CC SR 20180515 N - SB 1302RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/15/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to oppose Senate Bill No. 1302 regarding cannabis
delivery services
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Lara in opposition to Senate Bill
No. 1302 (SB 1302) regarding cannabis delivery services.
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 Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter in opposition to SB 1302 (page A-1)
B. League of California Cities “Action Alert” regarding SB 1302 (page B-1)
C. SB 1302 (page C-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On May 7, 2018, the League of California Cities (League) advised Staff that Senator
Lara had introduced Senate Bill No. 1302 (SB 1302) on February 16, 2018 (Attachment
C). As currently proposed, AB 1302 would force local jurisdictions—including general
law and charter cities—to allow cannabis deliveries within their jurisdictions. This is
contrary to the intent of the State’s voters in approving Proposition 64 in November
2017. As the City Council may recall, Ordinance No. 601U was adopted just prior to the
approval of Proposition 64, and it expressly prohibits all cannabis-related businesses in
the City, including delivery services. The League is opposed to SB 1302 (Attachment
B) and has asked cities to express their opposition to the bill as well.
The League reports that existing law authorizes cannabis licensees to travel with
product on public roads. However, individual jurisdictions retain the authority to ban
deliveries within their jurisdictions (as our City has done pursuant to Ordinance
No. 601U). SB 1302 would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to decide if cannabis
1
deliveries should be allowed in their communities. As California’s experiment with
legalizing cannabis unfolds, many local governments have opted not to allow sales and
distribution within their jurisdiction, but are observing the experience of other
jurisdictions, as we have already seen in the San Pedro area of the City of Los Angeles.
In time, as the successful examples of local implementation emerge, more jurisdictions
can be expected to alter their policies and permit the sales and use of cannabis. The
Senate Governance and Finance Committee heard SB 1302 on May 2, 2018. Several
committee members expressed their reservations about the bill during the hearing.
However, they then gave “courtesy” aye votes after the author, who serves as chair of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, expressed a willingness to attempt to find
common ground with the opponents.
In light of the adverse impact that the enactment of SB 1302 could have upon the City’s
authority to regulate commercial cannabis within City limits, Staff has prepared a letter
in opposition to the bill for the Mayor’s signature (Attachment A). A hearing on SB 1302
is expected in the Senate Appropriations Committee in the near future. If approved,
Staff will immediately transmit this letter to the Senator Lara and the League.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter in opposition to SB 1302.
2
May 15, 2018
VIA FAX: (916) 651-4933
The Honorable Ricardo Lara
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
State Capitol Building, Rm. 5050
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: SB 1302 (Lara) Cannabis: Local Jurisdiction: Prohibitions on Delivery
Notice of Opposition (as Amended 4/26/18)
Dear Senator Lara:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes your SB 1302 (Lara), which would essentially
force local jurisdictions to allow cannabis deliveries within their jurisdictions. This bill goes
against the intent of voters who passed Proposition 64 by removing a local jurisdiction’s
ability to allow or ban cannabis deliveries.
Existing law, constructed by both the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MAUCRSA) and Proposition 64, states that local jurisdictions have the ability
to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate cannabis businesses. SB 1302 would
fundamentally alter this pillar of cannabis legalization by prohibiting local jurisdictions from
adopting or enforcing ordinances that would prohibit a cannabis licensee from delivering
cannabis within or outside of the boundaries of that local jurisdiction.
Furthermore, existing law also states that a local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of
cannabis or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee acting in compliance with
local and existing law. This provision, enacted by the voters of California, already
authorizes licensees to use public roads for cannabis deliveries regardless of if the
jurisdiction allow for deliveries. Consequently, this bill would remove the ability for local
jurisdictions to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their communities.
SB 1302 removes the ability for local communities to decide what is appropriate for their
communities by removing the authority to ban deliveries. In so doing, this bill will remove
a critical part of the local enforcement model of cannabis legalization and open up all
communities to having cannabis delivered to their front doors. This is contrary to the
framework understood by the voters when approving Proposition 64.
There are potentially far-reaching fiscal implications for local jurisdictions that, under this
bill, would be required to allow deliveries. With the influx of cannabis deliveries, there
would be associated public safety costs for enforcement and safety of the public. With the
current state of cannabis business being all cash, delivery cars are prime targets for theft
or burglary.
A-1
DR
A
F
T
Senator Lara
May 15, 2018
Page 2
Also, some patience with this newly-minted law is required. As California’s experiment
with legalizing cannabis unfolds, many jurisdictions that opted not to allow sales and
distribution within their jurisdiction are observing the experience in other jurisdictions. In
time, as the successful examples of local implementation emerge, more jurisdictions can
be expected to alter their policies and permit the sales and use of cannabis.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 1302.
Sincerely,
Susan Brooks
Mayor
cc: Senator Ben Allen, FAX (916) 651-4926
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, FAX (916) 319-2166
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriela Yap, Deputy City Manager
Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
A-2
DR
A
F
T
5/7/2018 League of California Cities - Bad Cannabis Delivery Bill Clears Senate Governance and Finance Committee
http://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2018/May/Bad-Cannabis-Delivery-Bill-Clears-Senate-Governanc
Bad Cannabis Delivery Bill Clears Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Cities Should Oppose SB 1302 Immediately
May 4, 2018
California became the largest regulated cannabis market in the country with the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016,
with the state's regulatory framework taking effect Jan. 1 of this year.
Prop. 64 contains strong local control provisions that give cities and counties the authority to determine whether or not to permit cannabis in their
communities. SB 1302 (Lara), however, proposes to force cities and counties to allow cannabis deliveries within their jurisdictions. Cities should
oppose this bill that goes against the intent of voters who passed Prop. 64 by removing a local jurisdiction’s ability to ban cannabis deliveries.
Existing law authorizes cannabis licensees to travel with product on public roads, however, individual jurisdictions retain the authority to ban
deliveries within their jurisdiction. SB 1302 would remove the ability for local jurisdictions to decide if cannabis deliveries should be allowed in their
communities.
As California’s experiment with legalizing cannabis unfolds, many local governments have opted not to allow sales and distribution within their
jurisdiction, but are observing the experience of other jurisdictions. In time, as the successful examples of local implementation emerge, more
jurisdictions can be expected to alter their policies and permit the sales and use of cannabis.
The Senate Governance and Finance Committee heard SB 1302 on May 2. Several committee members expressed their reservations about the bill
during the hearing. However, they then gave “courtesy” aye votes after the author, who serves as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
expressed a willingness to attempt to ×nd common ground with the opponents.
As the cannabis industry grows in political inØuence in the Legislature, local governments should expect continued efforts to erode local authority.
Next Steps
SB 1302 now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Should it pass that committee it will face a two-thirds vote threshold on the Senate
Floor.
Cities are encouraged to submit letters of opposition to SB 1302. The League has prepared a sample letter for cities. The sample letter and the
League’s opposition letter are available on the League’s website at www.cacities.org/billsearch by plugging SB 1302 into the search function.
B-1
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 26, 2018
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2018
SENATE BILL No. 1302
Introduced by Senator Lara
(Coauthors: Senators Galgiani and Bradford, Galgiani, and
Wieckowski)
February 16, 2018
An act to amend Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code,
relating to cannabis.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1302, as amended, Lara. Cannabis: local jurisdiction: prohibitions
on delivery.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016
(AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the
November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who
obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use
cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances.
The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
(MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and
regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities.
MAUCRSA authorizes a licensee who obtains a retailer, microbusiness,
or a specified type of nonprofit to deliver cannabis or cannabis products,
and imposes requirements on the delivery of cannabis or cannabis
products. MAUCRSA prohibits a local jurisdiction from preventing the
delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads by a licensee
who is acting in compliance with MAUCRSA as well as any local law
adopted pursuant to MAUCRSA. MAUCRSA generally authorizes a
97
C-1
local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate
licensed businesses located within the local jurisdiction.
This bill would prohibit a local government from adopting or
enforcing any ordinance that would prohibit a licensee from delivering
cannabis within or outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the local
jurisdiction.
The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern, rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an
initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further
the purposes and intent of the act with a 2⁄3 vote of the membership of
both houses of the Legislature.
This bill would declare that its provisions further specified purposes
and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana
Act.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 26200 of the Business and Professions
line 2 Code is amended to read:
line 3 26200. (a) (1) This division shall not be interpreted to
line 4 supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and
line 5 enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this
line 6 division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use
line 7 requirements, business license requirements, and requirements
line 8 related to reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, or to completely
line 9 prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of
line 10 businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.
line 11 (2) This division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit
line 12 existing local authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement
line 13 of local zoning requirements or local ordinances, or enforcement
line 14 of local license, permit, or other authorization requirements.
line 15 (b) This division shall not be interpreted to does not require a
line 16 licensing authority to undertake local law enforcement
line 17 responsibilities, enforce local zoning requirements, or enforce local
line 18 licensing, permitting, or other authorization requirements.
97
— 2 —SB 1302
C-2
line 1 (c) A local jurisdiction shall notify the bureau upon revocation
line 2 of any local license, permit, or authorization for a licensee to
line 3 engage in commercial cannabis activity within the local
line 4 jurisdiction. Within 10 days of notification, the bureau shall inform
line 5 the relevant licensing authorities. Within 60 days of being so
line 6 informed by the bureau, the relevant licensing authorities shall
line 7 begin the process to determine whether a license issued to the
line 8 licensee should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter 3
line 9 (commencing with Section 26030).
line 10 (d) For facilities issued a state license that are located within
line 11 the incorporated area of a city, the city shall have full power and
line 12 authority to enforce this division and the regulations promulgated
line 13 by the bureau or any licensing authority, if delegated by the state.
line 14 Notwithstanding Sections 101375, 101400, and 101405 of the
line 15 Health and Safety Code or any contract entered into pursuant
line 16 thereto, or any other law, the city shall assume complete
line 17 responsibility for any regulatory function pursuant to this division
line 18 within the city limits that would otherwise be performed by the
line 19 county or any county officer or employee, including a county
line 20 health officer, without liability, cost, or expense to the county.
line 21 (e) This division does not prohibit the issuance of a state
line 22 temporary event license to a licensee authorizing onsite cannabis
line 23 sales to, and consumption by, persons 21 years of age or older at
line 24 a county fair or district agricultural association event, provided
line 25 that the activities, at a minimum, comply with the requirements
line 26 of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (g), that all
line 27 participants are licensed under this division, and that the activities
line 28 are otherwise consistent with regulations promulgated and adopted
line 29 by the bureau governing state temporary event licenses. These
line 30 temporary event licenses shall only be issued in local jurisdictions
line 31 that authorize such events.
line 32 (f) This division, or any regulations promulgated thereunder,
line 33 shall not be deemed to limit the authority or remedies of a city,
line 34 county, or city and county under any provision of law, including,
line 35 but not limited to, Section 7 of Article XI of the California
line 36 Constitution.
line 37 (g) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
line 38 11362.3 of the Health and Safety Code, a local jurisdiction may
line 39 allow for the smoking, vaporizing, and ingesting of cannabis or
97
SB 1302— 3 —
C-3
line 1 cannabis products on the premises of a retailer or microbusiness
line 2 licensed under this division if all of the following are met:
line 3 (1) Access to the area where cannabis consumption is allowed
line 4 is restricted to persons 21 years of age and older.
line 5 (2) Cannabis consumption is not visible from any public place
line 6 or nonage-restricted area.
line 7 (3) Sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco is not allowed
line 8 on the premises.
line 9 (h) A local jurisdiction shall not adopt or enforce any ordinance
line 10 that would prohibit a licensee from delivering cannabis within or
line 11 outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of that local jurisdiction.
line 12 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
line 13 this act amending Section 26200 of the Business and Professions
line 14 Code addresses a matter of statewide concern, rather than a
line 15 municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of
line 16 the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies
line 17 to all cities, including charter cities.
line 18 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of
line 19 this act amending Section 26200 of the Business and Professions
line 20 Code furthers the purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and
line 21 Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
O
97
— 4 —SB 1302
C-4