City of Riverside Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Initiative, Measure A (June 2015)

Voting on Marijuana

Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

Local marijuana
Local marijuana tax

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Ballot title
* 2.3 Ballot summary
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.2.1 Official arguments
* 3.3 Campaign finance
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 4.3 Campaign finance
* 5 Reports and analyses
* 5.1 Impartial analysis
* 6 Polls
* 6.1 Responses
* 7 Background
* 8 Path to the ballot
* 8.1 Lawsuit
* 9 Other elections
* 10 Similar measures
* 11 See also
* 12 External links
* 13 Additional reading
* 14 Footnotes

An initiative to allow and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the city was on the ballot for Riverside voters in Riverside County, California, on June 2, 2015. It was defeated.

This initiative, named Measure A on the ballot, would have lifted the city's ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, allowing one facility per 30,000 residents to open in commercial and industrial zones of the city. Based on the city's 2015 population, this would have amounted to as many as 10 dispensaries. Measure A was also designed to establish rules to regulate the activity of these dispensaries.[1]

Supporters argued that law enforcement was wasting its time enforcing the city's ban on dispensaries, while preventing sick people from obtaining medical marijuana. They also argued that Measure A featured enough safety precautions and regulations to keep the medical marijuana industry under control and to prevent minors from getting access to the drug.[2]

Opponents argued that the measure was designed by medical marijuana dispensary owners to give them more profit, not to provide safe access to patients and protect the city's residents and minors. Critics said there were serious loopholes and deficiencies in the regulations required by Measure A that would have reduced safety for Riverside residents and minors.[2]

Ballots were mailed to voters on May 8, 2015, and were due back by June 2, 2015.[3]

## Election results[edit]

Riverside City, Measure A

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 14,647| 59.96%
Yes|  9,779|  40.04%

Election results from Riverside County Elections Office

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question appeared on the ballot:[4]

“  |

Should “An Initiative Measure to Rescind the City of Riverside’s Ban on Storefront and Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries” be adopted?[5]

| ”

|
|

### Ballot title[edit]

The official title circulated with the initiative petition:[2]

“  |

AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO RESCIND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S BAN ON STOREFRONT AND MOBILE MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES.[5]

| ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The official summary circulated with the initiative petition, certified by the office of the city attorney and put on the ballot:[2]

“  |

This initiative measure seeks to rescind the City of Riverside’s prohibition of storefront and mobile marijuana dispensaries, including collectives and cooperatives, as defined by the City, contained in Title 9 (Peace, Safety and Morals) and 19 (Zoning) of the Riverside Municipal Code, and replace it with a process whereby certain “medical marijuana providers associations” (“associations”) are recognized by the City subject to an application process, zoning restrictions, and procurement of a business tax certificate. Specifically, the initiative measure rescinds the ban on facilities where marijuana is made available for medical purposes and eliminates the prohibition on delivery of marijuana and marijuana-infused products from mobile marijuana dispensaries.

The initiative measure also deletes the zoning requirement that City zoning uses must not conflict with federal law.

The stated intent of these associations is to provide education, referral, or network services, and to facilitate/assist in the lawful production, acquisition, and provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients within the terms of the Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”) and the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”).

The initiative measure establishes a formula for the number of associations that shall be recognized in the City. The initiative measure provides that recognized associations shall be limited to one (1) per thirty thousand (30,000) residents based on population figures promulgated by the California Department of Finance.

“Preferred status” is afforded to associations that operated in the City prior to the City’s enactment of its mobile marijuana dispensary ban; operated in compliance with the CUA, MMP, and the California Attorney General guidelines; and commenced a legal challenge in court against the legality of the City’s mobile marijuana dispensary ban prior to October 16, 2013. Those qualifying for preferred status are given priority with regard to qualifying to become recognized to operate within the City.

With respect to zoning restrictions, the initiative measure permits associations solely in the Business & Manufacturing Park Zone, General Industrial Zone, and Commercial General Zone. The initiative measure provides that recognized associations not operate within one thousand (1,000) feet of another recognized association or a public or private nursery or K-12 school.

Association cultivation of marijuana shall be concealed from the public and not create any offensive impacts disturbing to people of normal sensitivity.[5]

| ”

|
|

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

A group called Riverside Safe Access was behind this measure.[6]

Michael Eppolito, a resident of the City of Riverside, signed the official argument in favor of Measure A and the official rebuttal to the argument against Measure A.[2]

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following was submitted as the official argument in support of Measure A:[2]

“  |

Three good reasons to vote YES on Measure “A”:

* The City of Riverside’s prohibition on state law compliant medical marijuana patient provider associations has been just as ineffective, inefficient, and problematic as alcohol prohibition. While our City Council has refused to enact ordinances to allow for safe, well-regulated distribution of medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law, illicit street-level marijuana sales have plagued our parks, schools, and neighborhoods. It is time that we join nearby cities that have replaced their failed prohibition with sensible local protections.

* Law enforcement organizations support health and safety standards at the local municipal level in order to promote the safety of the communities where medical marijuana distribution takes place. The California Police Chiefs Association and the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association have recently come out in support of legislation that recognizes the need for meaningful statewide regulation of medical marijuana distribution.

* Measure “A” helps to ensure that our local community and our children will have the necessary safeguards in place. By requiring City approval prior to operating a medical marijuana patient provider association within our City’s boundaries, Measure “A” will serve to protect our parks, schools, and neighborhoods.

Here are just a few of the safeguards Measure “A” provides:

* Limits the total number of licensed associations to no more than 1 per 30,000 City residents;

* Restricts the areas of operation to the Business & Zone, General Industrial Zone, and Commercial General Zone;

* Prohibits any licensed association from operating within 1,000 feet of another licensed association, thereby preventing a concentration in any particular area;

* Prevents any licensed association from operating within 1,000 feet of a public or private school.

People/organizations that have urged voters to vote YES on Measure “A”:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Stephen Downing, Deputy Chief, LAPD (retired)

On December 31, 2014, a Press Enterprise editorial described the City of Riverside's prohibition as a “failed and frankly dubious strategy of combatting medical marijuana.”[5]

| ”

|
|

—Michael Eppolito, resident of the City of Riverside[2]

The following was submitted as the official rebuttal to the argument in opposition to Measure A:[2]

“  |

It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By this definition, our City’s prohibition on state law compliant medical marijuana providers is insane!

Our community is no safer, and we certainly have wasted a staggering amount of taxpayer money doubling down on a failed policy.

Sensible Regulation vs. Prohibition

* The City of Palm Springs routinely had over a dozen illegal dispensaries operating. After their bold elected leaders chose to adopt sensible local regulations, the number of illegal dispensaries plunged to just three.

* In our City, thugs continue to operate illegal dispensaries directly in the face of our elected leadership.

* Palm Springs brought in $1,034,346 from its marijuana tax in 2014.

* By the time you have read this, the City of Riverside will have spent over $1,000,000 fighting against local safe access to medical marijuana.

Do not let the hysteria of a few stubborn city officials deceive you.

Measure “A” will give the Riverside Police Department power to investigate whether City approved providers meet the following standards:

* Cannot be located within 1000 feet of a school;

* Must be monitored by high-tech security cameras and state licensed guards;

* Cannot be managed by anyone convicted of a felony within the previous 10 years; and

* Must have strict protocols limiting sales to adults with a doctor’s recommendation.

Measure “A” represents a future where City of Riverside policies are shaped by logic and reason rather than political agendas.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Michael Eppolito, resident of the City of Riverside[2]

### Campaign finance[edit]

As of May 8, 2015, proponents of Measure A had donated about $177,000 towards the campaign in support of the initiative.[3]

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The Riverside mayor and city council members listed below signed the official argument in opposition to Measure A and the official rebuttal to the argument in support of Measure A:[2]

* William R. Bailey, III, Riverside mayor
* Chris MacArthur, Riverside mayor pro-tem
* Steve Adams, Riverside council member
* Mike Gardner, Riverside council member
* Andy Melendrez, Riverside council member

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following was submitted as the official argument in opposition to Measure A:[2]

“  |

VOTE NO ON MEASURE “A”, which is supported by medical marijuana shops that put their financial interests ahead of neighborhood public safety.

Measure “A” is bad for our children and our neighborhoods because it:

* Makes mobile marijuana sales and deliveries legal, increasing the likelihood that drugs end up in the hands of our children.

* Allows dispensaries to open 1,000 feet from a neighborhood school – that is just a few blocks away.

* Permits marijuana sales to people under the age of 21.

* Allows pot shops to open near residential areas, restaurants, stores and family-oriented businesses, local colleges and universities, churches and places of worship, and city parks and libraries.

* Contains loopholes in the measure to allow more pot shops to open and operate in the City as Riverside grows.

* Removes prohibition on uses that are illegal under federal law.

Measure “A” jeopardizes the safety of Riverside residents.

* It does NOT require criminal background checks for dispensary operators.

* It does NOT require safety lighting or immediate accessibility by the Riverside Police Department to security camera systems.

In fact, we believe that Measure “A”’s safety requirements are so lax that dispensaries only have to provide verification that they will hire security patrol. Furthermore, this measure does NOT require dispensaries to pay additional City fees or taxes to offset public safety costs to monitor these businesses, which often attract drug users and criminals.

And Measure “A” is not about helping seriously ill patients because there is no requirement for dispensaries to test and analyze medical marijuana for pesticides and other toxins.

Local law enforcement officers, educators, business owners and residents across Riverside urge a NO vote on Measure “A” to protect neighborhoods, help keep drugs away from young people and maintain public safety.

Vote NO on Measure “A”.[5]

| ”

|
|

—City of Riverside Mayor and Council Members[2]

The following was submitted as the official rebuttal to the argument in support of Measure A:[2]

“  |

The medical marijuana businesses behind Measure “A” want to overturn City law to put revenues ahead of your neighborhood safety.

They are misleading voters by claiming public safety officials favor the measure. The truth is RIVERSIDE POLICE CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ AND RIVERSIDE FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL D. MOORE OPPOSE MEASURE “A”. Also, Riverside’s Mayor, a former high school teacher, and the Riverside City Council, consisting of three retired law enforcement officers, recommend a NO vote.

Proponents of Measure “A” are not being honest. Here are the facts:

* Medical marijuana dispensaries can attract crime, including shootings and robberies, and contribute to loitering and nuisance activities.

* Measure “A” would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to open next to day care centers and educational institutions where young people gather, such as colleges, universities and vocational schools.

* Measure “A” permits mobile medical marijuana sales and home deliveries - potentially bringing crime directly to your neighborhood.

* Measure “A” allows medical marijuana dispensaries to sell marijuana-infused products like candy, cookies and brownies, which are highly attractive to children and minors.

The Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce and community leaders urge a “No” vote on Measure “A”. The Chambers, representing over 1,275 local businesses, oppose Measure “A” because medical marijuana dispensaries often attract drug users and may attract criminals, making it more difficult to retain businesses, attract new employers and to sustain a growing local economy.

Vote NO on Measure “A” to keep Riverside safe.[5]

| ”

|
|

—City of Riverside mayor and council members[2]

### Campaign finance[edit]

As of May 8, 2015, no organized committee had filed to oppose Measure A, and no contributions to an official campaign against measure A had been reported.[3]

## Reports and analyses[edit]

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of Measure A was provided by the office of the city attorney:[2]

“  |

Currently, storefront and mobile marijuana dispensaries are illegal in the City of Riverside. If approved by a majority of the voters, this Measure would change the Riverside Municipal Code to allow storefront and mobile marijuana dispensaries to operate in the City.

This Measure would rescind the City of Riverside’s prohibition of storefront and mobile marijuana dispensaries and instead provide a process whereby specified medical marijuana providers associations are allowed by the City subject to an application process, zoning restrictions, and procurement of a business tax certificate. This Measure would rescind the ban on facilities where marijuana is made available for medical purposes and eliminate the prohibition on mobile delivery of marijuana and marijuana-infused products from mobile marijuana dispensaries. The Measure would allow medical marijuana providers associations to operate in the Business and Manufacturing Park zone, General Industrial zone, and Commercial General zone.

Currently, Riverside Municipal Code Section 19.150.020 states: “Any use which is prohibited by state and/or federal law is also strictly prohibited.” This Measure would additionally delete the zoning requirement that City zoning uses must not conflict with federal law. This Measure would provide Preferred Status to medical marijuana provider associations that (1) operated in the City prior to the City’s enactment of its mobile marijuana dispensary ban; (2) operated in compliance with the Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”), the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”), and the California Attorney General guidelines; and (3) filed a lawsuit against the City of Riverside challenging the legality of the City’s mobile marijuana dispensary ban prior to October 16, 2013. Those qualifying for Preferred Status would be given priority to operate within the City. The stated intent of the medical marijuana provider associations would be to provide education, referral, or network services, and to facilitate/assist in the lawful production, acquisition, and provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients within the terms of the CUA and MMP.

This Measure would establish a formula for the number of medical marijuana provider associations that shall be recognized in the City. This Measure provides that recognized associations shall be limited to one (1) per thirty thousand (30,000) residents based on population figures promulgated by the California Department of Finance. This Measure would prohibit dispensary operations within 1000 feet of a school, but that distance requirement does not apply to home schools, vocational or professional institutions of higher education, including colleges and universities.

This Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters. This impartial analysis is hereby submitted to the elections official in conformance with Section 9280 of the Elections Code of the State of California.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Kristi J. Smith, interim city attorney for Riverside[2]

## Polls[edit]

The city council commissioned a poll from Santa Monica-based Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, paying the company $24,752. The poll was conducted in January 2015, with results released to the public on March 6, 2015, as required by a public records request. According to the poll, 56 percent of respondents disapproved of the proposed initiative, 40 percent supported the measure, and 4 percent were undecided.[6]

Those surveyed were asked how they would vote on the proposed medical marijuana initiative. Below are the responses.

Riverside Measure A Poll

Poll | Definitely yes | Probably yes| Leaning toward yes| Undecided| Leaning toward no| Probably no| Definitely no| Margin of error| Sample size
City Poll
01/15 | 27%| 10%| 3%| 4%| 2%| 8%| 46%| +/-4.9| 400
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

The poll also showed 53 percent of respondents supported the city's ban on marijuana dispensaries, with 44 percent opposed, and 3 percent giving no answer.[6]

#### Responses[edit]

Assistant City Manager Al Zelinka said, “My main takeaway is that the voters of Riverside support the ban that’s in place and largely do not support the proposed measure."[6]

Jason Thompson, a lawyer representing Riverside Safe Access, said the poll commissioned by the city did not truly represent the opinions of voters. He claimed that the group had done its own polling that showed “the majority of likely voters in the city do favor local, safe and affordable access to marijuana that’s done in a regulated way.”[6]

## Background[edit]

In 2013, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Riverside in the extended court battle over the city's ban on marijuana dispensaries. City Attorney Greg Priamos argued the city's case against proponents of marijuana dispensaries and, between 2009 and 2014, shut down 81 dispensaries for operating within the city against the city's prohibition.[7]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Medical marijuana advocates began circulating signature petitions in December 2013, seeking to put this initiative on the ballot. The proponents had 180 days to collect enough valid signatures to qualify their measure for a voter decision. After four months of circulation, the group turned in 20,206 signatures, hoping this would be enough to qualify the initiative for the November 2014 election ballot. Since the city did not already have any measures on this election ballot, however, the petitioners would have needed signatures equal to 15 percent of the city's registered voters to trigger a special election, a figure that amounted to about 18,700. The county registrar found 13,640 of the submitted signatures to be valid, which was only enough to qualify the initiative for the election on June 2, 2015, the city's next regularly scheduled election. The threshold to qualify for this election ballot was about 12,400 -- 10 percent of the city's registered voters.[1][7]

### Lawsuit[edit]

A lawsuit was filed against this measure by city officials, who tried to keep it from going on the ballot. Ultimately, however, the court ruled that the initiative should go before voters before it was considered more thoroughly in court.[8]

## Other elections[edit]

* Riverside, California municipal elections, 2015

## Similar measures[edit]

1. Town of Yucca Valley Medical Marijuana Dispensary Authorization and Regulation Act, Measure X (June 2015)d
2. Mendocino County “Mendocino Cannabis Commission” Initiative (November 2015)
3. City of Vallejo Veto Referendum Targeting City Council Medical Marijuana Ordinance (2015)

## See also[edit]

* Local marijuana on the ballot
* Riverside County, California ballot measures
* June 2, 2015 ballot measures in California

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Riverside Elections Office website

## Additional reading[edit]

* The Press Enterprise, "RIVERSIDE: Measure A likely not last word on marijuana," May 29, 2015
* Lake Elsinore-Wildomar Patch, "Final Tally of Defeated Pot Proposal to be Posted Tuesday," June 6, 2015

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Press Enterprise, "RIVERSIDE: Signature gathering set for marijuana ballot measure," December 18, 2013
2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 Riverside County Elections Office, "Measure 'A' Voter Information Pamphlet," accessed April 28, 2015
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 The Press Enterprise, "RIVERSIDE: City voters to decide on marijuana dispensaries," May 8, 2015
4. ↑ Riverside County Elections Office, "City of Riverside Sample Ballot, June 2, 2015," accessed April 28, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 The Press Enterprise, "RIVERSIDE: Poll says voters oppose pot measure," March 7, 2015
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 The Press Enterprise, "RIVERSIDE: Marijuana measure could go to voters next year," May 18, 2014
8. ↑ The Press Enterprise, "RIVERSIDE: Pot dispensary measure can go to voters," December 9, 2014

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