Court Opinion

ID: 9387352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 18:02:11.365099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.096102
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/17/23 Lawson v. County of Santa Cruz CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STEVEN LAWSON,                                                      H050208
                                                                    (Santa Cruz County
           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  Super. Ct. No. 21CV02161)

           v.

 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,

           Defendant and Respondent.

         Appellant Steven Lawson (Lawson) seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial
court to overturn a $174,370 civil penalty imposed by the County of Santa Cruz (County)
after county law enforcement cited Lawson for the unlicensed cultivation, manufacturing,
and distribution of commercial cannabis. An administrative hearing officer found that
Lawson’s commercial cannabis activity violated Santa Cruz County Code
section 7.128.050, which addresses County licensing requirements for the cultivation,
manufacture, and distribution of cannabis for commercial purposes.
         On appeal, Lawson contends that the local code sections are preempted by state
law regulating marijuana. Lawson maintains that the fines imposed by the County
exceed the punishment authorized by state law and violate the Eighth Amendment’s
restriction on excessive fines.
         We affirm the judgment.
                 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
       In October 2020, the County, through its sheriff’s office and accompanied by
personnel from the County’s cannabis compliance unit and the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, executed a search warrant at Lawson’s leased property in Soquel. The
search revealed quantities of cannabis in various locations (totaling 32.26 pounds of
flower, 32.40 pounds of biomass, and 1650 grams of concentrate), manufacturing
equipment for butane hash oil, labels, containers, glass tubes, and equipment recognized
by the County’s cannabis licensing manager as consistent with the manufacture and
distribution of cannabis products.
       Lawson was cited for unlicensed commercial manufacture, distribution, and
cultivation of cannabis, in violation of Santa Cruz County Code section 7.128.050,
subdivisions (A), (B), and (C). The administrative citation fined Lawson $184,370. The
amount was calculated according to Santa Cruz County Code section 7.128.210,
subdivision (B)(3), which establishes a dollar amount for each category of product, not to
exceed $500 per pound of cannabis flower, $100/pound of cannabis biomass, and
$100/gram of concentrate. Lawson appealed the citation and requested an administrative
hearing.
       At the administrative hearing, held on May 6, 2021, Lawson, who was represented
by counsel, challenged the nature of the proceeding and the assessed penalties. Lawson’s
counsel objected to the administrative hearing, arguing that under United States Supreme
Court precedent, a person facing fines for conduct that could be classified as criminal is
entitled to a trial by jury. Lawson’s counsel also objected on the ground that state law
limited the County’s authority to collect civil penalties to the procedures and penalties

       1
        These facts are drawn from the evidence presented at the administrative hearing
on Lawson’s appeal of his administrative citation and summarized in the hearing officer’s
decision and order. Lawson does not dispute the factual basis for the administrative
decision.
                                                 2
specified by Business and Professions Code section 26038,2 established as part of
Proposition 64, in which voters enacted the Control Regulate and Tax Adult Use of
Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Prop. 64, § 6.1, approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016)),
now part of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
(MAUCRSA), codified in sections 26000 to 26260 (Stats. 2017, ch. 27 (Sen. Bill No.
94), eff. Jan. 1, 2018).3
       The hearing officer heard testimony and considered both sides’ posthearing and
supplemental briefs, in which Lawson did not dispute the factual basis for the citation but
argued that any penalty for violating the County ordinance was preempted by state law.
As authority for his preemption argument, Lawson relied on Health and Safety Code
sections 11358 and 11359 (which he asserted limited the imposition of fines to $500) and
section 26038 (which he asserted limited civil penalties for unlicensed marijuana
activities to three times the cost of a state license and forfeiture of the marijuana, but only
through the institution of a civil action by the prosecuting authority). Lawson also argued
that the amount of the fine was so disproportionate to the limits under state law that its
imposition violated the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
       The County responded that its ordinance for regulating both licensed and
unlicensed cannabis cultivation and other activities is authorized by state law and argued
that Lawson had not demonstrated the penalty imposed was excessive. In supplemental
briefing, the County further asserted that the relevant state laws expressly allow local
jurisdictions to exercise local control over cannabis activities and do not limit civil
penalties for local code violations.

       2
         Unspecified statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code.
       3
         Although Lawson refers to AUMA in this appeal, as he did in the administrative
and trial court proceedings, MAUCRSA is the applicable state law. We summarize the
relevant statutes in our analysis, part II.B.1, post.
                                                  3
       In June 2021, the administrative hearing officer issued a written decision and order
(order), rejecting Lawson’s preemption and excessive fine arguments and reducing the
fine amount by $10,000. The order held that state law provisions governing criminal
penalties for unlawful cannabis activities (e.g., Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11358, 11359) do
not impact civil penalties for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. The order further
explained, based on the language and legislative history of Proposition 64 (enacting
AUMA), that section 26038 neither prohibits the County from seeking civil penalties in
an administrative proceeding, nor limits the fine that may be imposed. The order also
concluded, applying the “Bajakajian factors” (based on United States v. Bajakajian
(1998) 524 U.S. 321 (Bajakajian)), that the fine did not violate the constitutional
prohibition on excessive fines, as Lawson had not shown the fine was disproportionate to
his culpability and the harm, including environmental harm, attributed to unlicensed
cannabis activity. Lastly, the order found Lawson’s first-time offender status to be a
mitigating factor under the County’s ordinance and reduced the amount of the fine by
$10,000.
       The final administrative order found that Lawson had used his property for
cultivating, manufacturing, and distributing cannabis commercially, without a license, in
violation of Santa Cruz County Code section 7.128.050, subdivisions (A)–(C), and after
making findings on the issues raised in the administrative appeal, ordered Lawson to pay
$174,370.
       In September 2021, Lawson filed a petition for writ of mandate/prohibition in the
trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (petition). Lawson asked the
trial court to order the County to vacate the administrative order. Both sides filed written
briefs which largely reiterated the legal arguments they had made in the administrative
hearing. Lawson argued the local ordinances authorized the imposition of fines “in excess
of the amount authorized by state law for the identical marijuana related conduct” and
were preempted by those laws—specifically section 26038 and Health and Safety Code
                                                 4
sections 11358, 11359, and 11360. Lawson also reiterated his contention that the fine
was excessive under the Eighth Amendment.
       The County opposed Lawson’s petition. It disputed the asserted grounds for
preemption, citing a 2021 appellate court decision (now pending review before the
California Supreme Court), which rejected a similar preemption argument concerning
criminal penalties imposed on a property owner for unlicensed cannabis activities on the
premises. (See Wheeler v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th
824, 828, review granted Mar. 16, 2022, S272850 (Wheeler).) The County further
asserted that the ordinances Lawson violated were neither duplicative of nor in conflict
with the referenced state statutes, and the fine imposed were not excessive.
       In May 2022, the trial court issued a written order denying the petition for writ of
mandate. The court found that state law does not preempt the local ordinances, which
authorized the penalties set forth in Santa Cruz County Code section 7.128.210. It also
concluded that the fine imposed was supported by the administrative hearing officer’s
“well-reasoned analysis of the Bajakajian factors” and by substantial evidence in the
record, and therefore did not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.
       On May 31, 2022, the trial court entered judgment denying the petition for writ of
mandate and ordering Lawson to pay the $174,370 fine in administrative civil penalties.
Lawson timely appealed the judgment.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
       Lawson contends the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandate,
because the local ordinances were preempted by state law and the fine imposed on him
was excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The County responds that state laws
relating to commercial cannabis activities do not preempt the local ordinance governing
civil penalties in this case and that the trial court correctly applied the standard for
reviewing an excessive fine claim under the Eighth Amendment. We address each issue
in turn, starting with the standard of review and applicable legal principles.
                                                   5
       A. Applicable Standards of Review
       Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 governs judicial review of adjudicatory
decisions by administrative agencies. (Akella v. Regents of University of California
(2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 801, 813 (Akella).) The inquiry in such a case extends to whether
the respondent to the administrative mandate petition (here, the County) “has proceeded
without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was
any prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) An abuse of
discretion is established if the respondent agency has failed to proceed “in the manner
required by law, the [agency’s] order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the
findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Ibid.) Whether the record supports the
agency’s findings and factual basis for its decision or order is a question of substantial
evidence in light of the entire administrative record. (Id., subd. (c); Akella, at pp. 813–
814; see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11
Cal.3d 506, 514–515.) However, to the extent the administrative decision involves a
question of law, including the interpretation of statutes and application of judicial
precedent, the reviewing court exercises independent judgment. (Akella, at p. 815;
McAllister v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 921–922; Ghirardo
v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 800–801 (Ghirardo).)
       In applying this standard on appeal, “we do not ‘undertak[e] a review of the trial
court’s findings or conclusions. Instead, “we review the matter without reference to the
trial court’s actions. In mandamus actions, the trial court and appellate court perform the
same function.” ’ ” (Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio (2015) 236
Cal.App.4th 1175, 1197 (Jefferson Street).)
       With respect to Lawson’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his administrative
mandate petition, we agree with the County that the question of state law preemption is
subject to our independent review. The “ultimate question” in a preemption challenge is
whether the ordinance conflicts with the statute. (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los
                                                  6
Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 902.) This question presents a “legal issue involving
statutory construction and the ascertainment of legislative intent, which we [] review de
novo.” (Spielholz v. Superior Court (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1371.) Similarly,
where the underlying facts are not in dispute, we review de novo whether the fine
imposed by the County is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. (Ghirardo, supra, 8
Cal.4th at p. 801; Bajakajian, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 336, fn. 10.)
       B. Preemption of Commercial Cannabis Activities
       Lawson argues that state law under AUMA created a comprehensive scheme that
established limits on fines for marijuana offenses and unlicensed commercial conduct.
He contends that in passing Proposition 64, voters set the civil and criminal penalties and
punishment for marijuana-related conduct, including unlicensed commercial cultivation
and sales, thus occupying the field and preempting punishment by local ordinance for the
same conduct covered by the state statute. (See Prop. 64, § 6.1, approved by voters, Gen.
Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016).) In support of his preemption argument, Lawson invokes the
criminal penalties provided for in Health and Safety Code sections 11358, 11359, and
11360, as well as the civil penalty provisions set forth in sections 26037 and 26038.
       In response, the County maintains that although Lawson cites to AUMA, the
applicable state law is MAUCRSA, since it amended and consolidated the licensing
schemes for medical cannabis and adult-use cannabis. The County argues that Lawson’s
reference to both criminal and civil penalty schemes makes it unclear which fine limit he
claims has preemptive effect in this matter, and, in any event, Lawson fails to
demonstrate any preemption applies.
          1. Applicable Local and State Law
       The County cited and ultimately fined Lawson under chapter 7.128 of the Santa
Cruz County Code, governing licenses for non-retail commercial cannabis businesses.
The stated purpose of the chapter is to regulate non-retail commercial cannabis business
in the unincorporated areas of the County and to mitigate the negative impacts and
                                                 7
secondary effects of those activities. Such secondary effects include demands on law
enforcement and environmental damage due to “destructive cannabis cultivation,
manufacturing, and distribution activities.” (Santa Cruz County Code, § 7.128.010.) The
ordinance is further “not intended to conflict” but to be interpreted in a manner
“compatible with Federal and State enactments and in furtherance of the public purposes
that those enactments encompass.” (Ibid.)
       Lawson was found to have violated Santa Cruz County Code section 7.128.050,
subdivisions (A), (B), and (C), which provide, respectively, that it is “unlawful” and a
“public nuisance” for any person to “cultivate cannabis for commercial purposes” (id.,
subd. (A)) without a valid local and state license, to “manufacture cannabis products”
(id., subd. (B)) without a valid local and state license, and to “distribute cannabis or
cannabis products” (id., subd. (C)) without a valid local and state license. The ordinance
defines in relevant part the applicable terms, including “[c]annabis cultivation,”
considered by the County “to be an agricultural activity,” (id., § 7.128.030, subd. (E)),
“cannabis distribution” (id., subd. (G)), and “cannabis manufacture” (id., subd. (I)). It
also states the requirements and procedures to obtain licenses under the chapter for
cultivation, manufacturing, and/or distribution (id., §§ 7.128.090–7.128.170), and the
grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of a license (id., § 7.128.190). It further
provides that “proof of knowledge, intent, or other mental state” is not required to
establish a violation. (Id., § 7.128.210, subd. (A).)
       Regarding enforcement, the ordinance provides that violations of the chapter
“shall be subject to administrative citation” and other measures, such as injunctive relief,
costs of abatement or restoration, investigative costs, and attorney fees. (Santa Cruz
County Code, § 7.128.210, subd. (A).) The ordinance provides that each violation of the
provisions of the chapter constitutes a separate violation, deems each violation “unlawful,
a public nuisance, and an immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare,” and

                                                  8
authorizes fines and penalties, pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, for
violations of the chapter. (Ibid.)
       The civil penalties for a nonlicensee who receives an administrative citation for
commercial cannabis activity reflect the amounts applied in Lawson’s case, including
fines “not exceeding $100.00 per gram of cannabis concentrate, [¶] . . . $100 per pound of
cannabis biomass, [¶] . . . [and] $500 per pound of cannabis flower.” (Santa Cruz County
Code, § 7.128.210, subd. (B)(3)(c)–(e).) The ordinance additionally states that the
County or office of the district attorney may also pursue remedies and actions available
under state and local laws for any violations associated with the unlawful cannabis
activity. (Id., subd. (G).)
       Lawson contends that the ordinance provisions under which he was cited, Santa
Cruz County Code sections 7.128.050 and 7.128.210, are preempted by state law,
specifically Health and Safety Code sections 11358, 11359 and 11360, and section
26038, which he cites as AUMA. Due to subsequent statutory changes, we will refer to
the relevant law as MAUCRSA.4
       The purpose of MAUCRSA “is to establish a comprehensive system to control and
regulate the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and

       4
         The legislative enactment of MAUCRSA in 2017 followed that of AUMA in
2016, pursuant to statewide voter initiative (Proposition 64). (Stats. 2017, ch. 27, (Sen.
Bill No. 94), eff. Jan. 1, 2018.) Prior to AUMA, the Medical Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MCRSA) comprised the state regulatory framework for the licensing and
enforcement of medicinal cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, retail sale, transportation,
storage, delivery, and testing. AUMA established a regulatory framework for adults 21
years of age or older to legally grow, possess, and use cannabis for nonmedicinal
purposes, as well as to sell and distribute cannabis through a regulated business. (Stats.
2017, ch. 27, § 1.) One purpose of MAUCRSA was to consolidate the provisions of
MCRSA and AUMA into “a single regulatory structure for both medicinal and adult-use
cannabis and provide for temporary licenses to those applicants that can show compliance
with local requirements.” (Stats. 2017, ch. 27, § 1, subd. (g); Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen.
Bill No. 94 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2017, ch. 27.)

                                                 9
sale of both” medicinal and adult-use cannabis and to identify “the power and duties of
the state agencies responsible for controlling and regulating the commercial medicinal
and adult-use cannabis industry.” (§ 26000, subds. (b), (c).) It expressly dictates that its
provisions “shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit existing local authority” to
enforce zoning requirements or local ordinances, including “local license, permit, or other
authorization requirements.” (§ 26200, subd. (a)(2).)
       MAUCRSA charges the administration and enforcement of cannabis regulations
to a specified state department, creates a state licensing process for cannabis businesses,
and imposes civil penalties for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. (§§ 26010–
26018 [administration provisions], 26030–26037 [enforcement provisions], 26038).
Specifically, “A person engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license as
required by this division shall be subject to civil penalties of up to three times the amount
of the license fee for each violation. Each day of operation shall constitute a separate
violation of this section.” (§ 26038, subd. (a)(1).) It provides that in addition to civil
penalties, “criminal penalties shall continue to apply to an unlicensed person engaging in
commercial cannabis activity in violation of this division.” ( Id., subd. (g).)
Furthermore, it expressly disavows any preemptive effect: “This section does not limit,
preempt, or otherwise affect any other state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance
applicable to the conduct described in subdivision (a), or otherwise relating to
commercial cannabis activities.” (Id., subd. (h)(1).) It also specifies “[f]ailure to comply
with the requirement of a local ordinance regulating commercial cannabis activity” as a
basis for enforcement of disciplinary actions. (§ 26030, subd. (f).)
       Unlike section 26038, which governs civil penalties for unlicensed commercial
cannabis activities, the Health and Safety Code provisions cited by Lawson address
criminal sanctions. Each section, in relevant part, provides for punishment “by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not
more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both that fine and imprisonment,” of a
                                                 10
person over 18 years old, “who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes more than
six living cannabis plants” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, subd. (c)), “possesses cannabis
for sale” (id., § 11359, subd. (b)), or “sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or
offers to . . . sell, furnish, administer, or give away, . . . any cannabis” (id., § 11360, subd.
(a)(2)).
       Having summarized the relevant ordinances and statutes at issue, we turn to
Lawson’s preemption claim.
           2. Preemption Principles
       To decide whether preemption applies, we follow the California Supreme Court’s
analytical framework set out in Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38
Cal.4th 1139 (Big Creek Lumber), O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061
(O’Connell), and City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center,
Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 (Inland Empire). Our state Constitution authorizes cities and
counties to enact and enforce local ordinances which are “not in conflict” with the state’s
“general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Otherwise valid local legislation that conflicts
with state law is void. (O’Connell, at p. 1065; Inland Empire, at p. 743.)
       “ ‘ “A conflict exists if the local legislation ‘ “duplicates, contradicts, or enters an
area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.” ’ ” ’ ”
(Inland Empire, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 743.) In other words, “[a] conflict causing
preemption by state law can occur in three different ways: the local ordinance (1)
duplicates state law; (2) contradicts state law; or (3) enters an area or field fully occupied
by state law.” (Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214
Cal.App.4th 1534, 1552.)
       Local legislation is duplicative “when it is ‘coextensive’ with state law.”
(O’Connell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1067 [providing example of local legislation that
purports to impose the same criminal prohibition imposed by state law].) It is
contradictory “when it is inimical to or cannot be reconciled with state law.” (Id. at
                                                   11
p. 1068.) It enters an area or field fully occupied by state law “in either of two
situations—when the Legislature ‘expressly manifest[s]’ its intent to occupy the legal
area or when the Legislature ‘impliedly’ occupies the field.” (Ibid.) The Legislature’s
intent to occupy an area of law may be implied “when ‘ “(1) the subject matter has been
so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become
exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by
general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern
will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been
partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect
of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to
the” locality.’ ” (Ibid.)
       In cases involving local government regulation of an area traditionally subject to
local government control under the grant of police power in the state Constitution, such
as land use, “California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive
intent from the Legislature, that such [local] regulation is not preempted by state statute.”
(Big Creek Lumber, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1149; Inland Empire, supra, 56 Cal.4th at
p. 743.)
       The party asserting preemption has the burden to demonstrate a conflict between
the local ordinance and state law. (Big Creek Lumber, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1149.)
           3. Analysis
       Lawson primarily contends that the County’s ordinance is subject to field
preemption. He contends that voters approved Proposition 64 with the express intent and
purpose to establish a “comprehensive system” (Prop. 64, § 3, approved by voters, Gen.
Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016)) of legalization, regulation, and control of nonmedical marijuana
and marijuana products for use by adults 21 years and older, thereby occupying the field
of regulating marijuana related activities, particularly as it pertains to punishment.
Lawson relies on statements in the uncodified findings and declarations, and in the ballot
                                                 12
materials presented to voters, to argue that voters signaled an intent for the law to
generally reduce penalties associated with cannabis conduct, and furthermore to specify
those punishments.
       This argument fails on a number of grounds. Lawson’s characterization of the
state statutory scheme as having occupied the field of cannabis regulation is not
supported by the text or stated purpose of MAUCRSA, which was in effect when the
County cited Lawson under the local ordinances. That purpose is to establish a
“comprehensive system” to control and regulate the cultivation, distribution, transport,
storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of both medicinal and adult-use cannabis
and cannabis products. (§ 26000, subd. (b).)
       It is apparent that use of the term “comprehensive” in this context does not signify
an intent to occupy the field to the exclusion of local regulation. As stated in the
uncodified findings and declarations accompanying MAUCRSA, the Legislature
recognized the need for a system to allow state entities to implement the voters’ intent to
issue cannabis licenses beginning in January 2018, “while avoiding duplicative costs and
inevitable confusion among licensees, regulatory agencies, and the public and ensuring a
regulatory structure that prevents access to minors, protects public safety, public health
and the environment, as well as maintaining local control . . . .” (Stats. 2017, ch. 27, § 1,
subd. (g), italics added.) The Legislature thus deemed it “necessary to provide for a
single regulatory structure for both medicinal and adult-use cannabis and provide for
temporary licenses to those applicants that can show compliance with local
requirements.” (Ibid.)
       That the Legislature intended for MAUCRSA not to preempt local regulations, but
in fact to require “compliance with local requirements” (Stats. 2017, ch. 27, § 1, subd.
(g)) as part of the state licensing scheme, is evident in various ways throughout the
statute. As the Court of Appeal observed in Wheeler, “MAUCRSA explicitly disavows
any legislative intention to occupy the field of commercial cannabis regulation, and
                                                 13
explicitly contemplates that cities and counties will also impose their own licensing
requirements and other restrictions on commercial cannabis activities.” (Wheeler, supra,
72 Cal.App.5th at p. 840, review granted, citing §§ 26030, subd. (f), 26200, subd. (a)(1).)
       MAUCRSA expressly states that its provisions “shall not be interpreted to
supersede or limit existing local authority” to enforce local zoning requirements or
ordinances, including “enforcement of local license, permit, or other authorization
requirements.” (§ 26200, subd. (a)(2).) Recent legislative amendments to MAUCRSA
have reiterated this intent in the context of civil penalty enforcement. Following
amendments in 2021, section 26038, which Lawson cites as support for his preemption
argument, explicitly states, “[t]his section does not limit, preempt, or otherwise affect any
other state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance applicable to the conduct described
in subdivision (a), or otherwise relating to commercial cannabis activities.” (§ 26038,
subd. (h)(1), formerly subd. (g), amended by Stats. 2021, ch. 530 (Assem. Bill No. 1138),
§ 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) Amendments in 2022 added: “This section is meant to further the
intent of the . . . [AUMA], which allows local governments to reasonably regulate the
cultivation of nonmedical cannabis for personal use by adults 21 years of age and older
through zoning and other local laws.” (§ 26038, subd. (h)(2), added by Stats. 2022, ch.
56 (Assem. Bill No. 195), § 2, eff. June 30, 2022.) The conduct described in section
26038, subdivision (a), is a person engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity.
       We reject the suggestion that MAUCRSA, or the voters through passage of the
AUMA, manifested an express intent to occupy the field or strictly limit civil penalties
for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity.
       Lawson’s reliance on the statutory grant of authority to the county counsel (or
local prosecuting agency) to institute legal proceedings for the purpose of enforcing the
civil penalties provision (§ 26038, subds. (b), (e)) is misplaced. Contrary to Lawson’s
assertion that the statutory procedure for filing a civil action in the superior court is the
exclusive means of pursuing civil penalties for unlicensed commercial marijuana activity,
                                                  14
and that voters intended to provide “very specific limits” on the amount of penalties for
those activities, the statutory provisions expressly preserve local authority to adopt
regulations or ordinances applicable to unlicensed commercial cannabis conduct.
(§§ 26200, subd. (a)(2), 26038, subd. (h)(1), (2).) Attendant to such local regulation is
the statutory allowance for the local agency to impose an administrative fine or penalty
on any violation of the subject ordinance. (Gov. Code, § 53069.4, subd. (a) [providing
that a local legislative body may, by ordinance, make any violation of a local ordinance
subject to an administrative fine or penalty and shall set the administrative procedures
governing the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review of the
administrative fines or penalties].)
       In asserting that the $174,370 fine imposed by the County “is more severe than
anything the voter[]s approved, and more severe than a 6-month jail term and a $500
fine,” Lawson appears to conflate the criminal and civil penalty schemes. Lawson cites
People v. Villarino (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d Supp. 893, for the proposition that a local
ordinance conflicts with state law, even if the two are identical, due to “ ‘ “the inevitable
conflict of jurisdiction which would result from dual regulations covering the same
ground.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 897.) But Villarino involved a local ordinance imposing criminal
sanctions for the same conduct covered by the state law (former Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11721, criminalizing the use of or addiction to narcotics). (Villarino, at pp. 894–895.)
The Santa Cruz County Code penalty provisions for violations of the local licensing
requirements for non-retail, commercial cannabis businesses in the county carry only
civil sanctions and are not, in substance, criminal. (See Cohen v. Board of Supervisors
(1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 293 (Cohen) [distinguishing an ordinance that is “in substance a
criminal statute” attempting to prohibit conduct proscribed or permitted by state law,
from a local licensing law that regulates in an area not exclusive to state law].)
       Moreover, the County ordinance which Lawson was found to have violated neither
duplicates nor contradicts the cited Health and Safety Code sections. In certain respects,
                                                 15
the County ordinance addresses a broader range of commercial activities than the state
criminal provisions. The County ordinance violations include packaging and storing of
cannabis (under the definition of “cultivation”) (Santa Cruz County Code, §§ 7.128.050,
subd. (A), 7.128.030, subds. (E)), and manufacturing of cannabis products (id.,
§ 7.128.050, subd. (C), § 7.128.030, subd. (I).) Though Lawson characterizes Health and
Safety Code sections 11358, 11359, and 11360 as preempting any punishment authorized
by the County ordinance, they do not address those specified areas of conduct.
Moreover, the County’s ordinance concerning cultivation is specific to cultivation for
commercial purposes without required licenses (Santa Cruz County Code, § 7.128.050,
subd. (A)), whereas the criminal penalty for a person over 18 years old who “plants,
cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes” cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, subd.
(c)) is based on the number of plants, not their commercial purpose.
       The County’s commercial cannabis licensing provisions also require “[n]o proof
of knowledge, intent, or other mental state . . . to establish a violation” and deem each
violation to be a public nuisance and threat to public health, safety and welfare. (Santa
Cruz County Code, § 7.128.210, subd. (A); see also id., § 7.128.050, subds. (A)–(C)
[making it “a public nuisance” for any person to cultivate cannabis for commercial
purposes without a license, manufacture, cannabis products, or distribute cannabis].) The
strict liability nature of the County’s commercial cannabis licensing scheme, intended to
address the public nuisance posed by unlicensed, commercial cannabis cultivation,
manufacturing, and distribution, undercuts Lawson’s argument that the local regulations
penalize the same conduct, or are coextensive with, the state law criminal provisions.
The state criminal statutes have been interpreted to include a mens rea element as to the
nature or character of the marijuana as a controlled substance. (See People v. Romero
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 147, 153 [examining origins of the knowledge requirement as to
the “ ‘controlled substance’ character of the item” so as to bring the conduct within the
criminal provisions of the Health & Saf. Code]; People v. Busch (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th
                                                16
150, 158 [same]; see also CALCRIM Nos. 2370 [standard jury instruction on cannabis
planting/cultivating/processing in violation of Health & Saf. Code, § 11358], 2350
[standard jury instruction on sale or furnishing cannabis in violation of Health & Saf.
Code, § 11360, subd. (a)], 2352 [standard jury instruction on possessing cannabis in
violation of Health & Saf. Code, § 11359].) The different mental states applicable to the
County ordinance and the state criminal statutes support our conclusion that the
provisions do not penalize the same conduct.
       Lawson contends the circumstances here are analogous to those in O’Connell and
in A & B Cattle Co. v. City of Escondido (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1032 (A & B Cattle),
based on what he characterizes as the pervasiveness and comprehensive nature of the
state law governing marijuana conduct and penalties. We disagree.
       In O’Connell, the California Supreme Court held that the state’s Uniform
Controlled Substances Act (UCSA) preempted a provision of Stockton’s municipal code
which provided for the forfeiture of vehicles used to acquire controlled substances or
solicit prostitution. (O’Connell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1071, 1074.) The court
explained, as to the forfeiture of vehicles used in acquiring controlled substances, that the
“comprehensive nature of the UCSA in defining drug crimes and specifying penalties
(including forfeiture) is so thorough and detailed as to manifest the Legislature’s intent to
preclude local regulation.” (Id. at p. 1071.) Relevant to the O’Connell court’s
determination was the UCSA’s specific treatment of forfeiture. The UCSA limits vehicle
forfeiture as a penalty “only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the vehicle’s use to
facilitate certain serious drug crimes” involving Schedule I controlled substances in
specified amounts, whereas the municipal ordinance allowed vehicle forfeiture “upon
proof merely by a preponderance of evidence of a vehicle’s use” in much less serious
crimes, including “low-grade misdemeanor[s]” not subject to vehicle forfeiture under the
UCSA. (Ibid., italics omitted.) The Supreme Court interpreted “the Legislature’s
comprehensive enactment of penalties for crimes involving controlled substances, but
                                                 17
exclusion from that scheme of any provision for vehicle forfeiture for simple possessory
drug offenses” as manifesting “a clear intent to reserve that severe penalty for very
serious drug crimes,” thus preempting the ordinance’s incongruous forfeiture penalty.
(Id. at p. 1072.)
       In O’Connell, the legislative scheme governing controlled substances was not only
comprehensive but also imposed limits on application of the penalty at issue, precluding
vehicle forfeiture under circumstances the local ordinance would have allowed.
(O’Connell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1071–1072.) By contrast, the state legislative
scheme governing marijuana, including penalty provisions for unlicensed conduct
involving commercial cannabis, contains no analogous limitations that might be
interpreted as being “so thorough and detailed as to manifest the Legislature’s intent to
preclude local regulation.” (Id. at p. 1071.) The amount of civil penalty which may be
pursued in a civil action under section 26038, limited to “up to three times the amount of
the license fee for each violation,” where “[e]ach day of operation shall constitute a
separate violation of this section” (§ 26038, subd. (a)(1)), does not preclude alternative
civil penalties under local authority. To the contrary, as already discussed, MAUCRSA
expressly contemplates an arrangement that enables local regulation of commercial
cannabis activities in addition to, and in conjunction with, a comprehensive state system
of regulation. (Id., subd. (h)(1), (2).
       Lawson’s reliance on A & B Cattle is similarly unavailing. The ordinance in that
case declared it unlawful for retailers, without obtaining a license, to sell paraphernalia
designed for use with illegal drugs, and made any violation a misdemeanor carrying
criminal penalties not exceeding a $500 fine and/or six months’ imprisonment. (A & B
Cattle, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1036.) The Legislature thereafter enacted a state law
defining drug paraphernalia and penalizing the delivery, possession, or transfer of
paraphernalia, by punishment not exceeding a $1,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment.
(Id. at pp. 1036–1037.) The appellate court held that the laws were duplicative and
                                                 18
contradictory, and further that the state law prohibiting distribution of drug paraphernalia
was sufficiently comprehensive to exclude the local regulation. (Id. at p. 1039.) It
reasoned that although the state law did not expressly regulate licensing of drug
paraphernalia retailers, the Legislature’s intent in enacting the law was to “totally ban the
manufacture and distribution of drug paraphernalia as statutorily defined in California”
and, consequently, to prohibit retail of drug paraphernalia “to the exclusion of [the] local
ordinance.” (Id. at p. 1042.) The appellate court noted, in further support of its
preemption conclusion, that “the Legislature included no express language permitting
local regulation on these matters as it did” in other, similar statutory schemes. (Ibid.)
       Lawson focuses on the duplicative and contradictory penalty schemes in A & B
Cattle, and asserts the same is true here, insofar as the County ordinance exacts
punishment in the form of civil penalties, despite civil penalties being the province of
section 26038. This argument ignores the relevant distinctions between overlapping
criminal versus civil schemes discussed above (see, e.g., Cohen, supra, 40 Cal.3d at
p. 293). It also fails to recognize the express intent of the Legislature, in establishing
MAUCRSA and carrying out the purpose of AUMA, to ensure that local governments
retain regulatory authority over local cannabis activities, including pertaining to land use
and business licensing.
       In sum, Lawson’s preemption claim does not find support in the statutory text,
voter or legislative intent behind the relevant state laws, or case authority. Nothing in
section 26038, or in Health and Safety Code sections 11358, 11359 and 11360, indicates
an express or implied intent to preempt local legislation concerning cannabis licensing
and regulation of land use and nuisance activities, or to preclude civil penalties based on
the local licensing and regulatory scheme. The penalties imposed by the County pursuant
to Santa Cruz County Code sections 7.128.050 and 7.128.210, are not inconsistent with
or duplicative of the state statutory framework, which expressly provides for concurrent,

                                                 19
local regulation of local cannabis businesses. We conclude the County ordinance and
penalty provisions are valid.
       C. Eighth Amendment Limit on Excessive Fines
       Lawson contends that the fine imposed by the County violates the Eighth
Amendment’s limit on excessive fines under the standard articulated by the United States
Supreme Court in Bajakajian and applied to the states through the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. He asserts that the fine imposed “is more than 200 times”
the amount allowed by Health and Safety Code sections 11358, 11359, and 11360, for
what he maintains is “identical conduct.”5 He also argues that the Bajakajian factors
employed by the trial court are “inappropriate []” because the voters considered those
same factors but elected to limit criminal fines to $500 per violation and civil penalties to
three times the cost of a license per violation. Lawson thus appears to assert that the
excessive fines framework under the Eighth Amendment applies but contends that the
trial court erred in applying the factors courts use to evaluate excessive fines claims.
       Lawson’s arguments miss the mark. As with other aspects of review of the
administrative mandate petition, we must decide whether the County abused its discretion
by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, or in a manner not supported by the
findings and the evidence in the administrative record. (Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at
p. 814; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Although Lawson refers to the “ ‘factors’
employed by the trial court,” the proper point of reference in a mandamus action is not
the trial court’s findings or conclusions, but those of the administrative agency.
(Jefferson Street, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 1197.)

       5
         Lawson variously asserts that the fine imposed by the County is “more than 200
times” the criminal penalty and, in the same argument, a “staggering 340 times more than
the maximum of a criminal fine.” Lawson does not explain his method for calculating
these ratios. It appears, as to the latter figure, that Lawson divides the fine imposed by a
single violation of the applicable Health and Safety Code provision at a $500 penalty
level ($174,370 [fine imposed] / $500 [penalty for single violation] = $348.74).
                                                 20
       Whether the fine imposed by the County is excessive under the Eighth
Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo. (Ghirardo,
supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 801; Bajakajian, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 336, fn. 10.) The facts
underlying imposition of the fine, which the administrative hearing officer calculated
based on his findings that Lawson violated Santa Cruz County Code section 7.128.050,
subdivisions (A)–(C), are not in dispute.
       Both the United States Supreme Court and California Supreme Court have
provided guidance in determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive. The
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
(U.S. Const., 8th Amend.) In Bajakajian, the United States Supreme Court held that civil
penalties which serve as punishment are subject to the Eighth Amendment and are
considered “excessive” if they are “grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s
offense.” (Bajakajian, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 334.) According to Bajakajian, “[t]he
touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle
of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the
gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” (Ibid.)
       The California Supreme Court in People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, (R.J. Reynolds) recognized Bajakajian as the leading United
States Supreme Court authority on the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive
fines. Our Supreme Court also explained the application of the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition against excessive fines to the states through the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the “similar protections” afforded by the state Constitution.
(Id., at p. 728; see also Timbs v. Indiana (2019) ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 682, 687.) The
court identified the four considerations relevant to deciding whether a fine violates the
principle of proportionality under Bajakajian. These are: (1) the defendant’s culpability;
(2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar
                                                 21
statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay. (R.J. Reynolds, at p. 728, citing
Bajakajian, supra, 524 U.S. at pp. 337–338.)
       Lawson has offered no support for his contention that application of the
Bajakajian factors in this case was “inappropriate[]” or constituted legal error. In its
written order, the administrative hearing officer summarized the applicable law in
assessing an excessive fine claim under the Eighth Amendment. The order addressed the
four factors of culpability, relationship between harm and penalty, penalties under similar
statutes, and the defendant’s ability to pay. As the hearing officer found, there is no
dispute about culpability. Lawson offered no defense to the County’s evidence at the
administrative hearing and proffered no evidence in mitigation regarding his ability to
pay. Lawson has not challenged those findings on appeal.
       Regarding the relationship between the harm and the penalty, the hearing officer
noted that one of the County’s justifications for the penalty amount was “the degree of
environmental damage done by illegal cannabis activity.” The order recognized other
harms listed by the County, including to businesses engaged in lawful cannabis activities,
to consumers who procure cannabis products that lack state-regulated safeguards, and to
the County’s costs to enforce its licensing regulations. The order referenced the County’s
showing (based on an online market report) that the penalties were not excessive given
the price per pound of cannabis flower sold on the black market, and noted that Lawson
had not presented any evidence to the contrary. Lastly, the hearing officer addressed
“[s]imilar statutes” in which courts have rejected excessive fine challenges to “extremely
large penalties.”
       Lawson has not challenged these findings, which in any event are supported by the
administrative record, nor has he attempted to distinguish the facts underlying the penalty
in this case from the authority referenced in the administrative order. Lawson has not
addressed the legislative authority supporting the administrative hearing officer’s

                                                 22
observations regarding the relationship between the harm and the penalty amount. (See
R.J. Reynolds, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 728.)
       The County’s ordinance expressly identifies mitigation of “damage to the natural
environment resulting from destructive cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and
distribution activities” as one type of harm the commercial cannabis licensing seeks to
mitigate. (Santa Cruz County Code, § 7.128.010.) The state Legislature similarly
identified the effects of unregulated cannabis cultivation on the environment as one of
several justifications for implementing a statewide regulatory structure inclusive of
compliance with local requirements. (Stats. 2017, ch. 27, § 1, subd. (g).) In arguing that
the “better guiding principle” to determine whether the County’s penalty was excessive
should be the amount imposed above $500, Lawson focuses only on the monetary fine
aspect of the criminal penalty scheme for a single violation and ignores the civil penalty
scheme set forth in section 26038. Critically, Lawson does not attempt to compare the
penalty under the County’s ordinance to any potential penalty under section 26038,
subdivision (a)(1), which authorizes civil penalties of up to three times the amount of the
state license fee for each violation, per day of operation, for a person engaging in
commercial cannabis activity without a license as required under the state law.6 (Id.,
subd. (a)(1).)
       Having independently reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the trial
court that the administrative order “provided a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the

       6
         The County, in its respondent’s brief, provides a comparison to penalty amounts
provided for under section 26038 by referring to representative cannabis license fees for
each area of activity (cultivation, distribution, manufacturing) in which Lawson was
engaged, as published on the Web site of the California Department of Cannabis Control.
We do not consider these penalty amounts in our analysis. Despite the utility of the state
license fees for comparing potential civil penalties under the state and local cannabis
commercial licensing schemes, and the fact that the amounts may be an appropriate
subject of judicial notice (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (h), 459), we decline to rely on
information that was not before the administrative hearing officer and considered in the
order subject to the petition on review.
                                                23
Bajakajian factors.” Lawson has not carried his burden as appellant here to demonstrate
error in the administrative hearing officer’s civil penalty determination. We conclude the
penalty imposed by the County was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the
ordinance violations so as to render it excessive under the framework of the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
                                   III. DISPOSITION
       The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate is affirmed. Respondent is
entitled to recover its reasonable costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)

                                                24
                                 ______________________________________
                                            Danner, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

____________________________________
Wilson, J.

H050208
Lawson v. County of Santa Cruz