Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 15, 2018 C-11TM CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM C -!i AGENDA TITLE: Receive Report Regarding Communication Pertaining to Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations MEETING DATE: August 15, 2018 PREPARED BY: City Clerk RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding communication pertaining to Bureau of Cannabis Control proposed regulations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City received a request for communication from the League of California Cities regarding the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) proposed regulations. There was a need to send a letter immediately in light of a pending hearing. The two proposed regulations go beyond the BCC's regulatory authority and create a new cannabis policy outside of the legislative process. California's voters were assured that Proposition 64 preserves local control, and these regulations chip away at the very foundation of local control by allowing cannabis deliveries to every jurisdiction in California. The two proposed changes will undermine the City's ability to effectively regulate cannabis at the local level by drastically preempting local control and regulatory authority by authorizing cannabis delivery anywhere in the state regardless of conflicting local regulations or bans, and undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by reducing from 60 to 10 days the period to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local approvals. The attached letter, electronically signed by the Mayor, was sent on August 2, 2018. A copy of the initial request is also attached. This report is provided for informational purposes only, pursuant to policy. FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. Not applicable. 1 Zu1 nnifer ML Ferraiolo City Clerk riA„&d:4 APPROVED: C(^21-- StephenSchwaYauer, City Manager N:\Administration\CLERK\Council\COUNCOM\LeagueReceiveReportMaster.doc CITY COUNCIL ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor JOANNE MOUNCE, Mayor Pro Tempore MARK CHANDLER BOB JOHNSON DOUG KUEHNE CITY OF LODI 2015 "Wine Region of the Year" CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807 www.lodi.gov cityclerk@lodi.gov August 2, 2018 Lori Ajax, Chief Bureau of Cannabis Control P.O. Box 419106 Rancho Cordova, CA 95741 Submitted via Email: bcc. comments©dca. ca. gov RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations — July 2018 STEPHEN SCHWABAUER City Manager JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO City Clerk JANICE D. MAGDICH City Attorney The City of Lodi appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations released in July 2018, which seek to codify the emergency regulations implemented in December 2017. The City of Lodi strongly objects to two proposed changes that we view are in fundamental conflict with both the language and intent of Proposition 64 and will undermine our city's ability to effectively regulate cannabis at the local level: • Section 5416(d), would drastically preempt local control and regulatory authority by authorizing cannabis delivery anywhere in the state regardless of conflicting local regulations or bans, and • Sections 5001(c) (11) and 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by reducing from 60 to 10 days the period to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local approvals. The City of Lodi believes the two proposed regulations go beyond the BCC's regulatory authority and instead create a new cannabis policy outside of the legislative process. California's voters were assured that "64 preserves local control"1 and these regulations chip away at the very foundation of local control by allowing cannabis deliveries to every jurisdiction in California. Proposition 64's purpose and intent provisions expressly recognize the value of local control in regulating commercial cannabis activity. Under existing law — as articulated in Proposition 64 and, now, MAUCRSA — local governments can adopt and enforce local ordinances to ban or regulate all commercial cannabis activity, including deliveries, within their borders. Section 5416(d), as proposed, fundamentally alters this pillar of Proposition 64 by implying that cannabis deliveries are allowed in violation of local ordinances such as those adopted by the City of Lodi. Further, an influx of unapproved local cannabis deliveries will decrease transparency of cannabis operations and increase public safety obligations and costs for local law enforcement agencies. 1 (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.) For these reasons, the City of Lodi respectfully opposes these regulations until such time as they are amended to address the concerns listed above. We look forward to continued opportunities to comment on specific regulatory proposals. Sincerely, I/ 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, squalls©cacities.org Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond©cacities.org Jennifer Ferraiolo From: Stephen R. Qualls <squalls@cacities.org> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 2:41 PM Subject: URGENT: Bureau of Cannabis Control: Forced Allowance of Cannabis Deliveries Attachments: FINAL ACTION ALERT Proposed Regs. Cannabis Delivery.docx; FINAL BCC Regs July 2018 League Comments 7.27.18.docx; FINAL_City Sample Comment Ltr 7.27.18 (002).docx As you probably remember know, current law allows local jurisdictions to prohibit deliveries of cannabis into their city limits. The Bureau of Cannabis Control is proposing to remove that ability and thus allow cannabis deliveries to any city. Below you will find an action alert along and I have attached more information and a sample letter opposing the proposal. There is also a list of public hearings if anyone would like to comment. Please let me know if you have any questions. ACTION ALERT! Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations Local Jurisdictions and Forced Allowance of Cannabis Deliveries OPPOSE BACKGROUND: 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.Existing law also states that a local jurisdiction shall not prevent the delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with local and existing law. The Proposed Regulations ("BCC Proposed Regs."), issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), would remove local jurisdictions' authority to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their communities. WHAT DO THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS DO? 1 Section 5416(d), would drastically preempt local control and regulatory authority by authorizing cannabis delivery anywhere in the state regardless of conflicting local regulations or bans.These regulations go against the intent of voters who passed Proposition 64, by removing a local jurisdiction's ability to allow or ban cannabis deliveries. Consequently, these regulations 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. Sections 5001(c) (11) and 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by reducing from 60 to 10 days the period to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local approvals. The BCC Proposed Regs. alsocreate a 10 -day shot clock for cities to respond to the BCC's inquiry of the validity of either an annual or temporary cannabis license. Cities need more time to review license applications before they are deemed valid.Ensuring that a local jurisdiction has approved of either a temporary or annual license is key to promoting public safety and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter approval process. ACTION: The Bureau of Cannabis Control needs to hear from cities. Pleasesend your CITY LETTERS inOPPOSITION tothe BCC Proposed Regs.as soon as possible. The written comment period for the BCC Proposed Regs. closes at5pm on August 27, 2018. For emailcomment letters, sendto:BCC.comments@dca.ca.gov Address letters to: Lori Ajax, Chief Bureau of Cannabis Control P.O. Box 419106 Rancho Cordova, CA 95741 In addition, there are three public hearings scheduled for persons wishing to make oral comments: 1. Tuesday August 7, 2018, 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Hilton Oakland Airport, One Hegenberger Road, Oakland, CA 94621 2. Tuesday August 14, 2018, 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Millennium Biltmore Hotel, 506 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071 3. Monday August 27, 2018, 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Tsakopoulos Library Galleria, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 2 TALKING POINTS: • The BCC Proposed Regs.removes the ability for local jurisdictionsto decide what is appropriate for their communities by removing their authority to ban deliveries. • The BCC Proposed Regs.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. • An influx of cannabis deliveries would requirean increase in public safety costs for enforcement to ensure the safety of the public. For cities who have authorized cannabis businesses, but not deliveries, the delivery provision in these regulations would undercut the viability of legal brick and mortar businesses in those cities. • As California's experiment with legalizing cannabis unfolds, the City/Town of opted to not allow sales and distribution within its jurisdiction while we observe the experience in other jurisdictions. The BCC Proposed Regs.will eliminate our statutory right to do that. • The BCC Proposed Regs.arean overreach by the BCC. Forcing cities to allow delivery of cannabis is not a clarification of existing law; it is an unjustified expansion of existing law. • The City/Town of believes the BCC Proposed Regsare a vast over -expansion of the BCC's authority and feel it is inappropriate to create such a policy through the regulatory process. SB 1302 by Senator Lara also tried to preempt local authority over cannabis deliveries. The failure of this bill to pass out of its first house indicates that there is little appetite in the legislature and from local governments for this level of preemption. By establishing a 10 -day shot clock, these regulations create an unrealistic timeline for adequate local government review of cannabis licenses. If the BCC faces no such similar restriction on the timeline for their own reviews of applications to perform appropriate due diligence; why then impose such a different standard for local government? Thank you, Stephen Qualls Central Valley Division Regional Public Affairs Manager League of California Cities c. 209-614-0118 f. 209-883-0653 squalls@cacities.org 1 www.cacities.org<http://www.cacities.org/> [https://mail.cacities.org/owa/service.svc/s/GetFileAttachment?id=AAMkAGQ4NTA3Yzk5LWVIN2EtNGQ4ZS1hNTdm LTY zODcOYzAyN DgyYwBGAAAAAACy8fHTR2LKSbH7v1WA%2BKroBwCJl F8QxE1YR5pVkCgOVZ7pAAAGc5DHAADGxtFp% 2FTp ES6fDhvAjeU66AAI I I L4kAAABEgAQAD6Nd U Ig8wh Bs9zfQM LA5yc%3 D&X-OWA- CANARY=hxv1g04hykKYel2WggEukbTKZomgttUIWwOlLzvadm9U5P8saplDPzx6cvavA5-ylysJJUgRMDs.] 3 ACTION ALERT! Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations Local Jurisdictions and Forced Allowance of Cannabis Deliveries OPPOSE BACKGROUND: 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. Existing law also states that a local jurisdiction shall not prevent the delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with local and existing law. The Proposed Regulations ("BCC Proposed Regs."), issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), would remove local jurisdictions' authority to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their communities. WHAT DO THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS DO? Section 5416(d), would drastically preempt local control and regulatory authority by authorizing cannabis delivery anywhere in the state regardless of conflicting local regulations or bans. These regulations go against the intent of voters who passed Proposition 64, by removing a local jurisdiction's ability to allow or ban cannabis deliveries. Consequently, these regulations 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. Sections 5001(c) (11) and 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by reducing from 60 to 10 days the period to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local approvals. The BCC Proposed Regs. also create a 10 -day shot clock for cities to respond to the BCC's inquiry of the validity of either an annual or temporary cannabis license. Cities need more time to review license applications before they are deemed valid. Ensuring that a local jurisdiction has approved of either a temporary or annual license is key to promoting public safety and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter approval process. ACTION: The Bureau of Cannabis Control needs to hear from cities. Please send your CITY LETTERS in OPPOSITION to the BCC Proposed Regs. as soon as possible. The written comment period for the BCC Proposed Regs. closes at 5pm on August 27, 2018. For email comment letters, send to: BCC.comments@dca.ca.gov Address letters to: Lori Ajax, Chief Bureau of Cannabis Control P.O. Box 419106 Rancho Cordova, CA 95741 In addition, there are three public hearings scheduled for persons wishing to make oral comments: 1. Tuesday August 7, 2018, 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Hilton Oakland Airport, One Hegenberger Road, Oakland, CA 94621 2. Tuesday August 14, 2018, 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Millennium Biltmore Hotel, 506 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071 3. Monday August 27, 2018, 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Tsakopoulos Library Galleria, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 TALKING POINTS: • The BCC Proposed Regs. removes the ability for local jurisdictions to decide what is appropriate for their communities by removing their authority to ban deliveries. • The BCC Proposed Regs. 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. • An influx of cannabis deliveries would require an increase in public safety costs for enforcement to ensure the safety of the public. • For cities who have authorized cannabis businesses, but not deliveries, the delivery provision in these regulations would undercut the viability of legal brick and mortar businesses in those cities. • As California's experiment with legalizing cannabis unfolds, the City/Town of opted to not allow sales and distribution within its jurisdiction while we observe the experience in other jurisdictions. The BCC Proposed Regs. will eliminate our statutory right to do that. • The BCC Proposed Regs. are an overreach by the BCC. Forcing cities to allow delivery of cannabis is not a clarification of existing law; it is an unjustified expansion of existing law. • The City/Town of believes the BCC Proposed Regs are a vast over -expansion of the BCC's authority and feel it is inappropriate to create such a policy through the regulatory process. • SB 1302 by Senator Lara also tried to preempt local authority over cannabis deliveries. The failure of this bill to pass out of its first house indicates that there is little appetite in the legislature and from local governments for this level of preemption. • By establishing a 10 -day shot clock, these regulations create an unrealistic timeline for adequate local government review of cannabis licenses. • If the BCC faces no such similar restriction on the timeline for their own reviews of applications to perform appropriate due diligence; why then impose such a different standard for local government? 08/02/2018 THU 15:18 FAX 2001 ********************* *** FAX TX REPORT *** ********************* TRANSMISSION OK JOB NO. 3600 DEPT. ID 101 DESTINATION ADDRESS 919163192109 SUBADDRESS DESTINATION ID ST. TIME 08/02 15:17 TX/ RX TIME 01' 00 PGS. 3 RESULT OK FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 221 WEST PINE STREET - P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 PHONE (209) 333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 cit deck otli. ov_ or jfprwiglo@logi.aw_ DATE: August 2, 2018 FROM: Liz Burgos Administrative Clerk TO: Assemblymember Jim Cooper FAX: (916) 319-2109 RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations — July 2018 THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. 08/02/2018 THU 15:17 FAX x001 ********************* *** FAX TX REPORT *** ********************* TRANSMISSION OK JOB NO. 3599 DEPT. ID 101 DESTINATION ADDRESS 919166514905 SUBADDRESS DESTINATION ID ST. TIME 08/02 15:15 TX/RX TIME 01' 17 PGS. 3 RESULT OK FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 221 WEST PINE STREET - P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 PHONE (209) 333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 ?:ily_iltrkfijotli_gpv or jle:rr,liu[l)0i4(,2,9v DATE: August 2, 2018 FROM: Liz Burgos Administrative Clerk TO: Senator Cathleen Galgiani FAX: (916)651-4905 RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations — July 2018 THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. CITY COUNCIL ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor JOANNE MOUNCE, Mayor Pro Tempore MARK CHANDLER BOB JOHNSON DOUG KUEHNE CITY OF LODI 2015 "Wine Region of the Year" CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 / FAX (209) 333-6807 www lodi.gov cityclerklodi.gov August 2, 2018 Lori Ajax, Chief Bureau of Cannabis Control P.O. Box 419106 Rancho Cordova, CA 95741 Submitted via Email: bcc.corrmments55dca.ca.Q0V STEPHEN SCHWABAUER City Manager JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO City Clerk JANICE D. MAGDICH City Attorney RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations — July 2018 The City of Lodi appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations released in July 2018, which seek to codify the emergency regulations implemented in December 2017. The City of Lodi strongly objects to two proposed changes that we view are in fundamental conflict with both the language and intent of Proposition 64 and will undermine our city's ability to effectively regulate cannabis at the local level: • Section 5416(d), would drastically preempt local control and regulatory authority by authorizing cannabis delivery anywhere in the state regardless of conflicting local regulations or bans, and • Sections 5001(c) (11) and 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by reducing from 60 to 10 days the period to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local approvals. The City of Lodi believes the two proposed regulations go beyond the BCC's regulatory authority and instead create a new cannabis policy outside of the legislative process. California's voters were assured that "64 preserves local control"' and these regulations chip away at the very foundation of local control by allowing cannabis deliveries to every jurisdiction in California. Proposition 64's purpose and intent provisions expressly recognize the value of local control in regulating commercial cannabis activity. Under existing law — as articulated in Proposition 64 and, now, MAUCRSA — local governments can adopt and enforce local ordinances to ban or regulate all commercial cannabis activity, including deliveries, within their borders. Section 5416(d), as proposed, fundamentally alters this pillar of Proposition 64 by implying that cannabis deliveries are allowed in violation of local ordinances such as those adopted by the City of Lodi. Further, an influx of unapproved local cannabis deliveries will decrease transparency of cannabis operations and increase public safety obligations and costs for local law enforcement agencies. 1 (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.) For these reasons, the City of Lodi respectfully opposes these regulations until such time as they are amended to address the concerns listed above. We look forward to continued opportunities to comment on specific regulatory proposals. Sincerely, /4/ Algae 7(14a[!C3ffi 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, squalls(cacities.orq Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, nidesmond cc cacities.org FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 221 WEST PINE STREET - P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 PHONE (209) 333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 cityclerkrlodi.gov or jferraiolo@a,Iodi.gov DATE: August 2, 2018 FROM: Liz Burgos Administrative Clerk TO: Senator Cathleen Galgiani FAX: (916)651-4905 RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations — July 2018 THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. forms \aafaxjen.doc Jennifer Ferraiolo From: DCA, BCC Comments@DCA <BCC.Comments@dca.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 3:05 PM To: Jennifer Ferraiolo Subject: Automatic reply: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations Thank you for submitting your comments and feedback to the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation (BMCR). This email address is solely used for receiving public comment and will not be replied to. Please contact BMCR at bmcr@dca.ca.gov if you request a response to your email. Thank you for contacting BMCR! 1 Jennifer Ferraiolo From: Jennifer Ferraiolo Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 3:05 PM To: 'bcc.comments@dca.ca.gov' Subject: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations Attachments: ICannabisControl.doc Please see attached letter from the City of Lodi regarding the BCC proposed regulations regarding cannabis deliveries. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. Jennifer M. Ferraiolo, MMC City Clerk P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 (209) 333-6807 FAX 1