CC SR 20170516 G - Prop 64 Trailer BillRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: 05/16/2017
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
Consideration and possible action to take a position opposing the Proposition 64 (Adult
Use of Marijuana Act) Trailer Bill
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign letters in opposition to the Proposition 64 (Adult
Use of Marijuana Act) Trailer Bill.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst,
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager; -
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Managerly{
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letters in opposition to Prop 64 trailer bill (page A-1)
B. League of California Cities "Action Alert" for Prop 64 trailer bill (page B-1)
C. Ordinance No. 590U (page C-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Since 2014, the League of California Cities (League) and the California Police Chiefs
Association have worked to establish a balance between California cities' ability to
preserve their land use authority over medical marijuana businesses within their borders
and the right of California's citizens to access medical marijuana pursuant to Proposition
215. In 2015, three bills, AB 266 (Bonta, et al.), AB 243 (Wood) and SB 643 (McGuire),
or collectively the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), was signed
into law. MMRSA established three fundamental tenets: 1) advancing local control; 2)
protecting public safety; and 3) creating uniform health and safety standards that ensure
the lawful distribution of medical marijuana in those cities and counties in which it is
authorized.
On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64 (Prop 64), the "Adult
Use of Marijuana Act." Prop 64 legalized nonmedical use of marijuana by persons 21
years of age and over, and the personal cultivation of up to six (6) marijuana plants per
1
household. In addition, Prop 64 will create a state regulatory and licensing system
governing the commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of nonmedical marijuana,
and the manufacturing of nonmedical marijuana products.
In anticipation of the passage of Prop 64, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 590U
on November 1, 2016 (Attachment C). Ordinance No. 590U added Chapter 9.34
(Personal Marijuana Cultivation) to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to prohibit outdoor personal cultivation of
marijuana, and to adopt regulations for indoor personal cultivation of marijuana. The
Community Development Department has been developing the application materials
and requirements for indoor personal cultivation permits. By comparison, the City
prohibits the cultivation, sale and distribution of medical marijuana products.
On May 1, 2017, the League of California Cities (League) advised Staff of the
introduction of a budget trailer bill related to Prop 64 and Medical Marijuana Regulation
and Safety Act (MMRSA). The trailer bill appears to be based (in part) upon the false
premise that the passage of Prop 64 invalidated MMRSA. The League argues that
unless MMRSA provisions are actually in conflict with Prop. 64, there is no reason to
repeal them, and points out that MMRSA resulted from a 2 -year stakeholder process
balancing interests of local government, industry, labor, and law enforcement.
Specifically, the Prop 64 trailer bill would:
Trigger a sales tax "hit" to cities by repealing the state Medical Marijuana ID card
program and drop the ID card requirement from the criteria to qualify for the sales
tax exemption for medical marijuana retail sales. As a practical matter, this
means consumers will migrate to medical marijuana, the market where cities can
no longer impose sales tax. Cities yielded $23.7 million from marijuana sales in
2016. That revenue will dry up, because we can expect the recreational market
to shrink if the ID card goes away.
Return cities to an Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement model by only
empowering the State to inspect businesses, and is silent on such authority for
local governments.
Repeal the provision imposing a 10 -day time limit on State licensing entities to
begin an investigation once notified by local governments that they have revoked
a business' local permit, thereby undermining local enforcement.
Scrap a provision of law invalidating a business' ability to operate legally once a
local permit has been revoked.
As mentioned above, the City does not currently allow medical marijuana businesses or
services to operate in Rancho Palos Verdes. Nevertheless, the Prop 64 trailer bill
seeks to unjustifiably undermine the local authority of cities that have chosen allow and
regulate such use. The trailer bill is scheduled for review in three (3) budget
subcommittees. Therefore, Staff has prepared three (3) letters in opposition for the
Mayor's signature. Staff continue to monitor and provide periodic updates to the City
Council regarding the Prop 64 trailer bill.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council's consideration:
Do not authorize the Mayor to sign letters in opposition to the Prop 64
trailer bill.
9
May 16, 2017
The Honorable Bob Wieckowski
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2
Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation
State Capitol — Room 5019
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Wieckowski:
On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am writing to express our opposition to the
proposed Trailer Bill implementing Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
The Trailer Bill purports to "reconcile" Prop. 64 with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MCRSA), which the League of California Cities supported, together with the
California Police Chiefs Association. However, the truth is that the Trailer Bill reconciles
nothing. It proposes to delete the MCRSA from the Trailer Bill altogether.
Environmental Provisions: Standards vs. Guidelines
Of special concern for environmental policy, the environmental provisions in the Trailer Bill point
the way toward de -regulation of cannabis cultivation operations. We do not believe this is in any
way appropriate.
First, language in Section 26060 of the Business and Professions Code referencing "cultivation
standards" developed by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), is being repealed.
The newly proposed Section 26060(d) now references "guidelines" to be developed by DPR "for
the use of pesticides in the culttiiva�t'on of cannabis and residue in harvested cannabis."
The word "guidelines" invokes a less stringent benchmark for compliance, which is enough in
the area of chemical substances used in cannabis cultivation, some of which are harmful to
human life in the case of illegal rodenticides, to cause great concern. It begs the question
whether there will be any meaningful enforcement, especially in light of language in 26060(e)(2)
making clear that upon being notified of a violation of the conditions of the license by either the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the
decision about whether to take "appropriate action," a phrase which ideally would include the
word "disciplinary" but does not, is left entirely to the discretion of the Department of Food and
Agriculture (DFA). We do not see a justification for this proposed change.
Compromising Protection Against Illegal Water Diversion and Discharge into Waterways
Second, Section 26060(e)(2) in its original form mandated that DFA was to include the
conditions requested by Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the SWRCB in each
cultivation license issued, to ensure that individual and cumulative effects of water diversion and
discharge associated with cultivation do not affect the instream flows needed for fish spawning,
migration, and rearing, and the flows needed to maintain natural flow variability, and to
otherwise protect fish, wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality.
A-1
The new 26060(e)(2) appears to repeal the requirement that DFA include the conditions of its
sister agencies in each state license, thereby weakening the protections against illegal water
diversion and discharge, since the state cultivation license is no longer expressly conditioned on
compliance with those conditions. At a minimum, the binding nature of the conditions upon the
licensees is no longer clear, and given this subject matter, alterations in a trailer bill to
painstakingly crafted language regulating cultivation activity that was spearheaded by Assembly
Member Wood, but crafted without his input, gives us no comfort. In addition, the language
goes on to expressly provide that DFA is not responsible for enforcing violations of the
conditions imposed by DFW or SWRCB, despite the fact that it is DFA and DFA only that issues
the cultivation license. This would appear to compromise the credibility and efficiency of the
regulatory structure, as well as the goal of promoting compliance with conditions imposed by
those state entities for the purpose of protecting the environment. Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the State Water Resources Control Board, who have no power of licensure, are left
to whatever enforcement devices they can muster. This does not appear to represent a robust
regulatory and enforcement structure, but it does appear to run contra to the spirit and the letter
of AB 243 (Wood), which is the seminal piece of legislation in re: marijuana cultivation.
Local Control and Local Enforcement
What does the Trailer Bill mean for cities? Here are just a few local control and local
enforcement provisions in the MCRSA that are absent from the Trailer Bill, and that arguably
present no conflict with Prop. 64:
A provision expressly empowering local governments to conduct enforcement of state
health & safety and other standards, if they requested and were granted that authority
from the relevant state agency.
A provision expressly empowering local governments to inspect the books of cannabis
businesses and conduct audits — vital with any all-cash business
A provision requiring a business' ability to operate to be suspended upon revocation of a
local permit
We will oppose any measure regulating cannabis that does not sufficiently protect local control.
The above provisions do not conflict with Prop. 64. In fact the last one is totally consistent with
the initiative, which provides that state licenses cannot be issued if they are in violation of local
ordinances. Yet this was not included in the Trailer Bill.
We have seen in the press the argument that because Prop. 64 was approved by voters by a
comfortable margin, it should trump any Act of the Legislature. We believe that such a view
disrespects and disregards the institution you serve in, as well as the effort many legislators
invested in the MCRSA, along with stakeholders such as the League.
We oppose the deletion of anti -concentration language in regard to the siting of cannabis
businesses that is designed to protect our most fragile, economically challenged neighborhoods.
That is a carry-over from decades -old law governing alcohol establishments, and there is no
sound policy reason to believe that because we are now talking about cannabis businesses,
they will magically be immune from such concerns. To replace this provision of law with a
study, as the Trailer Bill proposed, is a waste of precious public funds, and an insult to anyone
who has ever complained to their city council about the number of liquor stores in their
neighborhood.
2
A-2
We oppose the proposed deletion from statute of fire safety standards as applied to cannabis
businesses, given the many illicit butane extraction operations that have resulted in fires or
explosions, many of them in residential areas, and some of which have killed our first
responders.
We question the absence from the Trailer Bill of the codification of security standards (such as
the requirement to destroy cannabis that has failed to meet testing standards) that were
included in the MCRSA, but that did not conflict with Prop. 64. In fact, we question the
wholesale jettisoning of the MCRSA in favor of what is clearly a regulatory structure that was
written by the industry itself. We would hope, after the grueling labor and hard-won consensus
that led to the MCRSA, thanks to a group of committed legislators and stakeholders over a
period of two years, that our policymakers in Sacramento would eagerly seek to retain any part
of the MCRSA not in direct conflict with Prop. 64.
In addition, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not support any proposal that threatens fiscal
harm to cities, as does the Trailer Bill's proposed elimination of the state medical marijuana ID
card program. All consumers will need to do then, to avoid paying sales tax on recreational, is
to get a doctor's recommendation, a very easy thing indeed to get hold of. This will shrink the
recreational market, which cities can tax, and expand the medical market, which they cannot.
We do not support any proposal that threatens to reduce our tax base.
Prop. 64 was sold to the voters in part based on the fact that it built upon the MCRSA. The text
of Prop. 64 even references the MCRSA several times. Yet the very first line of the Trailer Bill
would repeal the MCRSA in what amounts to a "bait -and -switch" tactic that arguably subverts
the will of the voters.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully opposes this measure.
Sincerely,
Brian Campbell
Mayor
cc: Senator Ben Allen, 26th State Senate District
Members, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection,
Energy and Transportation
Joe Stephenshaw, Deputy Staff Director, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2
Rocel Bettencourt, Senate Republican Caucus, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2
A-3
May 16, 2017
The Honorable Richard Pan
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 3
Health and Human Services
State Capitol — Room 5019
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Pan:
On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am writing to express our opposition to the
proposed Trailer Bill implementing Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
The Trailer Bill purports to "reconcile" Prop. 64 with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MCRSA), which the League of California Cities supported, together with the
California Police Chiefs Association. However, the truth is that the Trailer Bill reconciles
nothing. It proposes to delete the MCRSA from the Trailer Bill altogether.
This is problematic, given existing law in the MCRSA pertaining to product
potency/concentration disclosures currently required in product labeling, and related
requirements in regard to the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Repeal of requirement to disclose product potency in labelling
The Trailer Bill would delete from Business & Professions Code Section 26120 (at p. 50 of the
Trailer Bill) the requirement to disclose product potency in labelling. Even if the relevant state
agency prefers to deal with this issue via regulations, the core state requirement to disclose the
potency of cannabis via product labelling should be enshrined in statute. It is the Legislature's
expression of a policy priority in the public health arena, and there is no compelling reason to
delete it from state law. The details as to the precise level of potency, maximum potency
standards, and what they are based on, can be punted to the state regulatory process. But the
core requirement to disclose product potency should be in statute.
The same is true regarding the proposal to delete from the same code section the disclosure of
the use of pesticides and fertilizers, particularly given the known use of rodenticides (which as
far as the Department of Pesticide Regulation is concerned, fall within the regulatory universe of
pesticides) harmful to human health at some cannabis cultivation sites.
Environmental Provisions: Standards vs. Guidelines
Of special concern for environmental policy, the environmental provisions in the Trailer Bill point
the way toward de -regulation of cannabis cultivation operations, which we highlight here solely
because of the long-term negative health implications. We do not believe the proposed
changes are in any way appropriate.
First, language in Section 26060 of the Business and Professions Code referencing "cultivation
standards" developed by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), is being repealed.
The newly proposed Section 26060(d) now references "guidelines" to be developed by DPR "for
the use of pesticides in the cultivation of cannabis and residue in harvested cannabis."
MA
The word "guidelines" invokes a less stringent benchmark for compliance, which is enough in
the area of chemical substances used in cannabis cultivation, some of which are harmful to
human life in the case of illegal rodenticides, to cause great concern. It begs the question
whether there will be any meaningful enforcement, especially in light of language in 26060(e)(2)
making clear that upon being notified of a violation of the conditions of the license by either the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the
decision about whether to take "appropriate action," a phrase which ideally would include the
word "disciplinary" but does not, is left entirely to the discretion of the Department of Food and
Agriculture (DFA). We do not see a justification for this proposed change.
Compromising Protection Against Illegal Water Diversion and Discharge into Waterways
Second, Section 26060(e)(2) in its original form mandated that DFA was to include the
conditions requested by Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the SWRCB in each
cultivation license issued, to ensure that individual and cumulative effects of water diversion and
discharge associated with cultivation do not affect the instream flows needed for fish spawning,
migration, and rearing, and the flows needed to maintain natural flow variability, and to
otherwise protect fish, wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality.
The new 26060(e)(2) appears to repeal the requirement that DFA include the conditions of its
sister agencies in each state license, thereby weakening the protections against illegal water
diversion and discharge, since the state cultivation license is no longer expressly conditioned on
compliance with those conditions. At a minimum, the binding nature of the conditions upon the
licensees is no longer clear, and given this subject matter, alterations in a trailer bill to
painstakingly crafted language regulating cultivation activity that was spearheaded by Assembly
Member Wood, but crafted without his input, gives us no comfort. In addition, the language
goes on to expressly provide that DFA is not responsible for enforcing violations of the
conditions imposed by DFW or SWRCB, despite the fact that it is DFA and DFA only that issues
the cultivation license. This would appear to compromise the credibility and efficiency of the
regulatory structure, as well as the goal of promoting compliance with conditions imposed by
those state entities for the purpose of protecting the environment. Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the State Water Resources Control Board, who have no power of licensure, are left
to whatever enforcement devices they can muster. This does not appear to represent a robust
regulatory and enforcement structure, but it does appear to run contra to the spirit and the letter
of AB 243 (Wood), which is the seminal piece of legislation in re: marijuana cultivation.
Local Control and Local Enforcement
What does the Trailer Bill mean for cities? Here are just a few local control and local
enforcement provisions in the MCRSA that are absent from the Trailer Bill, and that arguably
present no conflict with Prop. 64:
A provision expressly empowering local governments to conduct enforcement of state
health & safety and other standards, if they requested and were granted that authority
from the relevant state agency.
A provision expressly empowering local governments to inspect the books of cannabis
businesses and conduct audits — vital with any all-cash business
A provision requiring a business' ability to operate to be suspended upon revocation of a
local permit
We will oppose any measure regulating cannabis that does not sufficiently protect local control.
2
CEJ
The above provisions do not conflict with Prop. 64. In fact the last one is totally consistent with
the initiative, which provides that state licenses cannot be issued if they are in violation of local
ordinances. Yet this was not included in the Trailer Bill.
We have seen in the press the argument that because Prop. 64 was approved by voters by a
comfortable margin, it should trump any Act of the Legislature. We believe that such a view
disrespects and disregards the institution you serve in, as well as the effort many legislators
invested in the MCRSA, along with stakeholders such as the League.
We oppose the deletion of anti -concentration language in regard to the siting of cannabis
businesses that is designed to protect our most fragile, economically challenged neighborhoods.
That is a carry-over from decades -old law governing alcohol establishments, and there is no
sound policy reason to believe that because we are now talking about cannabis businesses,
they will magically be immune from such concerns. To replace this provision of law with a
study, as the Trailer Bill proposed, is a waste of precious public funds, and an insult to anyone
who has ever complained to their city council about the number of liquor stores in their
neighborhood.
We oppose the proposed deletion from statute of fire safety standards as applied to cannabis
businesses, given the many illicit butane extraction operations that have resulted in fires or
explosions, many of them in residential areas, and some of which have killed our first
responders.
We question the absence from the Trailer Bill of the codification of security standards (such as
the requirement to destroy cannabis that has failed to meet testing standards) that were
included in the MCRSA, but that did not conflict with Prop. 64. In fact, we question the
wholesale jettisoning of the MCRSA in favor of what is clearly a regulatory structure that was
written by the industry itself. We would hope, after the grueling labor and hard-won consensus
that led to the MCRSA, thanks to a group of committed legislators and stakeholders over a
period of two years, that our policymakers in Sacramento would eagerly seek to retain any part
of the MCRSA not in direct conflict with Prop. 64.
In addition, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not support any proposal that threatens fiscal
harm to cities, as does the Trailer Bill's proposed elimination of the state medical marijuana ID
card program. All consumers will need to do then, to avoid paying sales tax on recreational, is
to get a doctor's recommendation, a very easy thing indeed to get hold of. This will shrink the
recreational market, which cities can tax, and expand the medical market, which they cannot.
We do not support any proposal that threatens to reduce our tax base.
Prop. 64 was sold to the voters in part based on the fact that it built upon the MCRSA. The text
of Prop. 64 even references the MCRSA several times. Yet the very first line of the Trailer Bill
would repeal the MCRSA in what amounts to a "bait -and -switch" tactic that arguably subverts
the will of the voters.
3
ME
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully opposes this measure.
Sincerely,
Brian Campbell
City Manager/Mayor
cc: Senator Ben Allen, 26th State Senate District
Members, Senate Budget Subcommittee 3 on Health and Human Services
Scott Ogus, Consultant, Senate Budget Subcommittee 3, Health
Anthony Archie, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus, Senate Budget Subcommittee
3
4
A-7
May 16, 2017
The Honorable Richard Roth
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 4
State Administration and General Government
State Capitol — Room 5019
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Roth:
On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am writing to express our opposition to the
proposed Trailer Bill implementing Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
The Trailer Bill purports to "reconcile" Prop. 64 with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MCRSA), which the League of California Cities supported, together with the
California Police Chiefs Association. However, the truth is that the Trailer Bill reconciles
nothing. It proposes to delete the MCRSA from the Trailer Bill altogether.
Local Control and Local Enforcement
What does the Trailer Bill mean for cities? Here are just a few local control and local
enforcement provisions in the MCRSA that are absent from the Trailer Bill, and that arguably
present no conflict with Prop. 64:
A provision expressly empowering local governments to conduct enforcement of state
health & safety and other standards, if they requested and were granted that authority
from the relevant state agency.
A provision expressly empowering local governments to inspect the books of cannabis
businesses and conduct audits — vital with any all-cash business
A provision requiring a business' ability to operate to be suspended upon revocation of a
local permit
We will oppose any measure regulating cannabis that does not sufficiently protect local control.
The above provisions do not conflict with Prop. 64. In fact the last one is totally consistent with
the initiative, which provides that state licenses cannot be issued if they are in violation of local
ordinances. Yet this was not included in the Trailer Bill.
We have seen in the press the argument that because Prop. 64 was approved by voters by a
comfortable margin, it should trump any Act of the Legislature. We believe that such a view
disrespects and disregards the institution you serve in, as well as the effort many legislators
invested in the MCRSA, along with stakeholders such as the League.
We oppose the deletion of anti -concentration language in regard to the siting of cannabis
businesses that is designed to protect our most fragile, economically challenged neighborhoods.
That is a carry-over from decades -old law governing alcohol establishments, and there is no
sound policy reason to believe that because we are now talking about cannabis businesses,
they will magically be immune from such concerns. To replace this provision of law with a
study, as the Trailer Bill proposed, is a waste of precious public funds, and an insult to anyone
F1,111re
UNLO-1
who has ever complained to their city council about the number of liquor stores in their
neighborhood.
We oppose the proposed deletion from statute of fire safety standards as applied to cannabis
businesses, given the many illicit butane extraction operations that have resulted in fires or
explosions, many of them in residential areas, and some of which have killed our first
responders.
We question the absence from the Trailer Bill of the codification of security standards (such as
the requirement to destroy cannabis that has failed to meet testing standards) that were
included in the MCRSA, but that did not conflict with Prop. 64. In fact, we question the
wholesale jettisoning of the MCRSA in favor of what is clearly a regulatory structure that was
written by the industry itself. We would hope, after the grueling labor and hard-won consensus
that led to the MCRSA, thanks to a group of committed legislators and stakeholders over a
period of two years, that our policymakers in Sacramento would eagerly seek to retain any part
of the MCRSA not in direct conflict with Prop. 64.
In addition, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not support any proposal that threatens fiscal
harm to cities, as does the Trailer Bill's proposed elimination of the state medical marijuana ID
card program. All consumers will need to do then, to avoid paying sales tax on recreational, is
to get a doctor's recommendation, a very easy thing indeed to get hold of. This will shrink the
recreational market, which cities can tax, and expand the medical market, which they cannot.
We do not support any proposal that threatens to reduce our tax base.
Prop. 64 was sold to the voters in part based on the fact that it built upon the MCRSA. The text
of Prop. 64 even references the MCRSA several times. Yet the very first line of the Trailer Bill
would repeal the MCRSA in what amounts to a "bait -and -switch" tactic that arguably subverts
the will of the voters.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully opposes this measure.
Sincerely,
Brian Campbell
Mayor 66"1
cc: Senator Ben Allen, 26th State Senate District
Members, Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 on State Administration and General
Government
Renita Polk, Consultant, Senate Budget Subcommittee 4
Chantelle Denny, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus, Senate Budget Subcommittee
4
2
1 •
From: Jeff Kiernan
To: Jeff Kiernan
Subject: ACTION ALERT: Trailer Bill Implementing Prop. 64 — Adult Use of Marijuana Act
Date: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:12:21 PM
Attachments: Sample Oopose Letter Senate Sub 2 Prop. 64 Trailer Bill.docx
Sample Oppose Letter Senate Sub 3 Prop. 64 Trailer Bill.docx
Sample Oppose Letter Senate Sub 4 Prop. 64 Trailer Bill.docx
Good Afternoon City Managers,
The League of California Cities helped to write the Medical Marijuana Regulations and Safety Act
(MMRSA) two years ago and provided input to the authors of Prop. 64. Unfortunately, the
legislature is looking to scrap much of the MMRSA, including the duel licensing structure and will
effectively gut the mechanism for cities to tax marijuana should they choose to do so.
Please consider taking an oppose position on the marijuana budget trailer bill (there is no bill
number at this point). Further down past the Action Alert, is a notice from the Bureau of Medical
Cannabis Regulation about public hearings they have scheduled for public comment related to
proposed regulations, including one in Los Angeles on June 8.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jeff
ACTION ALERT!!
Trailer Bill Implementing Prop. 64 — Adult Use of Marijuana Act
OPPOSE
Background:
Since 2014 the League of California Cities and the California Police Chiefs Association have worked to
establish a balance between California cities' ability to preserve their land use authority over
medical marijuana businesses within their borders and the right of California's citizens to access
medical marijuana pursuant to Proposition 215 (1996). In 2015, three bills, AB 266 (Bonta, et. al.),
AB 243 (Wood) and SB 643 (McGuire), or the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act
(MMRSA) was signed into law.
The MMRSA established three fundamental tenets: 1) advancing local control; 2) protecting public
safety; and 3) creating uniform health and safety standards that ensure the lawful distribution of
medical marijuana in those cities and counties in which it is authorized.
The Administration's proposed trailer bill includes language which would invalidate the MMRSA in its
entirety, including the local government protections which it put in place. It proposes to do the
following:
• Trigger a sales tax hit to cities by repealing the state Medical Marijuana ID card program and
drop the ID card requirement from the criteria to qualify for the sales tax exemption for
As
medical marijuana retail sales. As a practical matter, this means consumers will migrate to
medical marijuana, the market where cities can no longer impose sales tax. Cities yielded
$23.7 million from marijuana sales in 2016. That revenue will dry up, because we can
expect the recreational market to shrink if the ID card goes away.
• Return cities to an Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement model by only empowering the
state to inspect businesses, and is silent on such authority for local governments.
• Repeals the provision imposing a 10 -day time limit on state licensing entities to begin an
investigation once notified by local governments that they have revoked a business' local
permit — undermining local enforcement.
• Scrap a provision of law invalidating a business' ability to operate legally once a local permit
has been revoked.
Action: Attached to this email you can find SAMPLE letters for each of the each of the Senate Budget
Chairs listed below, please also send a copy your legislators:
• Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 — Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and
Transportation
o Chair—Senator Bob Wieckowski (916) 651-4010 Fax: (916) 651-4910
o Members:
■ Senator Mike McGuire (916) 651-4002 Fax: NO FAX LISTED Email:
senator.mcguire(@senate.ca.gov
■ Senator Tony Mendoza (916) 651- 4032 Fax: (916) 651-4932
■ Senator Jim Nielsen (916) 651-4004 Fax: (916) 651-4904
• Senate Budget Subcommittee 3 — Health and Human Services
o Chair—Senator Richard Pan (916) 651-4006 Fax: (916) 651-4906
o Members:
■ Senator Bill Monning (916) 651-4017 Fax: (916) 651-4917
■ Senator Jeff Stone (916) 651-4028 Fax: (916) 651-4928
• Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 — State Administration and General Government
o Chair—Senator Richard Roth (916) 651-4031 Fax: (916) 651-4931
o Members:
■ Senator Steven Glazer (916) 651-4007 Fax: (916) 651-4907
■ Senator Scott Wilk (916) 4021 Fax: (916) 651-4921
Talking Points
• Unless MMRSA provisions are actually in conflict with Prop. 64, there is no reason to repeal
them. MMRSA resulted from a 2 -year stakeholder process balancing interests of local
government, industry, labor, and law enforcement.
• Prop. 64 passed largely because it built on the MMRSA framework.
• Prop. 64 did not itself repeal MMRSA. To do so now arguably is a question that
would require returning to the voters, notwithstanding the Governor's directive to
create a single regulatory system for both medical and recreational marijuana.
Folow
LPIFA
• Repealing the medical marijuana ID card program is premature.
• Repealing the state ID card program will have the effect of encouraging all consumers,
regardless of why they use it, to migrate to medical marijuana, on which local governments
cannot impose sales tax.
[Note: The League has confirmed that cities collected at least $23.7 million in sales tax
revenue in 2016.]
• The cannabis industry's biggest ask is that they be allowed to control their own distribution.
This is something the League and Police Chiefs have already agreed to. Local governments
are simply asking for reasonable oversight: Either an independent auditor/inspector or the
delegation of those functions to local government. We maintain that the Bureau, acting
alone, cannot effectively perform this role.
• There should be a reasonable time limit for the state to act, once notified of the revocation
of a local business permit. We understand that the current language, i.e. 10 days, may not
be reasonable and we are willing to discuss a longer time frame, but there should be
defined deadline.
Do not dismantle existing protections in law in the areas of public safety, public health,
and the environment:
• Do not repeal the volatile solvents definition and fire safety requirements; authorize
locals to enforce.
• Restore Section 26051 (anti -concentration language for businesses, protecting
minors, fragile neighborhoods, etc.)
• Do not repeal the environmental protection language in regards cultivation
operations.
• Do not repeal the potency/maximum concentration standards. The repeal
endangers the public.
• In product testing, retain the MMRSA requirement that all products must be tested
in the final form in which they will reach the consumer.
Also the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation sent out the announcement below for public
hearings across the state on proposed regulations:
BUREAU OF MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION RELEASES PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL
CANNABIS
The Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation (BMCR) today announced that its proposed licensing
regulations for medical cannabis have been posted and the 45 -day public comment period is now
underway.
"The proposed licensing regulations for medical cannabis are the result of countless hours of
research, stakeholder outreach, informational sessions and pre -regulatory meetings all across the
state," BMCR Chief Lori Ajax said. "And while we have done quite a bit of work and heard from
thousands of people, there is still so much more to do. In order to make our program successful we
still need your feedback."
Individuals interested in reviewing the medical regulations for licensing dispensaries, distribution and
transporters can do so by visiting the new Cannabis Web Portal, www.cannabis.ca.gov. At this site
you will also find cultivation regulations, as well as manufacturing regulations for medical cannabis.
Part of today's announcement includes the news of four public hearings for the purpose of public
comment on the proposed medical licensing regulations. The Bureau encourages all interested
stakeholders to review the proposed regulations and come to a hearing near you to provide
feedback. Hearing dates and locations are as follows:
June 1, 2017
10:00 a.m. —1:00 p.m.
Adorni Center
1011 Waterfront Drive, Eureka, CA 95501
June 8, 2017
10:00 a.m. —1:00 p.m.
Junipero Serra Building
320 W. Fourth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013
June 9, 2017
10:00 a.m. —1:00 p.m.
Department of Consumer Affairs, Hearing Room, S-102
1625 North Market Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95834
June 13, 2017
1:00 p.m. —4:00 p.m.
King Library, Second Floor
150 E. San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Those who wish to provide feedback and are unable to attend one of the four listed sessions above,
can get involved in the regulatory process by following the steps outlined here -
http://www.bmcr.ca.gov/about_us/documents/17-065 public comment.pdf.
There is currently budget trailer bill language designed to align the Medical Cannabis Safety and
Regulation Act with Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. If that bill passes, the bureau
will withdraw these proposed regulations and propose a new set of regulations consistent with
changes in the law.
However, public comments on the regulations published today are still very important.
"Many of the provisions in the licensing regulations published today will carry over to new
regulations if the trailer bill passes," said Chief Ajax. "Public comment now will provide valuable
information and guide our efforts when crafting any new regulations."
Beginning a little more than a year ago, the Bureau kicked off its outreach efforts with nine
informational sessions in locations all around the state. Those sessions were followed up last Fall by
eight pre -regulatory stakeholder meetings with discussions centering around issues related to
general licensing requirements, and specific concepts related to the regulation of medical cannabis
dispensaries, distributors and transporters. The feedback from those sessions can be reviewed here
- http://www.bmcr.ca.gov/meetings/summaries.shtml.
For additional information about BMCR, or to subscribe to email alerts to hear about updates as they
become available, please visit our website - htt//www.bmcr.ca.gov/.
Jeffrey Kiernan
Regional Public Affairs Manager
League of California Cities®
8581 Santa Monica Blvd. #325
West Hollywood, CA 9oo69
Cell: (31o) 630-7505
ORDINANCE NO. 590U
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.34 (PERSONAL
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION) TO TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS
AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PROHIBIT OUTDOOR PERSONAL
CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA, AND TO ADOPT REGULATIONS FOR
INDOOR PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
WHEREAS, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act ("AUMA")
will appear on the statewide ballot at the November 8, 2016 general election as
Proposition 64; and
WHEREAS, based on recent polling data, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes believes it is likely that the AUMA will receive the required number of
votes to become law at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election; and
WHEREAS, California Constitution Article II, section 10(a) provides that a
statewide initiative measure which is "approved by a majority of votes thereon takes
effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise"; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA does not provide for a specific effective date, thus the
provisions of the AUMA regarding personal use, possession, and cultivation of
marijuana become effective the day after the November 8, 2016, election if the AUMA
receives the required number of votes; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA's proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.1(a)(3),
will make it lawful under state and local law for any person twenty-one (21) years of age
or older to "Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living
marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants"; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enact regulations governing personal cultivation of
marijuana at this time so that such regulations may become effective prior to the
potential enactment of the AUMA, or as nearly after such enactment as possible; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA's proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.2(b)
explicitly allows a city to "enact and enforce reasonable regulations to reasonably
regulate" the personal cultivation of marijuana permitted under Health & Safety Code
section 11362.1(a)(3), so long as the city does not prohibit the cultivation of up to six
plants "inside a private residence, or inside an accessory structure to a private
residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and
secure"; and
C-1
WHEREAS, the AUMA's proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.2(b)(3),
explicitly allows a city to "completely prohibit persons from engaging in [the personal
cultivation of marijuana] outdoors upon the grounds of a private residence"; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA's proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(2)
further restricts such personal marijuana cultivation so that "[t]he living plants and any
marijuana produced by the plants in excess of 28.5 grams are kept within the person's
private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence, are in a locked space,
and are not visible by normal unaided vision from a public place"; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA's proposed Health & Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3)
further restricts such personal marijuana cultivation such that "[n]ot more than six living
plants may be planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a single private
residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence, at one time"; and
WHEREAS, several California cities have reported negative impacts of marijuana
cultivation and related activities, including but not limited to offensive odors, criminal
activity, (such as trespassing, theft, violent robberies and robbery attempts, and the
illegal sale and distribution of marijuana), and public health and safety concerns (such
as fire hazards and problems associated with mold, fungus, and pests); and
WHEREAS, marijuana plants, as they begin to flower and for a period of two
months or more, produce a strong odor, offensive to many people, and detectable far
beyond property boundaries if grown outdoors or if grown indoors without proper
ventilation, odor control, and other regulations; and
WHEREAS, due to the value of marijuana plants and their strong smell (which
alerts others to their locations), marijuana cultivation has been linked to break-ins,
robbery, armed robbery, theft and attendant violence and injury, creating an increased
risk to public safety; and
WHEREAS, unregulated marijuana cultivation can be harmful to the welfare of
the surrounding community and its residents and constitute a public nuisance, in that
marijuana cultivation has been shown to involve avoidance of environmental laws and
regulations, and has resulted in the pollution of waters and navigable waterways in the
State of California; and
WHEREAS, the indoor cultivation of marijuana has potential adverse effects to
the structural integrity of the buildings in which marijuana is cultivated, and the use of
high wattage grow lights and excessive use of electricity increases the risk of fire, which
presents a clear and present danger to the buildings, its occupants, and neighboring
buildings and residents; and
WHEREAS, unregulated indoor cultivation of marijuana can be harmful to the
public health, safety and welfare, given electrical modifications risk fires, poor irrigation
can cause mold, overloaded circuits can leave entire neighborhoods in the dark, plant
01203 0001 /321015 1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 2 of 14
C-2
chemicals can cause illness, improper carbon dioxide mixed with insufficient ventilation
can cause injury or death, and structural changes put first responders in danger if they
rush into the unknown; and
WHEREAS, the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and
Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use recognize that the cultivation or
other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security
increases the risk that nearby homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by
nuisance activity such as loitering and/or crime; and
WHEREAS, outdoor marijuana cultivation and unregulated indoor marijuana
cultivation are likely to generate these negative effects on the public health, safety, and
welfare in the City, based on the experiences of other cities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express statutory authority and its
police power, the City desires to explicitly prohibit the outdoor cultivation of marijuana
for personal use, should the AUMA become law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express statutory authority and its
police power, the City also desires to enact reasonable regulations for the indoor
personal cultivation of up to six marijuana plants, should the AUMA become law; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is also enacted, consistent with the Compassionate
Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, and the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of Rancho
Palos Verdes City residents in relation to the cultivation of medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, marijuana cultivation in the City poses a
potential threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and, unless the City takes action
to regulate it, the secondary impacts described above are likely to occur very soon after
the passage of the AUMA; and
WHEREAS, the urgency of this Ordinance to the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, and safety is demonstrated by the preceding recitals of fact; and
WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health,
safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving
the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the City by regulating the cultivation of
medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to: (1) allow any person
to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance; or (2) allow
any activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is
illegal under state or federal law; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937 expressly authorizes the City
Council to adopt an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public
01203,0001/321015A
Ordinance No. 59OU
Page 3 of 14
C-3
peace, health, or safety, if the ordinance is approved by four-fifths of the City Council.
To this end, this Ordinance is adopted for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health, and safety, given that marijuana cultivation in the City may give rise to
negative impacts as described above, and must be adopted on an urgency basis in
order for the Ordinance to become effective before November 9, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby makes
the following findings:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated fully herein.
B. The prohibitions on the outdoor personal marijuana cultivation of
marijuana and the regulations on the indoor personal marijuana cultivation are
reasonable and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare of the City and its community.
Section 2: Chapter 9.34 is added to Title 9 the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code to read, in its entirety, as follows:
"Chapter 9.34 PERSONAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION
9.34.010 Intent.
9.34.020 Definitions.
9.34.030 Marijuana cultivation prohibited.
9.34.040 Personal cultivation of marijuana; permit required.
9.34.050 Personal cultivation of marijuana; conditions.
9.34.060 Violation and enforcement; public nuisance declared.
9.34.010 Intent.
A. Applicability. This Chapter shall become effective only if Proposition 64,
also known as the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act ("AUMA"), is
approved by the voters at the November 8, 2016 statewide general election. The
effective date of this Chapter shall be the same as the effective date (if any) of the
AUMA. If the AUMA is approved by the voters, then personal cultivation of marijuana
shall be controlled and regulated by the provisions of this Chapter, which expressly
affirm a prohibition on the personal outdoor cultivation of marijuana, and impose
restrictions on the personal indoor cultivation of marijuana, including but not limited to,
pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11362.2.
B. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is, if AUMA is approved by the
voters, to regulate the cultivation of marijuana in a manner that protects the health,
safety and welfare of the community consistent with the AUMA. This Chapter is not
01203.0001!321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 4 of 14
C-4
intended to interfere with a patient's right to medical marijuana pursuant to state law.
This Chapter is not intended to give any person unfettered legal authority to grow
marijuana.
C. AUMA Provisions. Several provisions of state law referred to in this
Chapter are proposed by the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and will only become effective
and codified as state law if the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is approved by the voters at
the November 8, 2016 statewide general election. These provisions include Business &
Professions Code section 26050 and Health & Safety Code sections 11362.1, 11362.2
and 11362.3.
9.34.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the
following meanings:
A. "Accessory structure" means a structure or part of a structure not
exceeding twelve feet in height, which is physically detached from the main building on
the lot and the use of which is incidental to that of the main building or use on the same
lot. A structure that is incorporated within the continuous roofline of the primary structure
is part of the primary structure and is not considered an accessory structure.
B. "Adult Use of Marijuana Act" means the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult
Use of Marijuana Act, also known as Proposition 64, that will be submitted to the voters
of the State of California at the November 8, 2016 statewide general election, and which
adds to or amends parts of California law, including the California Health & Safety
Code, Business & Professions Code, Revenue & Taxation Code, and Food &
Agricultural Code.
C. "Applicant" means a person applying for a Personal Marijuana Cultivation
Permit pursuant to this Chapter.
D. "Director" means the City's Community Development Director, or his or
her designee.
E. "Fire Department" means the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
F. "Marijuana" has the same definition as provided for in Business &
Professions Code section 19300.5(f) for the term "cannabis," and as may be amended,
defined as "all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or
Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude
or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. 'Cannabis' also
means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from marijuana.
'Cannabis' also means marijuana as defined by Section 11018 of the Health and Safety
Code as enacted by Chapter 1407 of the Statutes of 1972. 'Cannabis' does not include
01203,0001/321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 5 of 14
C-5
the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the
seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or
cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination."
G. "Marijuana cultivation" means the growing, planting, harvesting, drying,
curing, grading, trimming, processing or storing of one or more marijuana plants or any
part thereof.
H. "Marijuana cultivation site" means the private residence, or fully enclosed
accessory structure to that residence, at which marijuana cultivation is occurring under
the provisions of this Chapter, or the property on which the private residence, or fully
enclosed accessory structure to that residence, at which an applicant for a personal
marijuana cultivation permit proposes to conduct marijuana cultivation.
"Permit" means a Personal Marijuana Cultivation Permit described in this
Chapter.
J. "Person" includes any individual, firm, co -partnership, joint venture,
association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver,
syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
K. "Primary caregiver" has the same definition as provided for in Health and
Safety Code section 11362.7(d), and as may be amended, defined in part as "the
individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card,
who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that
patient or person."
L. "Private residence" has the same definition as provided for in Health &
Safety Code section 11362.2(b)(5), and as may amended, defined as "a house, an
apartment unit, a mobile home, or other similar dwelling."
M. "Qualified Patient" has the same definition as provided for in Health and
Safety Code section 11362.7(f), and as may be amended, defined as "a person who is
entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification
card issued pursuant to this article."
9.34.030 Marijuana cultivation prohibited.
A. Marijuana cultivation is not a permitted use and is prohibited in all zones
and zoning districts throughout the City. No permit or any other applicable license or
entitlement for use, nor any business license shall be approved or issued for marijuana
cultivation within the City.
B. Marijuana cultivation within the City is declared to be a public nuisance
and may be abated by the City either pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
01203.0001 /321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 6 of 14
C-6
Code or any other available remedies, including, but not limited to, criminal actions, and
remedies in law and at equity.
C. This section does not apply to the indoor cultivation of six (6) or fewer
marijuana plants inside a private residence, or inside a fully enclosed accessory
structure to such a private residence, occurring cumulatively in an area of no more than
fifty (50) square feet for personal use, as authorized under Health & Safety Code
sections 11362.1(a)(3) and 11362.2, and as may be amended, provided that the
provisions of this Chapter are otherwise complied with in their entirety.
9.34.040 Personal cultivation of marijuana; permit required.
A. Permit required. No person, who is otherwise qualified to engage in the
cultivation of marijuana under Health & Safety Code sections 11362.1 and 11362.2, and
as may be amended, shall engage in the cultivation of marijuana, unless that person
has a current valid Personal Marijuana Cultivation Permit from the City, pursuant to this
Chapter.
B. Cultivation Application. An applicant shall submit a cultivation application
to the Director, on a form provided by the Director, and proof of payment of the permit
fee, in an amount to be set by resolution of the City Council.
1. The cultivation application submitted by an applicant shall include,
but not be limited to, the following information, affirmed under penalty of perjury
by the applicant:
a. The property address of where the marijuana will be
cultivated.
b. The name of each person owning, leasing, occupying, or
having charge of any legal parcel or premises where
marijuana will be cultivated.
C. The name of each person who participates in the marijuana
cultivation.
d. Property owner acknowledgement of cultivation of marijuana
at the subject property, affirmed under penalty of perjury.
2. The cultivation application submitted by an applicant shall include a
scaled property site plan and a scaled diagram of the floor plan within the
residence or fully enclosed accessory structure to be used for cultivation at the
marijuana cultivation site, and an itemized list of measures taken to comply with
the provisions of this Chapter, including but not limited to odor control, security,
electrical, and building and safety provisions, as well as any equipment that will
be used for marijuana cultivation.
3.
Within thirty
(30)
calendar days of receiving a
cultivation
application,
the Director
either
shall accept for processing the
cultivation
application
upon finding
that
the cultivation application fully
meets the
01203 00011321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 7 of 14
C-7
requirements of this Chapter, or shall return the cultivation application to the
applicant with a written description of the reasons for rejecting the cultivation
application, and so notify the applicant by United States mail, first class postage
prepaid, addressed to the applicant at the address stated in the application.
C. Application Process. Within sixty (60) calendar days after deeming the
cultivation application fully meets the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant shall
provide to the Director written proof (as deemed sufficient by the Director), for purposes
of verification, of successful completion and passing of both of the following inspections:
1. That the Building and Safety Division of the Community
Development Department of the City has inspected the marijuana cultivation site
and determined that the private residence or fully enclosed accessory structure,
including but not limited to the area dedicated to marijuana cultivation, is in
compliance with the cultivation application, this Chapter, the building code, the
electrical code, the plumbing code, and any other applicable requirement of Title
15 (Building and Construction) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code or
any other relevant provision of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
concerning health and safety. This shall include inspection of the equipment,
including any artificial lighting and/or ventilation systems, and other materials the
applicant proposes to use for the marijuana cultivation.
2. That the Fire Department has inspected the marijuana cultivation
site, and determined that the area dedicated to marijuana cultivation, and (as
warranted) the private residence or fully enclosed accessory structure, is in
compliance with the fire code and any other applicable requirement of Chapter
8.08 (Fire Code) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code. This shall include inspection of the equipment, including fire
suppression/extinguishing system, any artificial lighting and/or ventilation
systems, and other materials the applicant proposes to use for the marijuana
cultivation.
D. Application approval. Upon verification of the information described in
subsection C above, for a cultivation application which fully meets all the requirements
of this Chapter, the Director shall issue a Notice of Decision of a Personal Marijuana
Cultivation Permit within sixty (60) calendar days, upon making the following findings, or
shall deny the application if the following findings cannot be made, and so notify the
applicant in writing by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the
applicant at the address stated in the application:
1. The applicant meets all the requirements of this Chapter, including
but not limited to those described in Section 9.34.050, as well as any other
applicable requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and any
regulations promulgated under section 9.34.050(B) of this Chapter.
01203,001 /321015,1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 8 of 14
C-8
2. The applicant for the permit and the marijuana cultivation site are
both in compliance with state law, including but not limited to, Health & Safety
Code sections 11362.1, 11362.2 and 11362.3, and as they may be amended.
E. Permits not transferable. A Personal Marijuana Cultivation Permit issued
pursuant to this Chapter is non -transferable and are specific to the permit -holder and
the private residence or fully enclosed accessory structure for which they are issued.
F. Permit Renewal. A Personal Marijuana Cultivation Permit issued under
this section shall automatically expire one year after the Notice of Decision. Permit
renewal shall be requested through compliance with the procedures for issuance of a
permit as provided in this section. An applicant for a permit renewal shall be required to
pay a permit renewal fee in an amount to be set by resolution of the City Council.
However, an applicant for permit renewal shall not be required to submit a new
cultivation plan annually, provided the marijuana cultivation site follows the original
cultivation plan and the permit holder is not engaged in additional or expanded
marijuana cultivation, as affirmed in the renewal form. Renewal applications must be
received at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the expiration of an existing permit,
but not earlier than ninety (90) calendar days prior to such expiration. Renewal
inspections must occur no earlier than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the submission
of the renewal application.
G. Permit revocation. Permits issued under this section may be revoked by
the Director upon making any of the following findings:
1. The permit was issued in error or the cultivation plan form included
incorrect information.
2. The marijuana cultivated at the cultivation site has been sold or
used for any commercial use, or any other use or activity has occurred that is
prohibited by Health & Safety Code sections 11362.1, 11362.2 and 11362.3, and
as they may be amended.
3. Any violation of the AUMA, and as it may be amended, has
occurred at the marijuana cultivation site.
4. Violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter has occurred at
the marijuana cultivation site.
5. The marijuana cultivation site has become a public nuisance or has
been operated in a manner constituting a public nuisance.
6. The marijuana cultivation is not in compliance with conditions of the
Permit.
01203.0001 /321 01 5.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 9 of 14
C-9
7. The permit holder has engaged in any activity for which the
personal marijuana cultivation permit could have been denied originally.
H. Appeals. The applicant may appeal the Director's decision on an
application for a Personal Marijuana Cultivation Permit to the Planning Commission and
the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 17.80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. An appeal of a decision on a
Personal Marijuana Cultivation Permit is not timely if not filed within fifteen (15) days of
the date of the notice of the Director's or Planning Commission's decision. No Personal
Marijuana Cultivation Permit shall be effective until the appeal period has been
exhausted.
9.34.050 Personal cultivation of marijuana; conditions.
A. Conditions.
1. Visibility. All marijuana cultivation authorized by this section shall be
conducted inside a private residence or inside a fully enclosed accessory
structure and shall not occur in an area visible from any neighboring property,
any public right of way, or public view. No exterior evidence of marijuana
cultivation occurring at the property shall be visible from public view. A fully
enclosed accessory structure shall be located within a securely fenced in rear
yard of the private residence.
2. Odor. The odor resulting from all marijuana cultivation shall not be
detectable by unaided human senses from any neighboring property or any
public right of way. A marijuana cultivation site must have a ventilation and
filtration system installed that shall prevent marijuana plant odors from exiting the
interior of the structure and that shall comply with all applicable building code
regulations, including obtaining all required permits and approvals. The
ventilation and filtration system must be approved by the city and installed prior
to commencing cultivation at the marijuana cultivation site.
3. Locks and alarm. Any private residence or fully enclosed accessory
structure utilized for marijuana cultivation pursuant to this Chapter shall be
secured with locks to prevent unauthorized entry and/or theft, remain secure at
all times, and have a working security system which consists of a standard
audible residential alarm in compliance with Chapter 9.04 (Burglar Alarms) of this
Code.
4. Fire Extinguisher. A fully charged portable fire extinguisher, which
complies with the regulations and standards adopted by the state fire marshal
and applicable law, shall be kept in the fully enclosed and secure structure used
for cultivation of marijuana. If cultivation occurs in a residential structure, the
portable fire extinguisher shall be kept in the cultivation room.
01203.0001!321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 10 of 14
C-10
5. Six Plants. Cultivation at a single private residence (which includes
fully enclosed accessory structures on the grounds of that private residence) is
limited to up to six living plants.
6. Residence. The person or primary caregiver cultivating the
marijuana shall reside full-time on the premises where the marijuana cultivation
occurs.
7. Personal Use. Marijuana plants shall be cultivated by a person or
primary caregiver exclusively for personal use only and shall not be donated,
sold, distributed, transported, or given to any other person or entity, with the
exception that a primary caregiver may cultivate for a qualified patient.
8. Electricity Use. The collective draw from all electrical appliances at
the marijuana cultivation site shall not exceed the maximum rating of the
approved electrical panel for the primary legal residence at the marijuana
cultivation site. The maximum rating shall be as established in the manufacturer
specifications for the approved electrical panel. Gas products (including, without
limitation, CO2, butane, propane, and natural gas) or generators shall not be
used for the cultivation of marijuana.
9. Lighting. Any lighting fixture used for marijuana cultivation shall not
exceed the rated wattage and capacity of the circuit breaker and shall be
shielded so as to completely confine light and glare to the interior of the private
residence or fully -enclosed accessory structure.
10. Humidity and mold. Marijuana cultivation shall not create a humidity
or mold issue within the private residence or fully -enclosed accessory structure in
violation of the building code, as adopted by the City, or the City's health and
safety regulations, including but not limited to the property maintenance
standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
11. Code compliance. The private residence or fully enclosed
accessory structure used for marijuana cultivation shall at all times be in full
compliance with the City building code, electrical code, mechanical code,
plumbing code, fire code, and any other requirement found in Title 15, Chapter
8.08 of Title 8, or any other applicable building, health, or safety standard in the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
12. Area. Marijuana cultivation occurring within a private residence or
fully -enclosed accessory structure shall be in a cumulative area totaling no larger
than fifty (50) square feet.
13. Residential Structure. The residential structure shall remain at all
times a residence, with legal and functioning cooking, sleeping, and sanitation
facilities with code -compliant ingress and egress. These rooms shall not be used
01203-0001/321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 11 of 14
C-11
for marijuana cultivation where such cultivation will prevent their primary use for
cooking of meals, sleeping, and bathing.
14. Accessory Structure. A fully -enclosed accessory structure, as
defined herein, used for the cultivation of marijuana shall be located in a fully
fenced and secured rear yard of the residence, and shall maintain the minimum
rear and side yard setbacks required for the residential lot pursuant to Table 02-A
of Section 17.02 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for which the
residential structure sits. An accessory structure operating as a marijuana
cultivation site shall at all times be fully enclosed so that none of the interior area
is visible from any neighboring property, any public right of way, or public view.
B. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt both additional conditions to
further the purposes of this section, as well as additional regulations to further the
purposes of this Chapter. The City Council may also delegate, by resolution, authority to
adopt such conditions or regulations to the City Manager or his or her designee.
9.34.060 Violation and enforcement; public nuisance declared.
A. A violation of this Chapter or noncompliance with any of the requirements
of this Chapter shall be subject to any criminal or civil enforcement remedies available
under the law and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. In addition, the City may
prosecute a violation of this Chapter by means of civil enforcement through a restraining
order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, or by any other means authorized by law
or equity. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no conduct which is
protected from criminal liability pursuant to state law shall be made criminal by this
Chapter.
B. Any violation of the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be a public
nuisance and may be abated by the City either pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, including but not limited to procedures provided for in Chapter 8.24
(Property Maintenance) or any other available remedies at law or equity.
C. At the discretion of the City Prosecutor, any violation of Section 9.34.30,
9.34.40 or 9.34.50 of this Chapter is punishable as an infraction pursuant to Section
1.08.010(B) of this code, or punishable as a misdemeanor pursuant to Section
1.08.010(A) of this code."
Section 3: Section 2 of this ordinance shall become effective only if the
Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, also known as Proposition 64 or
the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is approved by the voters at the November 8, 2016
statewide general election. The effective date of Section 2 of this Ordinance shall be the
same as the effective date of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
Section 4: This ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that
01203.0001/321015 1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 12 of 14
C-12
CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity
is not subject to CEQA. The amendments to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
would only require that any personal cultivation of marijuana in the City occur indoors,
and would not cause a significant effect on the environment.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause
and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
ordinance, and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records
of and the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately, pursuant to the authority conferred upon
the City Council by Government Code section 36937. The City Clerk shall cause a
summary of this ordinance to be published in accordance with Government Code
section 36933 in a newspaper of general circulation which is hereby designated for that
purpose.
Section 7: This Urgency Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November, 2016.
i
ATTEST:
Acting City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
01203.0001!321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 13 of 14
C-13
I, Teresa Takaoka, Acting City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do
hereby certify that the whole numbers of the City Council of said City is five; that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 590U was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of
said City at a regular meeting thereof held on November 1, 2016 and that the same was
passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brooks, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Dyda
NOES: None
ABSENT: Campbell
ABSTAINED: None
Acting City Clerk
01203.0001!321015.1
Ordinance No. 590U
Page 14 of 14
C-14
CITY OF I A[RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That at all times herein mentioned, she was and now is the Acting City Clerk of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes;
That on November 3, 2016, she caused to be posted the following document
entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 590U, AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.34
(PERSONAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION) TO TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE,
MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PROHIBIT OUTDOOR PERSONAL CULTIVATION
OF MARIJUANA, AND TO ADOPT REGULATIONS FOR INDOOR
PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA, a copy of which is attached
hereto, in the following locations:
City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Hesse Park
29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Ladera Linda Community Center
32201 Forrestal Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct affidavit of
posting.
C2� -
Acting City Clerk
C-15