San Jose, California, Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative, Measure C (June 2016)

* Text of measure
* Support
* Opposition
* Background
* Path to the ballot
* Recent news
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure C: San Jose Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative

The basics
Election date:
June 7, 2016
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local marijuana
Related articles
Local marijuana on the ballot

* * *

June 7, 2016 ballot measures in California

* * *

Santa Clara County, California ballot measures
See also
San Jose, California

* * *

Municipal elections in San Jose, California (2016)

A City of San Jose Medical Marijuana Regulation Act was on the ballot for San Jose voters in Santa Clara County, California, on June 7, 2016. It was defeated.

| A "yes" vote would replace the city's medical marijuana ordinances with less restrictive provisions expanding the city zones in which collectives would operate and allowing collectives to buy products from outside sources.

|

| A "no" vote would leave the city's marijuana laws unchanged.

|

The city and Sensible San Jose, the coalition behind this initiative, reached a preliminary compromise on December 8, 2015, when the city council approved changes to city law, lightening restrictions on the operation of collectives. Sean Kali-Rai, a lobbyist to the San Jose city government, said, “Tough ordinances made sense in June of 2014 and were created in response to the state’s lack of oversight. Now California will oversee the industry with strong licensing and oversight laws.” Kali-Rai urged the city council to work with collectives to prevent the approval of this citizen initiative on June 7, 2016.[1]

Speaking of the city council's vote on December 8, 2015, to lighten medical marijuana restrictions, Sensible San Jose stated, "SSJ is prepared to campaign for the initiative in June 2016. However, given the City Council's recent compromise position, we will allow until February 18 to see if staff is sincerely implementing Council's clear mandate."[2]

Another less restrictive marijuana-related initiative circulated in 2014 failed to reach the ballot.

## Election results

San Jose, Measure C

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 124,687| 64.56%
Yes|  68,438|  35.44%

Election results from Santa Clara County Elections Office

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question appeared on the ballot:[3]

“  |

Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the San Jose Municipal Code to include Medical Marijuana Collectives as an allowed land use in agricultural, commercial pedestrian, commercial neighborhood, industrial park, light industrial, heavy industrial zoning districts, and certain planned development zoning districts, and to establish a registration process and zoning code verification certificate process?[4]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Jose City Attorney:

“  |

Measure C, if approved by a majority of the voters, will enact an ordinance modifying the City of San José's current regulatory program that allows medical marijuana collectives or dispensaries ("collectives") to be registered and to operate within the City of San .Tosé. Measure C was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by the required number of voters.

Under the City's current medical marijuana regulatory program, there was a one-time application process, under which l6 collectives have been registered. The application included supplying the City with specific information about the collective's operations and each owner, manager, and employee of the collective. This information included each individual's past criminal history, and fingerprints. Measure C creates a similar registration process, except the registration process runs continuously to allow additional collectives to apply to operate in the City of San José. Additionally, Measure C only requires that information concerning high-level managers of the collective be provided to the City and their fingerprints are not required.

Currently, the City's fines for violations of the medical marijuana regulatory program range from $2,500 to $50,000 per violation. Measure C would reduce all the fines to $100.

Under existing law, collectives may be located in the following zoning districts: Downtown Core, Combined Industrial Commercial, Industrial Park, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. Under Measure C, collectives could be located in the following zoning districts instead: Agricultural, Commercial Pedestrian, Commercial Neighborhood, Industrial Park, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. Additionally, Measure C would allow collectives in certain Planned Development zoning districts and consequently a collective could be located in any zoning district in the City.

Under existing law, collectives are prohibited within 1000 feet of preschools, K-12 schools, child daycare centers, community centers, libraries and parks; within 500 feet of substance abuse rehabilitation centers; and within 150 feet of residential uses, adult daycare centers, and religious assemblies. Measure C would remove several of these current location restrictions for collectives, including I 50 feet from residential uses; 150 feet from religious assemblies; 500 feet from substance abuse rehabilitation centers; 1000 feet from preschools; 1,000 feet from child daycare centers; and 1.,000 feet from libraries. Measure C would also remove the 1,000 foot buffer from parks, although it would maintain a.1000 foot buffer from any playground.

Measure C expressly prohibits the City from using City funds to assist in, or from accepting any Federal funding that would be used in, the enforcement of Federal controlled substance laws to the extent that they are inconsistent with California medical marijuana laws. Measure C provides that the proposed ordinance could be amended by the City Council after 3 years from its effective date.

A "Yes" vote is a vote to modify the City's medical marijuana regulatory program, including expansion of the number of collectives and allowed locations in the City of San José.

A "No" vote is a vote to maintain the current regulations and location restrictions for medical marijuana collectives.[4]

| ”

|
|

—San Jose City Attorney[5]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

## Background[edit]

### Timeline[edit]

* June 2014: San Jose City Council enacted ordinances to restrict the legal locations for collectives, mandate background checks for collective employees and require collectives to cultivate, process and sell all of their own product onsite, prohibiting wholesale purchase from outside cultivators and processors or operations with separate cultivation and distribution sites.
* November 2014: Sensible San Jose turned in signature petitions for an initiative to replace the city's ordinances with less restrictive regulations and registration processes.
* September 2014: Elections officials certified the petition as valid and the city council put the measure on the June 2016 ballot.
* July 2015: Original deadline for city collectives to be in compliance with city restrictions passed. This deadline was pushed back to give collectives more time to comply.
* December 8, 2015: The San Jose City Council voted 10-1 to lighten the regulations on collectives.
* December 18, 2015: Extended deadline for compliance with city restrictions on location, licensing fees, product sourcing and inspections passed.
* June 7, 2016: Election day

### The city council's ordinances[edit]

In June 2014, the San Jose City Council enacted ordinances to restrict the legal locations for collectives, mandate background checks for collective employees and require collectives to cultivate, process and sell all of their own product onsite, prohibiting wholesale purchase from outside cultivators and processors or operations with separate cultivation and distribution sites. The original deadline for all collectives to be in compliance with the city's ordinances was set for July 2015. This deadline was ultimately pushed back to December 18, 2015. On December 8, 2015, the city council voted 10-1 to lighten the city's restrictive ordinances to:[1]

* allow collectives to have a separate cultivation site elsewhere in the state;
* allow collectives to process marijuana and make cannabis products at their separate cultivation sites;
* allow collectives to grow marijuana in greenhouses on about 600 parcels throughout the city, most of which are located in industrial areas; and
* allow collectives to sell products from other vendors throughout the state until December 18, 2017.

The amendments enacted on December 8, 2015, also required staff members at collectives to display identification badges provided by the police department. The city council also passed a resolution asking city staff to study the possibility of allowing collectives to purchase products from third parties throughout California.[1]

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

Sensible San Jose was the group behind this initiative.[6]

James Anthony, chair of Sensible San Jose, signed the official argument in favor of the measure.[5]

### Arguments in favor[edit]

Prior to December 8, 2015, supporters of the initiative argued that the city's ordinances were nearly impossible to comply with and were driving medical marijuana sales back into the black market. Others claimed that the city's restrictions violated state law, and several collective owners sued the city.[7]

Speaking of a decline in medical marijuana sales tax revenue, James Anthony, an organizer of Sensible San Jose, said, “Did those patients just stop buying medicine in San Jose? Of course not. When staff started shutting down dispensaries last year with their impossible ordinance, 20 percent of patients shifted to the underground market—so far.”[7]

Sensible San Jose stated that it was pleased with the city council's efforts to compromise and would consider abandoning the campaign for this initiative if the city continued to cooperate.[2]

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[5]

“  |

Vote Yes!

Right now, San Jose has sixteen medical marijuana dispensaries that are open, registered and taxed by the city, and providing good quality medicine to patients throughout Silicon Valley.

But San Jose needs more marijuana clubs! Sixteen registered clubs are too few to meet patient needs. San Jose is a regional market that serves Silicon Valley and has an obligation to meet patient needs for the region now and into the future. Denver, Colorado is two-thirds the size of San Jose and it has 424 medical and recreational dispensaries - there is no reason San Jose should not have at least a similar number or more!!!

Safe access is important so they should be everywhere in the city, in commercial zones, especially commercial pedestrian and commercial neighborhood, and right next door to residences, so marijuana users don’t have to drive to far away places to receive medication—they can just walk around the corner to the neighborhood pot club!!!!

Vote yes to make San Jose the capital of medical marijuana in California![4]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo signed the official argument against the measure.[5]

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[5]

“  |

Don't be fooled by the misleading description of Measure C. San Jose already allows medical marijuana and has 16 legal dispensaries. ln fact, Measure C will repeal controls that protect our neighborhoods and children from the negative impacts of marijuana sales.

Measure C would allow dispensaries to open up next to a day care center, a church or a residence. Currently, medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited from locating within 150- feet of residences and churches and 1,000 feet from schools, parks, and libraries. This is a good law and should not be changed.

Measure C would reduce penalties for sellíng marijuana to children from thousands of dollars to a $100, slap-on-the-wrist fine. Selling cigarettes or alcohol to a child carries at least a $1000 penalty. A $100 penalty would allow dispensaries to sell marijuana to children with no serious consequences.

Measure C would eliminate all guidelines for how marijuana is grown or obtained by the dispensaries. As a result, marijuana grown by drug cartels could be sold in San Jose, as well as marijuana produced in illegal grow-houses, or marijuana manufactured with harmful chemicals.

There are 16 marijuana dispensaries in San Jose. Measure C has NO LIMITS on the number of dispensaries that will be allowed to open in San Jose. As a result, wê might end up with hundreds of dispensaries throughout the City, making it easy for our children to get marijuana.

Responsible medical marijuana dispensary operators say that Measure C is a trick to eliminate reasonable regulations so that bad operators will be free to sell marijuana to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Our neighborhoods and children are at risk! We cannot allow this Measure to become law. The Mercury News says 'Pot club Measure G in San Jose deserves a big no.'

Vote No on Measure C.[4]

| ”

|
|

### Editorials[edit]

* The San Jose Mercury News editorial board urged voters to reject Measure C. The editorial board argued that the measure, which the board called the "pot club" measure, would allow an excessive number of marijuana dispensaries and do little to keep them from inappropriate places, such as near schools. Besides these marijuana-specific arguments, the editorial board argued that approving the measure could encourage other businesses to use the initiative process to manipulate zoning laws to their benefit and the detriment of residential neighborhoods. An excerpt of the editorial is below:

“  |

The measure floated by medicinal pot club interests would allow them to locate in any agricultural, commercial pedestrian, commercial neighborhood, industrial park, light industrial, heavy industrial zoning districts, and certain planned development zoning districts -- even near preschools . This would pretty much restore the chaos that existed when more than 100 clubs sprang up all over town several years ago, prompting the city to tax and regulate them, including rules about where they can locate.

The measure would set a dangerous precedent. Other businesses could bankroll campaigns to get voters to change zoning in their favor. Your neighborhood could be the loser. [4]

| ”

|
|

—The Mercury News editorial board[8]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

Voting on Marijuana

Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

Local marijuana
Local marijuana tax

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

The petitioners for this initiative filed their ballot measure with the city in 2014. The group behind the initiative needed to collect about 20,000 valid signatures in 180 days to put this measure on the ballot. This signature requirement amounted to 5 percent of the city's registered voters. Petitioners submitted their signature petitions in Fall 2014, and, in late September 2014, elections officials announced that about 25,000 of the submitted signatures were valid. The San Jose City Council was then faced with the option of putting the initiative before voters or approving it themselves. They voted to put the measure on the ballot for the election on June 7, 2016, the next regularly scheduled city election, in order to avoid the additional cost of a special election.[6]

## Related measures[edit]

### 2016[edit]

• Santa Cruz County Marijuana Cultivation Ban Referendum
• City of Upland Medical Marijuana Dispensary Initiative - Special Election
• Vallejo Initiatives to Allow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
• Measure W: Nevada County Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Ban d
• Measure G: Butte County Marijuana Exclusion from "Right to Farm Ordinance" Referendum a
• Measure H: Butte County "Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana" Referendum a
• Measure A: Yuba County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2015 d
• Measure B: Yuba County Patients Access to Regulated Medical Cannabis Act of 2015 d
• Measure A: Sierra County Commercial Marijuana Advisory Question d
• Measure T: Siskiyou County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Enforcement Reform Referendum a
• Measure U: Siskiyou County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Referendum a
• Measure E: Yuba County Medical Cannabis Cultivation and Commerce d
• Measure G: Coalinga Authorize, Regulate, and Tax a Single Marijuana Dispensary a
• Measure U: La Mesa Repeal Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Initiative a
• Measure V: Lemon Grove Repeal Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries a
• Measure L: Butte County Medical Cannabis and Commerce Initiative d
• Measure V: Costa Mesa Eight Medical Marijuana Businesses d
• Measure W: Costa Mesa Four Medical Marijuana Businesses d
• Measure X: Costa Mesa Medical Marijuana Development in Industrial Zones a
• Measure KK: Laguna Beach Medical Marijuana Dispensaries d
• Measure Y: Dunsmuir Medical Marijuana Cultivation d
• Measure N: San Bernardino Medical Cannabis Restrictions and Limitations a
• Measure O: San Bernardino Marijuana Regulation a
• Measure P: San Bernardino Commercial Cannabis Regulation d
• Measure U: Upland Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Ordinance d
• Measure H: Colfax Marijuana Dispensaries Regulation and Marijuana Tax d
• Measure P: Stockton Overturn Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries a
• Measure T: Rio Dell Commercial Cannabis Activity a
• Measure X: Avalon Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Sales d
• Measure MM: Long Beach Regulation of Medical Marijuana Businesses a
• Measure B: Sierra County Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana d
• Measure D: Calaveras County Marijuana Cultivation Regulation d
• Measure K: Perris Medical Marijuana Authorization and Regulation a
• Measure G: Inyo County Commercial Medical Marijuana Advisory Question a
• Measure H: Inyo County Commercial Recreational Marijuana Advisory Question a
• Measure AF: Mendocino County Medical Cannabis Regulation d
• Measure I: Santa Cruz Marijuana Tax Amendment a
• Measure E: Santa Cruz County Marijuana Tax Amendment a

## Other elections[edit]

See also: Municipal elections in San Jose, California (2016)

Five seats on the San Jose City Council were up for general election on November 8, 2016.

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2016
* Local marijuana ballot measures

* Santa Clara County measures

California

* June 7, 2016 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* San Jose, California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* San Jose City elections office website
* Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters website
* City of San Jose Medical Marijuana Initiatives report
* City of San Jose Medical Marijuana status update
* Sensible San Jose Facebook page

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 San Jose Mercury News, "San Jose leaders approve easing medical pot rules," December 9, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Sensible San Jose Facebook page, "Statement," December 18, 2015
3. ↑ Santa Clara County Elections, "Ballot Questions for Election on June 7, 2016," accessed January 21, 2016
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Santa Clara County Elections Office, "June 7th Primary Measures - Analyses and Arguments," accessed April 21, 2016
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Mercury News, "San Jose medical marijuana measure headed to voters; would weaken pot shop rules," September 30, 2014
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 San Jose Inside, "Activists Revive Effort to Overturn San Jose’s Pot Laws," November 30, 2015
8. ↑ The Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Pot club Measure C in San Jose deserves a big no," March 14, 2016

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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