Zoning Ordinance Does Not Conflict With State Law Or Constitutional Principle.

Defendants operated a marijuana collective in an agricultural zone, and the county brought an action for injunctive relief, seeking to stop a nonconforming use of property. A county zoning ordinance related to the location of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives [MMC’s] states they “shall not be established or located in any zone in the County of Tulare, nor shall any building or land be used for such collectives or cooperatives, other than those located in a C-2 (General Commercial), C-3 (Service Commercial), M-1 (Light Manufacturing), or M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) zone district.” It also prohibits MMC’s from being located within 1,000 feet of certain incompatible uses, such as schools, daycare facilities, places of religious worship, public parks, or other MMC’s. The trial court issued an injunction, and defendants appealed, arguing the zoning ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with the state’s general law and that it is unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed, holding:  “The zoning ordinance is a reasonable exercise of the County’s power to enact local legislation (Cal. Const., art. XI, section 7), and Defendants have failed to show any conflict with state law or constitutional principle.” County of Tulare v. Nunes  (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; April 29, 2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1188, [155 Cal.Rptr.3d 781].