Yuma OKs recreational pot rules

With statewide ban in place, city repeals local text-and-driving laws

The Yuma City Council adopted three ordinances on Wednesday, updating the rules on marijuana, repealing the texting-and-driving code, and putting into a place preannexation development agreement.

The council unanimously adopted an ordinance that changes the zoning code to comply with state law following voter approval of Proposition 207, which legalizes the use of marijuana by adults 21 years of age and older.

When the council introduced the ordinance at the last meeting, the officials added a disclaimer noting that while the city is obligated to allow the sale of recreational marijuana, “the City of Yuma does not condone the use of marijuana or violation of Federal law.”

The word “medical” was struck from the previous ordinance that regulated medical marijuana, so that “recreational” and “medical” cannabis are on the same footing. Consequently, recreational marijuana establishments in Yuma are subject to the same rules and regulations as medical marijuana dispensaries.

The new ordinance also changes the phrase “non-profit medical dual-purpose marijuana dispensary facilities” to “dual-purpose marijuana facilities.” The ordinance requiring recreational marijuana establishments to share space with nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries within the same building. A new section reads: “Each non-profit medical marijuana dispensary and recreational marijuana establishment shall locate within one location, within the same building as a dual-purpose marijuana facility.”

In addition, the city requires buffers of 1,000 feet from schools, daycares, churches and other places

of worship, residential zones, parks, libraries and community centers as well as 5,280 feet from any other marijuana facility, regardless if these uses are located in the city or the county jurisdiction.

With the state law ban on texting and driving now in effect, another adopted ordinance repealed sections in the city code that prohibit drivers from using a cell phone while driving unless the device is hands-free within the city limits.

Since Jan. 1, when the state law took full effect, municipalities can no longer regulate the use of portable wireless communication devices while driving and any ordinances that do so are deemed void.

A staff report explained that the Legislature for years resisted efforts at enacting a statewide ban because the state had existing distracted driving laws believed to already address the issue and covered more than just phones. The Legislature did adopt a statewide law prohibiting teen drivers from using cell phones for talking or texting while driving in 2017, but it was unwilling to go any further with a statewide ban. Without a statewide prohibition, Yuma adopted a local hands-free ordinance and texting ban in 2015.

In 2019, in response to several tragedies in jurisdictions without handsfree ordinances, the Legislature enacted a statewide ban on texting-and-talking while driving. While deliberating the bill, the state legislators noted that 19 cities and towns and counties had already enacted local hands-free rules and specifically noted the success of the Yuma ordinance. The statewide provision largely mimics the Yuma rules.

Worried about enacting a swift prohibition without ample notice, the Legislature decided to implement the law over two years and allow local rules to remain valid until then. The state statute went into effect April 22, 2019, but citations could not be issued until Jan. 1, 2021. In the interim, Yuma continued issuing citations under local regulations.

However, with the statewide ban now in full effect, the state law preempts local regulation. To avoid potential issues, Yuma repealed the local text-and-driving rules in their entirety and violators will now be cited under the applicable Arizona Revised Statutes.

The third ordinance puts into place a preannexation development agreement with Piramide Contractors for a 4.26-acres parcel located at 414 S. Vaughn Ave., which is located outside the city boundaries.

The owner intends to develop a 20-lot single-family residential subdivision on the currently vacant land and requested annexation in order to receive city water and sewer service, but the property does not meet the minimum requirements for annexation under state law.

As annexation of the property is not possible at this time, the agreement will be kept on file and used when a larger annexation can be brought forward.