HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 16, 2018 C-13TM
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA ITEM
C-13
AGENDA TITLE: Receive Report Regarding Communication Pertaining to Senate Bill 1302 (Lara) —
Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Prohibitions on Delivery
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2018
PREPARED BY: City Clerk
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding communication pertaining to Senate Bill
1302 (Lara) — Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Prohibitions on Delivery.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Attorney requested a letter of opposition pertaining to
SB 1302 — Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Prohibitions on Delivery.
There was a need to send a letter of opposition immediately in Tight of a pending hearing.
SB 1302 (Lara) would essentially force local jurisdictions to allow cannabis deliveries within their
jurisdictions. This bill goes against the intent of voters who passed Proposition 64 by removing a local
jurisdiction's ability to allow or ban cannabis deliveries.
Existing law states local jurisdictions have the ability to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate
cannabis businesses; however, SB 1302 would fundamentally alter this pillar of cannabis legalization by
prohibiting local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing ordinances that would prohibit a cannabis
licensee from delivering cannabis within or outside of the boundaries of that local jurisdiction.
Furthermore, existing law also states that a local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or
cannabis products on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with local and existing law. This
provision, enacted by the voters of California, already authorizes licensees to use public roads for
cannabis deliveries regardless of if the jurisdiction allows for deliveries. Consequently, this bill would
remove the ability for local jurisdictions to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their
communities.
There are potentially far reaching fiscal implications for local jurisdictions that, under this bill, would be
required to allow deliveries. With the influx of cannabis deliveries, there would be associated public safety
costs for enforcement and safety of the public. With the current state of cannabis business being all cash,
delivery cars are prime targets for theft or burglary.
The attached letter was sent on May 8, 2018. A copy of the text of the amended bill is also attached. This
report is provided for informational purposes only, pursuant to policy.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
APPROVED:
nifer M
Frraiolo, City Clerk
Ste T en Schwab
NA\Administration\CLERK\Council\COUNCOM\LeagueReceiveReportMaster2.doc
ity Manager
CITY COUNCIL
ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor
JOANNE MOUNCE,
Mayor Pro Tempore
MARK CHANDLER
BOB JOHNSON
DOUG KUEHNE
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807
www.lodi.gov citycierk@lodi.gov
May 8, 2018
The Honorable Ricardo Lara
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 5050
Sacramento, CA 95814
STEPHEN SCHWABAUER
City Manager
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
City Clerk
JANICE D. MAGDICH
City Attorney
RE: SB 1302 (Lara) Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Prohibitions on Delivery
Notice of Opposition (as Amended 4/26/18)
The City of Lodi opposes your SB 1302 (Lara), which would essentially force local jurisdictions to
allow cannabis deliveries within their jurisdictions. This bill goes against the intent of voters who
passed Proposition 64 by removing a local jurisdiction's ability to allow or ban cannabis deliveries.
Existing law, constructed by both the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
(MAUCRSA) and Proposition 64, states that local jurisdictions have the ability to adopt and enforce
local ordinances to regulate cannabis businesses. SB 1302 would fundamentally alter this pillar of
cannabis legalization by prohibiting local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing ordinances that
would prohibit a cannabis licensee from delivering cannabis within or outside of the boundaries of
that local jurisdiction.
Furthermore, existing law also states that a local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis
or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with local and existing law
This provision, enacted by the voters of California, already authorizes licensees to use public roads
for cannabis deliveries regardless of if the jurisdiction allows for deliveries. Consequently, this bill
would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in
their communities.
SB 1302 removes the ability for local communities to decide what is appropriate for their
communities by removing the authority to ban deliveries. In so doing, this bill will remove a critical
part of the local enforcement model of cannabis legalization and open up all communities to having
cannabis delivered to their front doors. This is contrary to the framework understood by the voters
when approving Prop. 64.
There are potentially far reaching fiscal implications for local jurisdictions that, under this bill, would
be required to allow deliveries. With the influx of cannabis deliveries, there would be associated
public safety costs for enforcement and safety of the public. With the current state of cannabis
business being all cash, delivery cars are prime targets for theft or burglary.
Also, some patience with this newly -minted law is required. As California's experiment with
legalizing cannabis unfolds, many jurisdictions that opted not to allow sales and distribution within
their jurisdiction are observing the experience in other jurisdictions. In time, as the successful
examples of local implementation emerge, more jurisdictions can be expected to alter their policies
and permit the sales and use of cannabis.
For these reasons, the City of Lodi opposes SB 1302.
Sincerely,
Alan Nakanishi
Mayor, City of Lodi
cc: Senator Cathleen Galgiani, Fax: (916) 651-4905
Assemblymember Jim Cooper, Fax: (916) 319-2109
Stephen Qualls, League of California Cities, spuallsacacities,orq
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, cityletters{7a cacities.org
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 26, 2018
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2018
SENATE BILL No. 1302
Introduced by Senator Lara
(Coauthors: Senators Bradford, Galgiani, and
Wieckowski)
February 16, 2018
An act to amend Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code,
relating to cannabis.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1302, as amended, Lara. Cannabis: local jurisdiction: prohibitions
on delivery.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016
(AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the
November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who
obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult -use
cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances.
The Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
(MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and
regulation of commercial medicinal and adult -use cannabis activities.
MAUCRSA authorizes a licensee who obtains a retailer, microbusiness,
or a specified type of nonprofit to deliver cannabis or cannabis products,
and imposes requirements on the delivery of cannabis or cannabis
products. MAUCRSA prohibits a local jurisdiction from preventing the
delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee
who is acting in compliance with MAUCRSA as well as any local law
adopted pursuant to MAUCRSA. MAUCRSA generally authorizes a
97
SB 1302 — 2 —
local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate
licensed businesses located within the local jurisdiction.
This bill would prohibit a local government from adopting or
enforcing any ordinance that would prohibit a licensee from delivering
cannabis within or outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the local
jurisdiction.
The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern, rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an
initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further
the purposes and intent of the act with a 24 vote of the membership of
both houses of the Legislature.
This bill would declare that its provisions further specified purposes
and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana
Act.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State -mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 26200 of the Business and Professions
2 Code is amended to read:
3 26200. (a) (1) This division shall not be interpreted to
4 supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and
5 enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this
6 division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use
7 requirements, business license requirements, and requirements
8 related to reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, or to completely
9 prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of
10 businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.
11 (2) This division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit
12 existing local authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement
13 of local zoning requirements or local ordinances, or enforcement
14 of local license, permit, or other authorization requirements.
15 (b) This division shall not be intcrprctcd to does not require a
16 licensing authority to undertake local law enforcement
17 responsibilities, enforce local zoning requirements, or enforce local
18 licensing, permitting, or other authorization requirements.
97
-3— SB 1302
1 (c) A local jurisdiction shall notify the bureau upon revocation
2 of any local license, permit, or authorization for a licensee to
3 engage in commercial cannabis activity within the local
4 jurisdiction. Within 10 days of notification, the bureau shall inform
5 the relevant licensing authorities. Within 60 days of being so
6 informed by the bureau, the relevant licensing authorities shall
7 begin the process to determine whether a license issued to the
8 licensee should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter 3
9 (commencing with Section 26030).
10 (d) For facilities issued a state license that are located within
11 the incorporated area of a city, the city shall have full power and
12 authority to enforce this division and the regulations promulgated
13 by the bureau or any licensing authority, if delegated by the state.
14 Notwithstanding Sections 101375, 101400, and 101405 of the
15 Health and Safety Code or any contract entered into pursuant
16 thereto, or any other law, the city shall assume complete
17 responsibility for any regulatory function pursuant to this division
18 within the city limits that would otherwise be performed by the
19 county or any county officer or employee, including a county
20 health officer, without liability, cost, or expense to the county.
21 (e) This division does not prohibit the issuance of a state
22 temporary event license to a licensee authorizing onsite cannabis
23 sales to, and consumption by, persons 21 years of age or older at
24 a county fair or district agricultural association event, provided
25 that the activities, at a minimum, comply with the requirements
26 of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (g), that all
27 participants are licensed under this division, and that the activities
28 are otherwise consistent with regulations promulgated and adopted
29 by the bureau governing state temporary event licenses. These
30 temporary event licenses shall only be issued in local jurisdictions
31 that authorize such events.
32 (f) This division, or any regulations promulgated thereunder,
33 shall not be deemed to limit the authority or remedies of a city,
34 county, or city and county under any provision of law, including,
35 but not limited to, Section 7 of Article XI of the California
36 Constitution.
37 (g) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
38 11362.3 of the Health and Safety Code, a local jurisdiction may
39 allow for the smoking, vaporizing, and ingesting of cannabis or
97
SB 1302 — 4 —
1 cannabis products on the premises of a retailer or microbusiness
2 licensed under this division if all of the following are met:
3 (1) Access to the area where cannabis consumption is allowed
4 is restricted to persons 21 years of age and older.
5 (2) Cannabis consumption is not visible from any public place
6 or nonage -restricted area.
7 (3) Sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco is not allowed
8 on the premises.
9 (h) A local jurisdiction shall not adopt or enforce any ordinance
10 that would prohibit a licensee from delivering cannabis within or
11 outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of that local jurisdiction.
12 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
13 this act amending Section 26200 of the Business and Professions
14 Code addresses a matter of statewide concern, rather than a
15 municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of
16 the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies
17 to all cities, including charter cities.
18 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
19 this act amending Section 26200 of the Business and Professions
20 Code furthers the purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and
21 Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
0
97