California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, S234148A

California Cannabis Coalition filed an initiative to repeal Upland's medical marijuana ban, regulate up to three dispensaries, and charge a $75,000 annual Licensing and Inspection fee.
Proponents circulated a petition; 15% of registered voters signed, triggering §9214, compelling the city to act (adopt, order a special election, or refer for agency report).
City elected to order an agency report, concluding the $75,000 fee exceeded costs and constituted a general tax, thus requiring a general election under article XIII C.
The agency report led the City to submit the measure for the next general election (November 8, 2016) rather than a special election; plaintiffs mandamus petition sought a special election instead.
The trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding article XIII C, §2 applied to taxes by local government and required a general election, not a special election; this Court granted review.
The Court ultimately held that article XIII C, §2 does not apply to taxes imposed by voter initiative and affirmed the Court of Appeal; the matter is decided but moot, though the core questions relate to the scope of initiative power and tax provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Prop. 218 article XIII C, §2 apply to taxes enacted by voter initiative?	Plaintiffs (Kennedy) argue §2 applies to local taxes regardless of enactment method.	City argues §2 targets local governments, not the electorate, so initiatives are exempt.	No, §2 does not constrain the electorate's initiative power.
Must the initiative be placed on a special election under §9214 or can it be placed on a general election under Prop. 218?	Plaintiffs contend §9214 compelled a special election.	City argued the measure was a general-tax issue governed by §2, justifying a general election.	Section 9214 requires a special election; the city erred by not submitting to a special election.
Is the proposed $75,000 annual fee a tax that §2 would restrict, or a permissible initiative without §2 constraints?	Fee design is invalid as a tax and thus subject to initiative procedures.	The City treated the fee as a general tax subject to §2.	The majority rejects applying §2 to initiative taxes; the provision does not limit the initiative power.

Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976) (jealously guard and liberally construe initiative power; doubts resolved in its favor)
Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 53 Cal.3d 245 (Cal. 1991) (inititiative power not limited by tax provisions unless explicit text)
Rossi v. Brown, 9 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 1995) (initiative power may be broader for local taxation; duties to construe power broadly)
DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995) (procedural requirements for local ordinances generally do not constrain initiative power)
Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 1029 (Cal. 2014) (expedited review on initiative proceedings; public officials must act expeditiously)