HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 15, 2018 C-18 SMTM
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TITLE: Receive Report Regarding Communication Pertaining to Bureau of Cannabis
Control Proposed Regulations
MEETING DATE: November 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 proposed
regulations. There was a need to send a letter immediately in light of
a pending hearing.
The modified proposed regulations released on October 19, 2018, seek to codify the emergency
regulations implemented in December 2017, which includes two changes that are in fundamental conflict
with both the language and intent of Proposition 64 and will undermine cities' ability to effectively regulate
cannabis at the local level. Section 5416(d) would drastically preempt local control and regulatory
authority by authorizing statewide delivery of cannabis, regardless of a city's conflicting local regulation or
ban. By removing local governments' ability to regulate cannabis deliveries, this provision undermines the
very foundation of local control and imposes a "one size fits all" form of cannabis regulation. Section
5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by
establishing a 10 -day shot clock for local governments to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local
approvals.
The attached letter, electronically signed by the Mayor, was sent on November 1, 2018. A copy of the
initial request is also attached. This report is provided for informational purposes only, pursuant to policy.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
11(\r--e-Aciuo3Q
nifer M. erraiolo
ity Clerk
APPROVED:
'r • en Schw. er, 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
November 1, 2018
Lori Ajax, Chief
Bureau of Cannabis Control
P.O. Box 419106
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Submitted via Email: bcc. comments(cr�,dca. ca. qov
STEPHEN SCHWABAUER
City Manager
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
City Clerk
RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations — October 2018
JANICE D. MAGDICH
City Attorney
The City of Lodi appreciates the opportunity to comment on the modified proposed
regulations released on October 19, 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:
§5416(d). Removal of Limitations on Cannabis Deliveries:
As modified, this section not only strips local governments of the ability to prohibit
cannabis deliveries but also disallows local governments from regulating deliveries in any
manner that exceeds the provisions of these regulations.
California's voters were assured that "Proposition 64 preserves local control."1 By
removing local governments' ability to regulate cannabis deliveries, this provision
undermines the very foundation of local control and imposes a 'one size fits all' form of
cannabis regulation.
This proposed regulation is consequently beyond of the BCC's regulatory authority, and
instead creates a new cannabis policy outside of the legislative process. As such, it
should be removed from the regulatory package prior to adoption.
§5002(c)(28). Unrealistic Timelines for Adequate Local Government Review:
As it stands, 10 calendar days does not afford cities sufficient time to review annual
license applications and respond to the BCC. Under this scenario, a city could receive a
local license inquiry upon the close of business on a Friday, leaving the city only one
workweek to investigate, review and respond to the BCC. Such a rushed timeline would
favor those who intend to circumvent local requirements, rather than comply with them,
undermining a fundamental pillar of Proposition 64.
t Business & Professions Code 26200(a)(1)(a) — This division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority
of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division,
including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements
related to reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or
more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.
Ensuring that the City of Lodi has approved a temporary, provisional,2 or annual license
is key to promoting public safety3 and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter
approval process. As such, the City of Lodi believes the finalized regulations should be
amended from a 10 -day to a 60 -day verification period in section 5002(c)(28), in order to
both reflect current law and ensure an appropriate amount of time to confirm whether
local licenses are indeed valid.
It should be noted that the revisions made to the July 2018 proposed regulations are far
more than technical and clarifying, and should have thereby triggered an additional 45 -
day comment period. In fact, by allowing only 15 days to digest these significant
changes, the Bureau of Cannabis Control is limiting the opportunity for the public to
provide necessary and robust feedback.
For these reasons, the City of Lodi respectfully opposes these regulations until such time
as they are revised or removed to address the concerns listed above. We look forward to
continued opportunities to comment on specific regulatory proposals.
Sincerely,
/s/ Alan Nakanishi
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
2 Senate Bill 1459 (Canella, 2018) establishes a provisional cannabis license that may be issued at the sole discretion of
a state licensing authority, until January 1, 2020.
3 Below is a list of several ways the proponents and intent language of Proposition 64 and existing law explicitly outline
the need for local licensing approval provisions to ensure public safety:
D "64 makes the protection of public health and safety the #1 priority of the regulators that determine who
qualifies for a marijuana business license."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.)
➢ §3(c). "Allow local governments to enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana
businesses and enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require
that they do so for a nonmedical marijuana business to be issued a state license and be legal under state
law.
D (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) proposed text of Prop. 64, p. 179.)
D Cal Bus & Prof Code §26055(d) "Licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license
under this division if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or
regulation adopted in accordance with Section 26200."
Jennifer Ferraiolo
From: Stephen R. Qualls <squalls@cacities.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:17 PM
Subject: URGENT: Cannabis Deliveries Decision by BCC
Attachments: FINAL ACTION ALERT Modified Proposed Regs. on Cannabis Delivery.docx; FINAL BCC
Regs October 2018 League Comments plus Attachments.pdf; FINAL City Sample
Comment Ltr on BCC Modified Regs. (October 2018).docx
Despite the voters desire to ensure that local governments could control their own future when it comes to cannabis
deliveries. The Bureau of Cannabis Control has drafted a proposal that stops local governments from prohibiting the
delivery of cannabis into their communities even if they have already voted to do so.
Protect your city's ability to do so by sending the attached letter ASAP.
ACTION ALERT!
Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Modified 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 issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) in July 2018, sought remove local jurisdictions'
authority to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their communities. Pursuant to California rulemaking
authorities, the public was given 45 days to respond to these proposed regulations in writing. The 45 -day comment
period concluded on August 27th at 5pm. In addition, the BCC held three public hearings during the month of August in
the cities of Oakland, Los Angeles and Sacramento, allowing for oral commentary from the public.
On October 19, 2018, the BCC issued a modified set of proposed regulations. The BCC is allowing for a 15 -day comment
period, and will accept written comment only during this window, which closes on November 5, 2018 at 5pm.
WHAT DO THESE PROPOSED MODIFIED REGULATIONS DO?
Section 5416(d) would drastically preempt local control and regulatory authority by authorizing statewide delivery of
cannabis, regardless of a city's conflicting local regulation or ban. By removing local governments' ability to regulate
cannabis deliveries, this provision undermines the very foundation of local control and imposes a 'one size fits all' form
of cannabis regulation.
Section 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by
establishing a 10 -day shot clock for local governments to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local approvals.
ACTION:
The Bureau of Cannabis Control needs to hear from cities. Please send your CITY LETTERS in OPPOSITION to the BCC's
Modified Proposed Regulations as soon as possible.
The written comment period for the BCC Proposed Regs. closes at 5pm on November 5, 2018.
For email comment letters, send to: BCC.comments@dca.ca.gov<mailto:BCC.comments@dca.ca.gov>
Address letters to:
1
Lori Ajax, Chief
Bureau of Cannabis Control
P.O. Box 419106
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
TALKING POINTS:
* The BCC has found a way to make the proposed regulation that authorizes statewide delivery regulation go from bad
to worse. As modified, section 5416(d) not only strips local governments of the ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries but
also disallows local governments from regulating deliveries in any manner that exceeds the provisions of these
regulations.
* The BCC Proposed Regs. eliminates local jurisdictions' ability to decide what is appropriate for their communities by
removing their authority to not only ban, but also regulate deliveries in a way that works best for them.
* 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.
* To date, at least 96 California cities have submitted written opposition to these proposed regulations.
* 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.
2
* 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.
* 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.
* 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=AAMkAGQ4NTA3Yzk5LWVIN2EtNGQ4ZS1hNTdmLTY
zODcOYzAyNDgyYwBGAAAAAACy8fHTR2LKSbH7v1WA%2BKroBwCJIF8QxE1YR5pVkCgOVZ7pAAAGc5DHAADGxtFp%2FTp
ES6fDhvAjeU66AAI I I L4kAAABEgAQAD6Nd U Ig8wh Bs9zfQM LA5yc%3 D&X-OWA-
CANARY=hxv1g04hykKYel2WggEukbTKZomgttUIWWOILzvadm9U5P8saplDPzx6cvavA5-ylysJJUgRMDs.]
3
ACTION ALERT!
Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Modified 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 issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) in July 2018, sought remove local
jurisdictions' authority to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their communities. Pursuant to
California rulemaking authorities, the public was given 45 days to respond to these proposed regulations in
writing. The 45 -day comment period concluded on August 27th at 5pm. In addition, the BCC held three public
hearings during the month of August in the cities of Oakland, Los Angeles and Sacramento, allowing for oral
commentary from the public.
On October 19, 2018, the BCC issued a modified set of proposed regulations. The BCC is allowing for a 15 -day
comment period, and will accept written comment only during this window, which closes on November 5, 2018
at 5pm.
WHAT DO THESE PROPOSED MODIFIED REGULATIONS DO?
Section 5416(d) would drastically preempt local control and regulatory authority by authorizing statewide
delivery of cannabis, regardless of a city's conflicting local regulation or ban. By removing local governments'
ability to regulate cannabis deliveries, this provision undermines the very foundation of local control and
imposes a 'one size fits all' form of cannabis regulation.
Section 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community standards are met by
establishing a 10 -day shot clock for local governments to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary local
approvals.
ACTION:
The Bureau of Cannabis Control needs to hear from cities. Please send your CITY LETTERS in
OPPOSITION to the BCC's Modified Proposed Regulations as soon as possible.
The written comment period for the BCC Proposed Regs. closes at 5pm on November 5, 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
TALKING POINTS:
• The BCC has found a way to make the proposed regulation that authorizes statewide delivery
regulation go from bad to worse. As modified, section 5416(d) not only strips local governments of the
ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries but also disallows local governments from regulating deliveries in
any manner that exceeds the provisions of these regulations.
• The BCC Proposed Regs. eliminates local jurisdictions' ability to decide what is appropriate for their
communities by removing their authority to not only ban, but also regulate deliveries in a way that
works best for them.
• 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.
• To date, at least 96 California cities have submitted written opposition to these proposed regulations.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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?
LEAIGUE®
CITIES
October 25, 2018
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
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 Revised Proposed Regulations — October 2018
Dear Chief Ajax,
The League of California Cities® continues to strongly oppose these proposed regulations, even in their
modified form, as they fail to address any of our previous concerns and in fact make some provisions
worse.
As stated in our original letter (see ATTACHMENT B), there are two proposed changes that we view are
in fundamental conflict with both the language and intent of Proposition 64 and will undermine a 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 deliveries anywhere in the state regardless of conflicting local regulations or bans, and
removes local governments ability to reasonably regulate deliveries;
• Section 5002(c) (28) would undermine the ability of local agencies to ensure community
standards are met by establishing a 10 -day period to verify if a licensee has obtained necessary
local approvals.
We maintain the position that the proposed regulations both as originally offered and as modified, go far
beyond the Bureau of Cannabis Control's scope and regulatory authority. Relatedly, the revisions made
to the July 2018 proposed regulations are far beyond technical and clarifying, and thereby should have
triggered another 45 -day comment period. In fact, by allowing only 15 days to digest these significant
changes, the BCC is limiting the opportunity for the public to provide necessary and robust feedback.
§5416(d). Removal of Limitations on Cannabis Deliveries:
Under the original version of these regulations, section 5416(d) subverted the intent of the voters who
approved Proposition 64 by removing local governments' ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries within
their jurisdictions. Section 5416(d) was amended to add the following underlined language, "A delivery
employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California provided that such delivery is
conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions of this division." With this additional language, this
section has managed to go from bad to worse.
As modified, this section not only strips local governments of the ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries
but also disallows local governments from regulating deliveries in any manner that exceeds the
provisions of these regulations.
California's voters were assured that "Proposition 64 preserves local control."' By removing local
governments' ability to regulate cannabis deliveries, this provision undermines the very foundation of
local control and imposes a 'one size fits all' form of cannabis regulation.
It is noteworthy that Section 26090 of the Business and Professions Code (B&P Code) explicitly requires
licensees to "[act] in compliance with...local law as adopted under Section 26200." The cited statute
specifically and repeatedly confirms local authority to regulate — or prohibit — any cannabis sales and
other commercial cannabis activities conducted within the local jurisdiction, with no exclusion for sales
of delivered cannabis conducted by retailers licensed in other jurisdictions.
Indeed, multiple subdivisions of Section 26200 emphasize that local governments retain regulatory
authority over any cannabis business "operat[ing]" in their jurisdictions. B&P Code Section 26200
expressly cautions against any attempt to interpret the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MAUCRSA) to "supersede or limit ... enforcement of ... local ordinances." It also
concludes, "[t]his division, or any regulations promulgated thereunder, shall not be deemed to limit the
authority or remedies of a city, county, or city and county under any provision of law, including, but not
limited to, Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution."2 The cross-reference to this provision in
Section 26090 unambiguously dispels any suggestion that delivery transactions are somehow excluded
from this expansive local control.
A more direct statement that neither MAUCRSA nor the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) can preempt
a local government's ability to regulate cannabis business transactions occurring within its jurisdiction is
difficult to envision.
In enacting Proposition 64, California voters made clear that local control is valuable to them— as much
for delivery sales as for brick -and -mortar establishments.' The extensive role and protections for local
governments were not included in MAUCRSA by accident, but rather reflect the recognition that local
governments are best positioned to determine whether, when, and how commercial cannabis activities
should be introduced into their communities. Local flexibility allows local governments to develop
regulatory regimes at the right time, and with the right components, to meet the unique needs of their
residents. The assurance of local control promotes community trust and acceptance of legal cannabis
businesses, and was instrumental in the passage of both Proposition 64 and the MCRSA before it.
1 Business & Professions Code 26200(a)(1)(a) — This division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local
jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to,
local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to
secondhand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under
this division within the local jurisdiction.
2 The express reference to California Constitution, article XI, section 7 in Business and Professions Code section 26200 is
significant, since that provision incorporates a formidable presumption against preemption of local business regulations. (See,
e.g., California Veterinary Medical Assn. v. City of West Hollywood (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 536, 548-549 [declining to defer to
Department of Consumer Affairs opinion that ordinance was preempted]; Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006)
38 Ca1.4th 1139, 1149; City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Ca1.4th 729, 742-
743; Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 364, 373.) Even without the express local control protections
in Sections 26200 and 26090, the Bureau would have a substantial burden to convince the public, the legal community, and the
courts that MAUCRSA can reasonably be interpreted to preempt local authority over cannabis sales under any circumstances.
With those protections, that position is wholly unsustainable.
3 It is sometimes suggested that cannabis deliveries are akin to an individual customer purchasing cannabis at a storefront and
then returning with it to their own home — and should be equally free from regulation. However, this is a false comparison. Sales
of cannabis are unequivocally commercial activities, with all of the risks and benefits that entails, regardless of whether they are
conducted at a storefront or in the customer's home. The state and local governments regulate business activities for good
reasons, and many of those reasons are just as pressing when the activity occurs between a delivery employee and a customer in
the customer's living room.
§5002(c) (28). Unrealistic Timelines for Adequate Local Government Review:
The initially proposed regulations included two sections-- §5001(c)(11) and §5002(c)(28)—that created a
10 -day "shot clock" for cities to respond to the BCC's inquiry of the validity of a local license before that
license is otherwise deemed valid. While the modified proposed regulations deleted all references to
temporary licenses, including section 5001(c)(11), they retained section 5002(c)(28), relative to the
issuance of annual licenses.
As stated in our original letter, 10 calendar days does not afford cities sufficient time to review annual
license applications and respond to the BCC. Under this scenario, a city could receive a local license
inquiry upon the close of business on a Friday, leaving the city only one workweek to investigate, review
and respond to the BCC. Such a rushed timeline would favor those who intend to circumvent local
requirements, rather than comply with them, undermining a fundamental pillar of Proposition 64.
Ensuring that a local jurisdiction has approved a temporary, provisional,4 or annual license is key to
promoting public safety5 and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter approval process. As such, we
maintain the position that the finalized regulations should be amended from a 10 -day to a 60 -day period
in section 5002(c)(28), in order to both reflect current law and ensure cities an appropriate amount of time
to verify whether local licenses are indeed valid.
Additional Comments:
The League has expressed repeated concerns over the aforementioned sections. With respect to the
proposed regulation on statewide delivery of cannabis, § 5416(d), we believe such provisions go well
beyond the BCC's regulatory authority and instead create a new cannabis policy outside of the legislative
process. In addition to our previous letter, we reiterated our position through oral testimony at all three
public hearings facilitated by the BCC during the month of August 2018. It should be noted that our
stated positions were not made in a vacuum.
In fact, to date, at least 96 California cities have voiced written opposition to the aforementioned
provisions (see ATTACHMENT A). While there are many cities that simply have no desire to have
commercial cannabis in their communities, a number of cities are merely taking a cautious approach
during these early days of cannabis legalization, opting to wait until state regulations are finalized and the
industry is better settled before permitting commercial cannabis activities. This represents conscientious
and sensible public policy in many communities, and should not be greeted with reactionary regulatory
proposals. While there may be some frustration at the pace of transition and deployment of the legal
cannabis industry, we are still very early in that process – less than two years after the passage of
Proposition 64. MAUCRSA did not – and could not – promise immediate, overnight access to legal
4 Senate Bill 1459 (Canella, 2018) establishes a provisional cannabis license that may be issued at the sole discretion of a state
licensing authority, until January 1, 2020.
5 Below is a list of several ways the proponents and intent language of Proposition 64 and existing law explicitly outline the need
for local licensing approval provisions to ensure public safety:
➢ "64 makes the protection of public health and safety the #1 priority of the regulators that determine who qualifies
for a marijuana business license."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.)
➢ §3(c). "Allow local governments to enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana businesses and
enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require that they do so for a
nonmedical marijuana business to be issued a state license and be legal under state law."
➢ (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) proposed text of Prop. 64, p. 179.)
➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26055(d) "Licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license under
this division if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation adopted
in accordance with Section 26200."
commercial cannabis everywhere in the state, and the BCC must remain cognizant and respectful of
MAUCRSA's more deliberate intent and approach.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully oppose these regulations until such time as they are revised or
removed to address the concerns listed above. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
(916) 658-8252.
Sincerely,
C1,d,„
Charles W.R. Harvey
Legislative Representative
h,_._ LEAIGUE®
CITIES
ATTACHMENT A
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
List of cities OPPOSED to BCC Proposed Regulations (as of 8/30/18):
• Alhambra
• Arcadia
• Bishop
• Camarillo
• Carlsbad
• Chino
• Concord
• Corning
• Covina
• Culver City
• Dublin
• El Cajon
• El Centro
• Escalon
• Escondido
• Fairfax
• Farmersville
• Fillmore
• Fountain Valley
• Fremont
• Goleta
• Indian Wells
• Indio
• Jackson
• La Canada Flintridge
• La Mirada
• La Quinta
• Lakewood
• Lincoln
• Lindsay
• Lodi
• Loma Linda
• Los Alamitos
• Lynwood
• Manhattan Beach
• Manteca
• Marysville
• Modesto
• Monterey
• Moorpark
• Moreno Valley
• Newark
• Newman
• Palmdale
• Paradise
• Petaluma
• Placerville
• Port Hueneme
• Poway
• Rancho Cucamonga
• Rancho Palos Verdes
• Rancho Santa
Margarita
• Riverbank
• Roseville
• San Dimas
• San Luis Obispo
• San Pablo
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Clarita
• Simi Valley
• Temecula
• Thousand Oaks
• Tiburon
• Truckee
• Tulare
• Tulelake
• Ventura
• Wasco
• Waterford
• Yorba Linda
• Yreka
• Yuba City
• Blythe
• Carpinteria
• Dana Point
• Elk Grove
• Fairfield
• Grass Valley
• Gustine
• Hughson
• La Habra Heights
• Laguna Niguel
• Portola
• Redondo Beach
• Riverside
• Rolling Hills
• San Jose
• Stockton
• Torrance
• Upland
• Pinole
• Beverly Hils
• Claremont
• Irwindale
• Mendota
• Yucaipa
oEA1GUE®
CITIES
July 27, 2018
ATTACHMENT B
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
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
Dear Chief Ajax,
The League of California Cities® appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations
released in July 2018 that seek to formally adopt the emergency regulations implemented in December
2017.
We have carefully reviewed the packet of over 130 pages of regulations and concur that many of the
provisions represent helpful clarifying changes that further the implementation of the law. However, we
strongly object to two proposed changes that we view are in fundamental conflict with both the language
and intent of Proposition 64 and will undermine a 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.
In furtherance of our mission to preserve local authority, the League has outlined our serious concerns
with these proposed regulations. A detailed explanation of our reasoning on each of our issues are as
follows:
§5416(d). Removal of Limitations on Cannabis Deliveries:
Section 5416(d) is extremely troubling. This section subverts the intent of the voters who approved
Proposition 64 by removing local governments' ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries within its
jurisdiction.
Proposition 64's purpose and intent provisions expressly recognize the value of local control in regulating
commercial cannabis activity. In brief, it provides that "[i]t is the intent of the People in enacting this Act
to ... [a]llow local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses ..."6 Thus, 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.
6 (Initiative Measure (Prop. 64), §3(d), approved Nov. 8, 2016, eff. Nov. 9, 2016)
Section 5416(d), as proposed, fundamentally alters this pillar of Proposition 64 by implying that cannabis
deliveries are allowed in violation of local ordinances.
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.
That section 5416(d) contradicts existing law is illustrated further by the failure of Sen. Ricardo Lara's
SB 1302, which would have similarly preempted a local government from adopting or enforcing an
ordinance that would ban cannabis deliveries within its jurisdiction. Not only did SB 1302 fail to attain
the required two-thirds vote required by Proposition 64 for the enactment of amendments, it failed to pass
out of its house of origin.
Because section 5416(d) goes beyond the statutory provisions of Proposition 64' and MAUCRSA,
adoption of 5416(d) would exceed the Bureau of Cannabis Control's (BCC) regulatory authority.
California Business and Professions Code section 26013 limits the regulatory authority of the BCC to
enacting rules and regulations that are "consistent with the purposes and intent of [Proposition 64]." By
allowing deliveries in every jurisdiction in California, the BCC is fundamentally changing Proposition 64,
7 Below is a list of the numerous ways the proponents of Proposition 64, the ballot analysis of Proposition 64 written by the
State Legislative Analyst, and existing law that explicitly grants local regulatory authority for cannabis and cannabis businesses,
including deliveries, that these regulations will subvert:
➢ "For example, cities and counties could require nonmedical marijuana businesses to obtain local license and
restrict where they could be located. Cities and counties could also completely ban marijuana -related businesses.
However, they could not ban the transportation of marijuana through their jurisdictions."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) analysis of Prop. 64 by the Legislative Analyst, p. 93.)
➢ "64 preserves local control."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.)
➢ §2(E). "The Adult Use of Marijuana Act sets up a comprehensive system governing marijuana businesses at the
state level and safeguards local control, allowing local governments to regulate marijuana -related activities, to
subject marijuana businesses to zoning and permitting requirements, and ban marijuana businesses..."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) proposed text of Prop. 64, p. 179.)
➢ §3(d). "Allow local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses as set forth in this act."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) proposed text of Prop. 64, p. 179.)
➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26001(k) ""Commercial marijuana activity" includes the cultivation, possession,
manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, distribution, delivery or
sale of marijuana and marijuana products as provided in this division."
➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26055(d) "Licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license under this
division if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation adopted in
accordance with Section 26200."
➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26090(e) "A local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of marijuana or marijuana products
on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with this division and local law as adopted under Section
26200."
➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26200(a)(1) "This division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a
local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division,
including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and
requirements related to reducing exposure to secondhand
not simply clarifying existing law. For these reasons, section 5416(d) should be removed from the
regulations.
§5001(c) (11). Unrealistic Timelines for Adequate Local Government Review
Both sections 5001(c) (11) and 5002(c) (28) create a 10 -day "shot clock" for cities to respond to the
BCC's inquiry of the validity of a license before that license is otherwise deemed valid. This 10 day "shot
clock" does not afford cities sufficient time to review license applications and respond to the BCC. This
rushed timeline would favor those who may intend to skirt local requirements rather than comply with
them, and undermine a fundamental pillar of Proposition 64 that ensures local jurisdictions can regulate
cannabis in their communities.
Under Business and Professions Code Section 26055(g)(2)(D), if an applicant fails to provide evidence of
local compliance, cities have 60 days to provide notification of compliance or noncompliance with local
ordinances or regulations before a license application is deemed in compliance. With limited resources
and the difficultly detecting fraud, it is unreasonable to think that cities will be able to properly verify
licenses within 10 days. Such a change could allow applicants to send multiple purported local licenses to
the BCC, knowing that a city may not have the time and resources to check each license's validity before
the 10 -day verification period ends. If upholding public safety and public health is "the #1 priority of the
regulators that determine who qualifies for a marijuana business license,"8 then these regulations must be
changed. It is also notable that 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?
Ensuring that a local jurisdiction has approved either a temporary or annual license is key to promoting
public safety9 and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter approval process. For these reasons, these
proposed regulations must be amended from a 10 -day to a 60 -day period in both sections 5001(c)(11) and
5002(c)(28), in order to both reflect current law and ensure cities an appropriate amount of time to verify
whether local licenses are indeed valid.
Additional Comments:
The League believes the two proposed regulations commented upon above 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"10 and these regulations chip away at the
very foundation of local control by allowing cannabis deliveries to every jurisdiction in California.
8 (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.)
9 Below is a list of several ways the proponents and intent language of Proposition 64 and existing law explicitly outline the
need for local licensing approval provisions to ensure public safety:
➢ "64 makes the protection of public health and safety the #1 priority of the regulators that determine who qualifies
for a marijuana business license."
(Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.)
➢ §3(c). "Allow local governments to enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana businesses and
enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require that they do so for a
nonmedical marijuana business to be issued a state license and be legal under state law."
➢ (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) proposed text of Prop. 64, p. 179.)
➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26055(d) "Licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license under this
division if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation adopted in
accordance with Section 26200."
10 (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.)
For these reasons, we respectfully oppose 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. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (916) 658-8252.
Sincerely,
Charles W.R. Harvey
Legislative Representative
11/01/2018 THU 16:02
FAX
ioo1
***************************
*** FAX MULTI TX REPORT ***
***************************
JOB NO. 3840
DEPT. ID 101
PGS. 3
TX INCOMPLETE
TRANSACTION OK
ERROR
919163192109 Cooper
919166514905 Galgiani
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
tixclr ci�Iodi g v or jfomiioly {+ iodi,gov
DATE: November 1, 2018
FROM: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
TO: Senator Cathleen Galgiani, (916) 651-4905
Assemblymember Jim Cooper, (916) 319-2109
COMMENTS: Letter to Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations
THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
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
citvclrk lodigov or jferraiolo a,lodigov
DATE: November 1, 2018
FROM: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
TO: Senator Cathleen Galgiani, (916) 651-4905
Assemblymember Jim Cooper, (916) 319-2109
COMMENTS: Letter to Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations
THIS TRANSMITTAL CONTAINS 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
forms\aafaxjen.doc
Jennifer Ferraiolo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Ferraiolo
Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:58 PM
'bcc.comments@dca.ca.gov'
'squalls@cacities.org'; 'mdesmond@cacities.org'
Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations
ICannabisControl_2.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