The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA or the “Act”) contains portions of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) that do not conflict with the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) along with a variety of provisions designed to create a single, comprehensive regulatory system for commercial cannabis activity and product sale, testing, distribution, and enforcement. Continue Reading
The Healthy Schools Act is found in Education Code Sections 17608 – 17614 (the “Act”). Adopted in 2000, its purpose is to provide for the least toxic pest control management around “schoolsites.” However, although found in the Education Code, the definition of “schoolsites” is very broad and applies to a range of public child care facilities that may be operated by agencies other than school districts, including park and recreation districts. The Act also applies when a public agency is the owner of a facility that houses a childcare facility. Continue Reading
Legislation that took effect in January allows special districts to switch from “at large” to “by district” elections for their governing boards. Our memorandum describing this new legislation, and how it can help districts avoid Voting Rights Act liability, is linked here: Memorandum
In Napa County, a group of voters proposed an initiative that would enact a number of measures to protect the quality of watersheds and oak resources. In Wilson v. County of Napa, an appellate court recently found their initiative proposal defective because it did not comply with an important procedural requirement known as the “full text” rule.
Wilson is a good reminder to initiative proponents that the rules for qualifying initiatives can be unforgiving. Proponents must take great care to make sure they satisfy all the procedural requirements before submitting their proposed measures. Continue Reading
The Trump Administration has indicated it intends to crack down on states that allow recreational marijuana. As reported in the Sacramento Bee on February 23, 2017, Trump Administration Press Secretary Sean Spicer has threatened “greater enforcement” of federal law on this subject. It’s not yet clear what, when, or how such enforcement will occur. Spicer noted only those matters are things “the Department of Justice will be further looking into.”
For California cities and counties, this announcement comes at a pivotal time. With the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2016, marijuana may now lawfully be used, within certain limits, for recreational use. Many cities and counties have been considering, or plan to consider, new or amended ordinances in light of this fundamental change in law. Continue Reading
On January 27, 2017, the Daily Journal published our article on the California Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding public agency legal bills, and whether they are privileged. The full article can be accessed at this link: Daily Journal Article January 27
On September 23, 2016 Governor Brown signed AB2316 which makes significant changes to the Lease-Leaseback construction program that school districts have been successfully using for years. The bill arises primarily out of recent litigation in Fresno stemming from allegations of corruption and partiality. These new changes, set to take effect on January 1, 2017, among other revisions, specifically delete the phrase “without advertising for bid” from Education Code §17406 and add a new competitive bidding process to the lease-leaseback procedure. Additionally, it includes a specific provision authorizing contractors used in pre-construction consulting to remain eligible for the award of the project. Continue Reading
On September 26, 2016, the Daily Journal published our article, “What pot legalization would mean for local governments.” The article discusses the issues local government will address if Proposition 64 passes this November (which is expected). This article can be accessed at the following link: What Will Pot Legalization Mean
In what can only be described as a classic example of a “First World problem,” a Beverly Hills couple sued their city for ruining their beautiful views. From their hilltop estate, the coupled had for years enjoyed unobstructed views of Beverly Hills, the Hollywood Hills, and other iconic Southern California landmarks. But when Sequoia redwood trees the city had planted many years earlier began taking on their customary sizes, the tree canopy started blocking the couple’s view. Because of the diminished view—which was getting worse as the trees grew—the couple sued the city for inverse condemnation.
In April, the Los Angeles-based Second District Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs’ claim. In Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills, the court held that diminution of property owner views, standing alone, does not unconstitutionally take private property and require compensation. Continue Reading