HomeMy WebLinkAboutAB21_LtrToMonning_20160112City Attorney's Office
990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
805.781 7140
slocity org
January 12, 2016
By fax only(916) 651 -4917
Senator Bill Monning
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 21 -Letter of Support as Written
Senator Monning:
On behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo, I am pleased to lend our support of Assembly Bill
21 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, and Wood) as currently written.
This measure addresses the need to remove from statute a provision that would harm cities
by pre-empting them from enacting cultivation regulations if they do not have such
regulations in effect as of March 1, 2016. The provision, Section 11362.777(c)(4) states:
If a city, county, or city and county does not have land use regulations or ordinances
regulating or prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under
principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program
pursuant to this section, then commencing March 1, 2016, the division shall be the sole
licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city, county, or city
and county."
This provision is problematic and should not have been included in the final version of last
year's Assembly Bill 243 (Wood), as it is inconsistent with other timelines associated with
implementing the regulatory framework, namely launching the state cultivation licensing
process.
In addition, the above provision directly contradicts the concept of local control, which for
the League, was a central theme of last year's historic Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act. It also conflicts with a critical component of AB 266 (for the League, the key
measure among the trio of last year's bills enacting medical marijuana regulation), that of
dual licensing. Without this legislation removing the pre-emption provision, a number of
cities throughout California will suffer harm through the loss of their local regulatory
authority after March 1 st.
Like many cities, San Luis Obispo recently moved forward with Council action to ensure
local control of this important community issue. It is unfortunate that the inclusion of the
March 1 deadline in the current legislation led so many cities to rush to enact outright
cultivation bans or piece together interim regulatory measures as a means of preserving their
local regulatory authority. This unfortunate deadline had the result of short circuiting the
opportunity for more meaningful community dialogue. Regardless of cities' reaction to this
change in the law, the City of San Luis Obispo strongly desires to retain the ability to decide
the rules within its own borders.
Medical marijuana is a uniquely local issue that requires outreach and measured
consideration by elected officials of the varying, and sometimes competing, needs of their
constituents, the time for which is not allowed by the legislation as currently adopted. AB 21
would allow for enhanced public participation, transparency and the kind of thoughtful local
policy making that San Luis Obispo and so many other local communities value. Once
again,we are pleased to support AB 21 as written and oppose the amendment proposed by
the ACLU, removing the last sentence in Health& Safety Code § 11362.777(g), which is an
amendment that threatens to erode the foundation of local control at the heart of the
regulatory package supported by cities throughout the state.
Sincerely,
1
r"
nstine Dletrick
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo