we bungle the opportunity and let Woodland or West Sacramento become the home for future dispensaries? From the people I have talked with there is not a lot of opposition to dispensaries or pot shops although the opposition may develop in the form of NIMBYs objecting to certain locations.
The problem right now is the state law is poorly defined rather than the residents.
I expect that state law will be clarified within the next year. The City Council should be looking at how we can accommodate the new business opportunities and new tax revenue sources. It would be very helpful to have an estimate of just how much tax revenue this new business can generate.
Where are all the people that were tripping over themselves with excitement about how much tax revenue Nishi was going to generate? And what about the folks that were talking about tax revenue from new hotels? Where are they in this discussion?
I just saw a report of CNBC estimating that California could generate 1 Billion dollars in tax revenue from the cannabis business. Is Davis going to start preparing to get a share of this new revenue source or are we going to lose the revenue to other more proactive communities?
The question I have is how these shops might differ with respect to traffic and parking needs. Are they like liquor stores? Will they require special zoning considerations? There is a difference between near-neighbor concerns requiring consideration and regulation, versus NIMBYism.
Well, man, like we have no problemo with, like parking…
Easy joke aside… you raise very valid questions that the City needs to answer… also, ensuring that MJ smoke is at least as tightly regulated than cigarette/tobacco smoke… as a non-smoker of either, but exposed to both over the course of my lifetime, have had more severe reactions to tobacco smoke than MJ.
And, it will be interesting to see if those who got the wood-burning ban will weigh in on the burning of other vegetable products…
Reiterating… Don has raised very good questions…