BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Bill No: |AB 21 |Hearing |1/13/2016| | | |Date: | | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Author: |Bonta |Tax Levy: |No | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Version: |1/4/16 |Fiscal: |No | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Favorini-Csorba | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEDICAL MARIJUANA: CULTIVATION LICENSES Repeals a March 1, 2016 deadline by which cities and counties must act on ordinances to regulate or ban medical marijuana cultivation. Background and Existing Law Federal and state law prohibits the possession, possession with intent to sell, cultivation, sale, transportation, importation, or furnishing of marijuana. However, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate use Act of 1996 (CUA). Under CUA, qualified patients with specified illnesses or their primary caregivers cannot be prosecuted for possessing or cultivating medical marijuana upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of an attending physician. Thus, CUA allowed qualified patients and primary caregivers to obtain and use medical marijuana. The Legislature clarified CUA in 2003 by enacting SB 420 (Vasconcellos, 2003). SB 420 exempted qualified patients and caregivers from prosecution for using or from collectively or cooperatively cultivating medical marijuana and established a medical marijuana card program for patients to use on a voluntary basis. SB 420 provides a safe harbor for qualified patients as to the amount of marijuana they may possess and the number of plants they may maintain. It also protects patients AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 2 of ? with valid identification cards from both arrest and criminal liability for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of marijuana. Thus, California's estimated $1 billion medical marijuana industry exists amid a conflict between federal and state law, and within state law itself. The industry remained largely unregulated until 2015. Local Authority Over Medical Marijuana. By exempting qualified patients and caregivers from prosecution for using or from collectively or cooperatively cultivating medical marijuana, the CUA and SB 420 effectively authorized the cultivation and use of medical marijuana. These laws have triggered the growth of medical marijuana dispensaries in many localities, and in response, local governments have sought to exercise their police powers to regulate or ban activities relating to medical marijuana. The police power is granted by the California Constitution and allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws, known as the police power of cities." It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare. Local agencies also use this police power to abate nuisances to protect public health. Under this power, many cities in California permanently banned dispensary operations, while others have adopted temporary land use moratoria, adopted regulations permitting a limited number of dispensaries, or otherwise regulated the sale, storage, and delivery of medical marijuana. Some local agencies limit felons from appearing on property that houses a dispensary operation. Additionally, many other local agencies in California ban, limit, or otherwise regulate both outdoor and indoor cultivation of medical marijuana. Other jurisdictions have established "permissive" zoning ordinances, whereby any land use-such as cultivation of medical marijuana-that is not explicitly authorized by the ordinance is prohibited. State law, including initiatives, generally preempt local ordinances when the two conflict. However, courts have generally supported local agencies against claims that ordinances regulating or banning medical marijuana activities conflict with the CUA or SB 420. In particular, the California Supreme Court upheld local dispensary bans in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Welfare Center (Case AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 3 of ? S198638, 2013). In addition, the Third Appellate District Court upheld local cultivation bans in Maral v. City of Live Oak (Case C071822, 2013). In general, courts have reasoned that nothing in the CUA or SB 420 expressly or impliedly limited the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders. Accordingly, many California jurisdictions, roughly estimated by the League of California Cities at 50% pending completion of a statewide survey, ban the cultivation and sale of medical marijuana altogether. Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. In 2015, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), a package of legislation that comprehensively regulates many aspects of medical marijuana including cultivation, manufacturing, transportation, distribution, sale, and product safety. The MMRSA comprises three bills-SB 643 (McGuire, 2015), AB 243 (Wood, 2015), and AB 266 (Bonta, 2015). Among other provisions, MMRSA: Creates the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (the Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs to oversee and enforce the state's medical marijuana regulations, in collaboration with the Board of Equalization (BOE), the California Department of Public Health, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA); Establishes categories of licenses for various medical marijuana activities, such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and sale, and provides certain state agencies with the authority to issue those licenses and enforce their terms; Requires BOE and CDFA to implement a program that allows regulators to uniquely identify each legally cultivated medical marijuana plant and trace that plant throughout the distribution chain; Prohibits licensees from commencing activity under the authority of a state license until the applicant has obtained a license or permit pursuant to the applicable local ordinance; Includes protections of the ability of local governments to pass and enforce laws, licensing requirements, and zoning ordinances. AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 4 of ? Under MMRSA, in addition, MMRSA explicitly authorizes local governments to establish a licensing system for the cultivation of medical marijuana through their current or future land use authority, and prohibits the cultivation of medical marijuana without obtaining both a state license-issued by CDFA-and a local license. However, MMRSA also designates CDFA as the sole licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation in cities or counties that have not developed regulations or banned medical marijuana cultivation by March 1, 2016. On September 11, 2015, Assemblymember Wood wrote a letter in the Assembly Journal stating his intent to introduce cleanup legislation to address three errors in MMRSA, including to remove the March 1, 2016 deadline by which cities and counties must regulate or ban cultivation in order to prevent CDFA from becoming the sole licensing authority in that jurisdiction. Faced with the prospect of permanently losing their authority to regulate medical marijuana cultivation, many cities and counties are moving quickly to ban medical marijuana cultivation. At least 19 cities have banned cultivation following the passage of AB 243, and according to a December 31, 2015 San Francisco Chronicle article, at least 40 cities and counties across the state were currently considering bans of medical marijuana cultivation or have a ban pending approval. Some local officials want more time to consider the best way to regulate medical marijuana cultivation in their jurisdictions and adopt appropriate zoning ordinances. Proposed Law AB 21 deletes the provision of MMRSA that makes CDFA the sole licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation in a city or county that has not developed regulations that license or ban cultivation, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, by March 1, 2016. State Revenue Impact No estimate. AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 5 of ? Comments 1. Purpose of the bill. The MMRSA contains an inadvertent error made at the close of the 2015 legislative session that imposes a significant burden on local governments and has resulted in hurried consideration of medical marijuana bans and restrictions at the local level. By permanently making CDFA the sole regulator of medical marijuana cultivation in cities and counties that do not have regulations in place by March 1, 2016, this provision of MMRSA undermines the principle of local control that exists throughout the remainder of the act. It also creates a very real risk of a state agency imposing uniform regulations on cultivation that do not consider the needs and unique circumstances of local communities. As a result, cities and counties throughout California are rushing to develop regulations or bans on medical marijuana cultivation by the March 1, 2016 deadline, simply so they don't permanently lose their ability to regulate the cultivation of marijuana in their jurisdiction. But this process deprives local officials and their constituents of the ability to carefully consider how marijuana should be cultivated in their communities. There are no similar deadlines in MMRSA for local officials to act on licensing of other medical marijuana activities, such as the licensing of dispensaries. Instead, local officials are given the necessary time and flexibility to determine what additional local licensing requirements may be necessary. AB 21 provides a straightforward solution to these issues by removing the deadline and the related risk of a state takeover of cultivation licensing. 2. Let's be clear. AB 21 introduces ambiguity into the legality of new medical marijuana cultivation in some local jurisdictions. Currently, MMRSA prohibits cultivation of medical marijuana without both a state and a local license. However, MMRSA designates CDFA as the sole licensing authority for cultivation if the local jurisdiction does not have regulations in place by March 1, 2016. AB 21 deletes the provision that contains both the deadline and the designation of CDFA as sole licensing authority. Thus, AB 21 raises the question of whether medical marijuana can be cultivated in a jurisdiction that has not implemented medical marijuana regulations, since a cultivator would not be able to receive a local license. Although another provision of MMRSA- subdivision AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 6 of ? (c) of Section 19321 of the Business and Professions Code-allows medical marijuana facilities that were in compliance with local ordinances prior to January 1, 2018 to continue to operate, it is not clear whether this provision trumps the requirement to obtain both a state and local license in order to cultivate. Accordingly, deleting this provision may result in de facto bans on new cultivations of medical marijuana in cities and counties that delay their development of regulations. If the purpose of MMRSA is to eliminate the regulatory uncertainty that has historically surrounded medical marijuana cultivation, the Committee may wish to consider clarifying whether medical marijuana can be cultivated with only a state license in jurisdictions that have not passed an ordinance. 3. Unfinished business . AB 21 addresses a provision in MMRSA that was identified as an error in the letter to the Assembly Journal, and AB 1575 (Bonta, 2016) addresses a second error relating to certain fees charged by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). However, neither bill addresses the third error, regarding qualified patients' and primary caregivers' exemption from the cultivation licensing requirements in MMRSA. Specifically, MMRSA states that an exemption for a qualified patient or primary caregiver from the act's cultivation licensing requirements does not limit or prevent a city or county from regulating or banning any medical marijuana activities, including cultivation, storage, manufacture, and transport, by that person. The letter to the Journal indicated the intent to remove this sentence. Importantly, whether a city or county may ban cultivation by qualified patients and primary caregivers through its land use authority was the subject of recent litigation in the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal (Byrd v. County of Fresno [2015]). The City of Fresno, a respondent in the case, cited this provision of MMRSA as granting the city new authority to ban cultivation by any entity within its jurisdiction. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal upheld the cultivation ban. The American Civil Liberties Union is petitioning the Supreme Court to review this decision and a decision in a related case. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether local jurisdictions may completely ban cultivation by qualified patients or caregivers or considered the impact of MMRSA on medical marijuana, so the outcome of future cases may be affected by the continued inclusion of this provision. AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 7 of ? 4. Related legislation. AB 1575 (Bonta) was introduced in January 2016 to address some additional drafting errors in MMRSA, including an error raised in Assemblymember Wood's letter to the Journal. Specifically, AB 1575 would clarify that increased fees for remediation of environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation shall be levied on only medical marijuana cultivation activities that require a permit to alter a lake or streambed, instead of increasing fees on any entity that requires that type of permit. AB 1575 also requires the Department of Public Health to establish uniform safety standards on packaging of medical marijuana, allows the Bureau to issue temporary permits for businesses to perform medical marijuana-related activities, requires the Bureau to establish standards for the delivery of medical marijuana and for dispensary employees, and exempts commercial medical marijuana activity by a licensed person from criminal penalties associated with the transportation, sale, or administration of controlled substances in the state. In addition, two bills address the taxation of medical marijuana cultivation. SB 297 (McGuire, 2015), currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee, states the legislature's intent to impose an excise tax on medical marijuana at the point of sale. AB 1548 (Wood, 2015), currently pending in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, would establish a tax on the cultivation of medical marijuana to fund environmental restoration and law enforcement activities related to illegal marijuana cultivation. 5. Urgency. Regular statutes take effect on January 1 following their enactment; bills passed in 2016 take effect on January 1, 2017. The California Constitution allows bills with urgency clauses to take effect immediately if they're needed for the public peace, health, and safety. AB 21 contains an urgency clause declaring that it is necessary for its provisions to go into effect immediately to enable local governments to protect the health of their citizens by regulating marijuana at the earliest possible date. 6. New Bill, Prior Votes Not Relevant . As passed by the Assembly, AB 21 contained provisions relating to Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Senate Governance & Finance Committee never heard that version of the bill. The January 4 amendments deleted AB 21's contents, changed the author of the bill, and inserted the current language relating to medical marijuana cultivation. AB 21 (Bonta) 1/4/16 Page 8 of ? 7. Double referred. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a double-referral of AB 21-first to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over bills relating to local agencies' regulatory and taxing authority, and then to the Senate Health Committee, which has jurisdiction over bills relating to public health and safety. Assembly Actions Not relevant to the January 4, 2016 version of the bill. Support and Opposition (1/7/2016) Support : California Police Chiefs Association; California State Association of Counties; City of Modesto; County Counsel, County of Siskiyou; County of Del Norte; County of Humboldt; County of Marin; County of Merced; County of Sacramento; County of Shasta; County of Solano; County of Sonoma; League of California Cities; Rural County Representatives of California; Supervisor Mike Ennis, County of Tulare; Urban Counties of California. Opposition : American Civil Liberties Union of California; Drug Policy Alliance. -- END --