Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles, 243 Cal. App. 4th 1029

Prop D was voter-approved in 2013, banning medical marijuana businesses in Los Angeles but granting limited immunity to certain collectives that had prior registrations under earlier ordinances (ICO and Grandfather/Lottery).
The City previously enacted an Interim Control Ordinance (2007) and early grandfathering schemes (2010, 2012) regulating collectives/dispensaries, prompting litigation and appellate rulings up to Riverside.
Plaintiffs—about 25 collectives and some patients—challenged Prop D as to its enactment and its substantive provisions, including registration-based immunities and land-use aspects.
Appellants asserted novel theories (Charter section 558 and Government Code section 65804) while the City demurred arguing Riverside and related cases barred most claims; trial court denied TRO and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Prop D was lawfully enacted, there is no statutory right to medical marijuana, and appellants’ various substantive and procedural challenges fail; leave to amend was denied.
The opinion discusses the interaction of state medical marijuana laws (CUA, MMPA) with local regulation, the effect of Riverside on local bans, and the narrow scope of immunities provided by Prop D.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Prop D’s enactment comply with Government Code 65804 minimal procedures?	Prop D violated 65804 by lacking Planning Commission involvement.	Prop D, enacted by referendum, is exempt from council-based 65804 procedures.	Prop D did not violate 65804; referendum enactment treated as municipal land-use action within scope of 65804 minimal procedures.
Did Prop D violate City Charter section 558 by not referring to Planning Commission?	Prop D violated Charter 558 by omitting Planning Commission referral.	558 applies to council actions, not to referenda; Prop D enacted via referendum.	Prop D did not violate 558; 558 does not apply to referendum/initiative outcomes.
Does Prop D grant a conditional use permit or variance?	Prop D effectively creates land-use rights akin to CUP/variance for immunized collectives.	Prop D provides limited immunity, not a land-use authorization; not a CUP/variance.	Prop D does not grant CUP or variance; immunity is legislative, not a land-use grant.
Is there a statutory right to medical marijuana that Prop D allegedly violated?	CUA/MMPA create a state right to use/collectively cultivate medical marijuana.	No statutory right exists; these statutes provide limited immunities, not a right to use.	There is no statutory right to medical marijuana; Prop D’s actions do not implicate a protected right.

City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 729 (Cal. 2013) (CUA/MMPA create limited immunities, not a right to use marijuana; preemption not implicated by local regulation.)
420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal.App.4th 1316 (Cal. App. 2012) (Appellate stance on grandfather clauses and registration as rational basis for distinctions.)
Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. Livermore, 18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976) (Zoning Act notice/hearing requirements apply to council enactment, not to referenda/initiatives.)
Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.3d 491 (Cal. 1988) (Limits on Associated Home Builders interpretation; statewide concerns and municipal initiative context.)
Arnel Development Co. v. Costa Mesa, 28 Cal.3d 511 (Cal. 1980) (Landowners’ rights and notice/hearing protections when zoning is enacted by initiative.)
Conejo Wellness Center v. City of Agoura Hills, 214 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Cal. App. 2013) (CUA/MMPA do not create a right to cultivate or obtain marijuana; immunities are limited.)
Kirby v. County of Fresno, 242 Cal.App.4th 940 (Cal. App. 2015) (Preemption narrow; MMPA immunities do not preclude land-use regulation.)
Taschner v. City Council, 31 Cal.App.3d 48 (Cal. App. 1973) (Not followed; disfavoring arguments about planning commission as sole audience.)