Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCannabisRegulations_20181102_CommentLetterCity of San Luis Obispo, Office of the City Council, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org November 2, 2018 Lori Ajax, Chief Bureau of Cannabis Control P.O. Box 419106 Rancho Cordova, CA 95741 Submitted via Email: bcc.comments@dca.ca.gov RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations – October 2018 OBJECTION to Two Proposed Changes Chief Ajax: The City of San Luis Obispo appreciates the opportunity to comment on the modified proposed regulations released on October 19, 2018, which seek to codify the emergency regulations implemented in December 2017. The City of San Luis Obispo strongly objects to two proposed changes that we view are in fundamental conflict with both the language and intent of Proposition 64 and will undermine our city’s ability to effectively regulate cannabis at the local level: §5416(d). Removal of Limitations on Cannabis Deliveries: As modified, this section not only strips local governments of the ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries but also disallows local governments from regulating deliveries in any manner that exceeds the provisions of these regulations. California’s voters were assured that “Proposition 64 preserves local control.”1 By removing local governments’ ability to regulate cannabis deliveries, this provision undermines the very foundation of local control and imposes a ‘one size fits all’ form of cannabis regulation. This proposed regulation is consequently beyond the BCC’s regulatory authority, and instead creates a new cannabis policy outside of the legislative process. As such, it should be removed from the regulatory package prior to adoption. §5002(c)(28). Unrealistic Timelines for Adequate Local Government Review: As it stands, 10 calendar days does not afford cities sufficient time to review annual license applications and respond to the BCC. Under this scenario, a city could receive a local license inquiry upon the close of business on a Friday, leaving the city only one work week to investigate, review and respond to the BCC. Such a rushed timeline would favor those who intend to circumvent local requirements, rather than comply with them, undermining a fundamental pillar of Proposition 64. 1 Business & Professions Code 26200(a)(1)(a) – This division shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction. Ensuring that the City of San Luis Obispo has approved a temporary, provisional,2 or annual license is key to promoting public safety3 and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter approval process. As such, the City of San Luis Obispo believes the finalized regulations should be amended from a 10- day to a 60-day verification period in section 5002(c)(28), in order to both reflect current law and ensure an appropriate amount of time to confirm whether local licenses are indeed valid. It should be noted that the revisions made to the July 2018 proposed regulations are far more than technical and clarifying and should have thereby triggered an additional 45-day comment period. In fact, by allowing only 15 days to digest these significant changes, the Bureau of Cannabis Control is limiting the opportunity for the public to provide necessary and robust feedback. For these reasons, the City of San Luis Obispo respectfully opposes these regulations until such time as they are revised or removed to address the concerns listed above. We look forward to continued opportunities to comment on specific regulatory proposals. Sincerely, Heidi Harmon Mayor cc: San Luis Obispo City Council State Senator Bill Monning, fax (916) 651 – 4917 State Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham, fax (916) 319-2135 Dave Mullinax, League of California Cities, dmullinax@cacities.org Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.org 2 Senate Bill 1459 (Canella, 2018) establishes a provisional cannabis license that may be issued at the sole discretion of a st ate licensing authority, until January 1, 2020. 3 Below is a list of several ways the proponents and intent language of Proposition 64 and existing law explicitly outline the need for local licensing approval provisions to ensure public safety: ➢ “64 makes the protection of public health and safety the #1 priority of the regulators that determine who qualifies for a marijuana business license.” (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) rebuttal to Argument against Prop. 64, p. 99.) ➢ §3(c). “Allow local governments to enforce state laws and regulations for nonmedical marijuana businesses and enact additional local requirements for nonmedical marijuana businesses, but not require that they do so for a nonmedical marijuana business to be issued a state license and be legal under state law.” ➢ (Ballot Pamp., General Elec. (November 8, 2016) proposed text of Prop. 64, p. 179.) ➢ Cal Bus & Prof Code §26055(d) “Licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license under this division if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation adopted in accordance with Section 26200.”