Interest group brought declaratory judgment action challenging validity of city zoning ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana “collective gardens.” The Superior Court dismissed claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- Amendments to Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA) did not legalize medical marijuana or collective gardens;
- Governor’s veto message was the sole source of relevant legislative history to be considered in interpreting amendments that were enacted following sectional veto;
- Cities were authorized to enact zoning requirements to regulate or exclude collective gardens; and
- Ordinance did not conflict with state law.