HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/04/02 - Agenda Packet - Special •
• ._ _
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - 3:30 p.m.
City Hall 4 Tri-Communities Room
10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
A. CALL TO ORDER:
Al. Pledge of Allegiance
A2. Roll Call: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tern Spagnolo
Council Members Alexander, Steinorth and Williams
B. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item
listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not
previously included on the Agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter
for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or
less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals
desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Mayor and not
to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy
and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker,
making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum
of the meeting.
C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION:
P1 C1. Consideration of request by League of California Cities to support SB 1262.
I
P17 C2. Consideration to update the 2014 Legislative Platform and add an item
advocating for increased massage parlor regulations.
C3. Discussion of Cucamonga Valley Water District's proposed rate increase for
recycled water. (Oral Report)
,
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra L. McNay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk, of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted
on March 27, 2014, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
^ P1
STAFF REPORT k t,*
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
L11_
RANCHO
Date: April 2, 2014 CUCAMONGA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
John Gillison, City Manager
From: Fabian Villenas, Principal Management Analyst
Subject: Consideration of Request by League of California Cities to support SB 1262
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the attached information provided by the League of
California Cities and provide direction on whether or not to support SB 1262.
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities is the statewide association that serves as the leading advocate for
California cities and its common interests. On February 21, 2104 the League of California Cities
(League) sent a memo (attached) to all its members announcing the League's co-sponsorship of
Senate Bill 1262 regarding the regulation of medical marijuana. The bill is also sponsored by the
California Police Chief's Association and is authored by Senator Lou Correa.
According to information provided by the League of California Cities, SB 1262 will improve the
regulation of medical marijuana in a manner that protects local control, addresses important public
safety concerns, and enhances health and safety standards. Specifically, the bill would:
• Protect local control by preventing a medical marijuana dispensary applicant from obtaining
a state license unless the applicant has first secured all necessary local permits from a
particular jurisdiction;
• Uphold local governments' ability to ban dispensaries and all related facilities;
• Impose tighter regulations on doctors who issue medical marijuana recommendations,
including new training and record keeping requirements as well as fines, and a strict
regimen for recommendations to minors;
• Impose uniform health and safety standards as well as quality assurance standards, to be
administered by counties with oversight by the Department of Public Health;
• Require a series of detailed security measures to prevent diversion and recreational use at
all medical cannabis facilities.
The League is requesting that its member cities support SB 1262 and submit letters of support.
The bill is currently in the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee.
Attached for the Council's review is information provided by the League of California Cities,
including a sample support letter should the Council choose to support SB 1262. The 2014
Legislative Platform will be updated to reflect any Council action, if necessary.
•
P2
C0NSIDERATION OP REQUEST BY LEAGUE OF CA I.IFORNI, CI'1'II;;S TO SUPPORT S131262 PAGE2
APRII,2,2014
Respectfully submitted,
Fabian Villenas
Principal Management Analyst
Attachments: League of California Cities Memo dated February 21, 2014
Sample Support Letter
Medical Marijuana Proposal FAQs
Matrix comparing current law, recent legislation, and proposed SB 1262
SB 1262 Fact Sheet
SB 1262 Bill Text
P3
® 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
LEAGUE Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
OF CALIFORNIA www.cacities.org
CITIES
February 21, 2014
On Thursday,the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities voted to co-sponsor legislation to
improve the regulation of medical cannabis in a manner that protects local control, addresses important public
safety concerns,and enhances health and safety standards.The legislation, Senate Bill 1262, is sponsored by
the California Police Chiefs Association and authored by Senator Lou Correa, a veteran legislator who has a
long history of working with law enforcement organizations as well as local government. SB 1262 will for the
first time provide a clear road map for the responsible implementation of Proposition 215 in California, since
voters approved it in 1996.
Recent events in the medical marijuana arena have compelled both the California Police Chiefs Association
and the League of California Cities to re-evaluate our longstanding respective positions of unconditional
opposition to legislation on this issue. In 2013, our organizations joined forces to defeat no fewer than four
bills in the California Legislature that sought to regulate medical marijuana. We opposed each of the bills
over concerns they would have preempted local control, ignored significant public safety concerns,and failed
to address important health and safety issues. While each measure was defeated,those victories were hard-
won and achieved with increasingly slender margins. One bill, AB 604, failed by only two votes on the
Senate Floor.
We could also not ignore that the political landscape on this issue was shifting. In August 2013,the U.S.
Department of Justice issued a memorandum stating that it would refrain from enforcing the federal
Controlled Substances Act as it applied to medical marijuana, so long as dispensary operators were in
compliance with state and local laws,and were not selling to or facilitating transfers to minors. In the fall of
2013, the Public Policy Institute of California released a poll indicating that 60 percent of likely California
voters supported legalization. These developments indicate a changing attitude toward marijuana on the part
of the federal government and California's voting public.
Our two organizations independently came to realize that although we remain strongly opposed to marijuana
use, it is increasingly likely that in the near future some statewide regulatory structure for medical marijuana
could be enacted. We also realized that without our proactive intervention it could take a form that was
severely damaging to our interests.
This proposal, which has been carefully vetted with city attorneys, police chiefs,and the League's Public
Safety Policy Committee, provides what California has lacked since the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996: a
reasonable public safety and health-based approach to implementing this proposition in a state with great size
and diversity.
In anticipation of the many likely questions on this issue, the League will host an educational webinar for its
members at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2014. Please see the included invitation for further details.
We look forward to working this year to obtain needed improvements in medical marijuana regulation.
Sincerely,
Chris McKenzie Kim Raney
Executive Director President
League of California Cities California Police Chiefs Association
P4
***CITY LETTERHEAD***
DATE
Senator Lou Correa
State Capitol, Room 5061
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 651-4934
RE: SB 1262 (Correa) — Medical Marijuana
Notice of Support
Dear Senator Correa:
The City/Town of CITY supports your medical marijuana legislation, Senate Bill 1262, which will
provide what we have lacked in California since the voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996: a
responsible, health-based regulatory scheme that upholds local control, squarely addresses public
safety concerns, and includes important health and safety requirements.
Previous legislation in this area has sought to pre-empt or undermine local control, only partially
addressed the significant public safety concerns raised by medical marijuana, and failed to address
important health and safety issues that are inevitably triggered by a regulatory process for any
medicine. SB 1262 with its public safety, local control and health-based approach, therefore
represents a welcome change.
As a municipal government, we are on the front lines on this issue along with our local police
department, and have to cope with the effects of the current chaotic regulatory structure for medical
marijuana on a daily basis. We applaud your effort to put a responsible regulatory structure in place
that protects patient access while protecting local control and addressing public safety issues. We
believe that local governments should have a prominent role in any regulatory process for medical
marijuana, and therefore support the approach in SB 1262.
We appreciate the work that went into developing this proposal, including input from city attorneys,
law enforcement, and consultation with jurisdictions that have imposed bans, as well as those that
allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate under the control of local ordinances.
Finally, we appreciate the incorporation of health and safety standards into the bill, and stand ready
to work with county officials who will enforce these standards to ensure smooth implementation
should SB 1262 become law.
Once again, thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
NAME
TITLE
CITY/TOWN OF
Cc: Senate Business and Professions Committee FAX: (916) 324-0917
Your League Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email)
P5
MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROPOSAL
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Why have the Police Chiefs and the League partnered in crafting this proposal?
In 2013,the League and the Police Chiefs joined forces to defeat four separate medical
marijuana bills,that to varying degrees sought to undermine or eliminate local control,
and to strip local law enforcement of certain powers. In the wake of this experience, our
two organizations concluded that any proposal that upheld local control and honestly
addressed the public safety concerns triggered by medical marijuana, would have to be
one that we wrote ourselves.
It seemed a prudent course of action to undertake the task of crafting what we believed to
be a responsible, realistic regulatory structure, in light of recent legislation favoring state
pre-emption, and the political climate in California which is increasingly lenient toward
marijuana as a controlled substance since the approval of Proposition 215 in 1996, and
may now be leaning toward legalization. It came down to a choice: either be pro-active
and craft a regulatory process upholding local control and addressing the public safety
concerns involved in marijuana regulation, or have a different solution imposed on us that
will likely be crafted by the medical marijuana industry—either through legislation or the
initiative process -- that totally fails to address our concerns.
2. What would this proposal do?
It will:
1) Protect local control by preventing an applicant from obtaining a state license unless
the applicant has first secured all necessary local permits from a particular
jurisdiction;
2) Unconditionally uphold local governments' ability to ban dispensaries and all related
facilities;
3) Impose tighter regulations on doctors who issue medical marijuana recommendations,
including new training and record keeping requirements as well as fines, and a strict
regimen for recommendations to minors;
4) Impose uniform health and safety standards as well as quality assurance standards, to
be administered by counties with oversight by the Department of Public Health;
5) Require a series of detailed security measures to prevent diversion and recreational
use at all medical cannabis facilities.
3. Why must we pursue our own legislation to ensure that the concerns of the League
and the Police Chiefs are addressed?
To prevent the establishment of a regulatory scheme that takes away local control and ties
the hands of local law enforcement. Recent attempts at legislation point to this agenda on
the part of those sponsoring the bills. Of the four medical marijuana bills that were
defeated last year, all initially tried to override local control with a state pre-emption
scheme. All were backed by the marijuana industry and involved minimal regulation.
None of them addressed the public safety concerns about promoting recreational use, one
tried to limit local law enforcement's investigatory powers, and none of them did
1
P6
anything to address diversion of the product, cartel activity, or security concerns at
dispensaries. Finally, none of them incorporated any health and safety standards which
are necessary when trying to regulate a drug with psychotropic properties (please see the
attached chart).
4. Is this a pathway to marijuana legalization?
No. The League and the Police Chiefs remain strongly opposed to any legalization
scheme. This proposal should in no way be interpreted as an attempted path to
legalization. If anything, we expect it will present moderates of both parties in the
Legislature with a reasonable alternative to any legalization legislation, and to any
competing medical cannabis bills, which will likely be sponsored by the industry, again
with minimal regulation. Ideally, it will prevent a 2014 legalization measure.
5. If we are opposed to marijuana use, why aren't we taking the position of just
working to defeat all such bills?
We continue to oppose legislation that seeks to pre-empt local control and tie the hands of local
law enforcement. However, with marijuana legalization in Washington State and Colorado,the
Democratic supermajority in the California Legislature, and the softening of opposition to
marijuana on the part of the federal government and the general public,there is a real concern that
if the League and the Chiefs do not actively work to shape a medical-only marijuana policy, we
may have something much worse forced upon us. In fact,this bill will vastly improve on the
current state of affairs, where virtually anyone can obtain a medical marijuana card from a
compliant doctor. We have therefore made the decision to back this proposal. •
6. What could be worse?
Just look at the bills of the past year(see#3 above). They point to attempts to establish
either a scheme of widespread recreational use bringing state pre-emption of local
ordinances, without any real controls to prevent smuggling, cartel activity and increasing
use of marijuana by minors -- or a medical-only scheme that overrides local control,
backs off from regulating doctors' medical marijuana recommendations, and ignores the
need for health and safety standards. This year, there is also the threat of an equally loose
legalization measure on the ballot in November.
7. Won't this proposal violate Proposition 215?
No. In 1996, Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act(CUA), decriminalized the
use of marijuana for medical purposes as it provided for patient access to medical
marijuana and prevented doctors from being penalized for making medical marijuana
recommendations. In 2003, the Legislature's enactment of SB 420, the Medical
Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), clarified some specifics of implementing the CUA,
including issuance of identification cards for qualified patients and allowing patients and
their primary caregivers to collectively or cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana.
However, neither Prop. 215 nor the MMPA made any attempt to establish a broader
regulatory framework, or lay out how it would be implemented in California's
communities. This proposal provides what up to now we have lacked: a thoughtful,
health-based and responsible regulatory approach to implementing Prop. 215, while
respecting local control. Since Prop. 215 was approved by voters in 1996, the lack of a
2
P7
comprehensive implementation framework has led to 18 years of regulatory chaos,
piecemeal legislation, and perpetual litigation—none of which has served patients, law
enforcement, or local governments well. This proposal fills that void by providing a
roadmap for implementing Prop. 215, consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions.
8. What if marijuana is legalized in California in the future?
Neither the League nor the Police Chiefs support marijuana legalization. However, if
legalization should occur in the future, then this proposal could help form the basis for an
improved regulatory structure.
9. What role would the state have under this plan?
State licensing would be the responsibility of the Department of Public Health (DPH).
Licenses could not be issued to any applicant who fails to produce evidence of local
zoning and permitting approval, and payment of any applicable local business taxes.
DPH would also be responsible for development of quality assurance standards (affecting
testing, packaging, potency, purity, and elimination of contaminants not covered by other
applicable laws). Costs would be covered by application and testing fees.
The California Medical Board would also have a more robust role in the regulation of
doctors, including establishing a certification process for doctors who make medical
marijuana recommendations, and crafting more detailed protocols for making them.
10. What entities will enforce this regulatory scheme at the local level?
Local law enforcement would have the same authority as under current law to investigate
and respond to criminal law violations or any other security concerns. Cities will still
retain their police power authority to enact and enforce local ordinances and abate public
nuisances. County health departments would be responsible for enforcing health and
safety standards, with oversight from the California Department of Public Health.
Counties would be authorized to levy fees against dispensary/facility operators to cover
their costs.
3
P8
= .) .' 0 w`
O
O p ca a, m C c U v OO E a a, Y O w 03 r Y ` —e 7 N C O
v c E o N C 0 N C N
R °. o Q C 0 0a O a cc ° c w c t
ti
C. O. a 1 N a, ` w C Y C u •O . G O N o L` 4- ' no c , v O 2 c r O. (o -o m OO u a w • o c ¢ a = ;O a Cu.o > N u C 00C 'v O > ` ' E r a1 Y a u Cr,03
.3 2 11 /1 C Q n 0 u CO O O y •m t O C CC O u > CO C v a, a,R o V O > -0 to to c E y O -0c o v O a, E ,- t N E a u
ci - n LI 7 u Y C au u Y U C .� a N a X -p N p a O O a
•= C N a) L O C O C co .+ a) C = 1r `, , a) a
a) o Y
c w a, a ° E c v c 7 a) > v C m t p >
a o o E ' u a
u u 7 � p v m L > >
Q o a E u o .0 . v c YE
.+ .4 c a v ' a '.- c to C ' O m m n a,-c a a) o a a a a) a) V- a, 0
M O C v o Y v E m L N
N } u 7 N N N 4- o C Y a K 'p . U N
ci n in
0 a o
m
0.0 c m > E N 03 tI' N Si Y 4' Y L '44. -C
- m ° m O ,� OO E c u u o >• 0
m
O .r a, V OU = m n c h Q d H c 'O C '= H N O = U
7 CO "O m — C 03 v 0 v ._ o o ra ip 0 3 • O C r Q
of N ¢ i o n -o Y -o u to t m 1+ 2 v (o o V,
CO 'eO a`, p o 'Co m m •t m t° c m m -0 co L a) o 0 E >. ra
• a) > N >• 0) > m Y U C u C_ 'Y 00 c C d Y a, C Ofl 0.`.� J p C •O E
co+ O Y O r. N (a N Y O 1p YO a, O O - O u al O p O Y
se-d •Y u N u a1 a, J u C N > "p -p - Y -p
a, OY a a, a, C _0 a, a, C C C CO C c 0
L a, Y a In a CO a�- U 0 'O U1 al D 7 E 0 c 0=
Y O a! 022 v N Y N ,, �/ E a .- G• ° O a) C N ra 73
O u u tu
N !-' I bd VI O C 3 O (o v 9 � �. O �OV (a (a N Y N >
y .O C la 3 c O ea N C co N O -O N >' C O a r- 132 N co N H C N U■•(0 41 — O N N Y O ON C m (� N a YO O C Nom= O 7 a c 1. a
0. c • c E .L. N n w .4,7; a u` c c E u m Y) Y 3 o p- m e
E of O p ¢ r O > .x p `, c (a O O x 0 (a v, c m O
p Z u 3 Z 'o v z u (D u w u -o a as a p E ;
•U A a, C O a,
N ` L c a
ca = c Z ' a o•c c L - c u f0 .. °' . c c 0> `.) 0 - co Y E >N •• c o 7 co w 0 u a a, 2 m C o O ca a Y u p a)
� m a) Vo
Q
Eea > E ` m r ` C > w w = 0 .41 a, Co 3 o ° m c u
I- c cv > N o c
•^ K -a 3 a, co a ? m o u L N O ' . O• a.
L Y 7 ¢ n a ` a E O O O O a
c ` N '^ L > _ a ( w c E C n
o Q m= U
O v
0 C O a
>, w
❑N to `a 0 o c o c E c u u
> E 'N° � N ^ p c n 7 U CO co O u H (o m y
u ° 0 o> " °1 > v E u o p v m N > m C o ui O 'p O c ^4-0
: U a Li cp .- n m O m co� N ' y o p
E c N m a o ,n ' c c E L N 1-1 00 W Y Y u N a Y C C O Y CO
O co u N N Y Y
L _ a O C c 0 0 `- w t I), a C a) • O . 0 0
O vi o L 'm E u N'> a H '- Om tO O c
» O o v ._ v 5 la u> u a U o2 v a ; a = o _ m a
a c
(a
3 N C c
CD N
W O
CO
14 aN o m
.. ) o o.o c >
c 7 ❑ >• V m 0 CLVI
x y 7 w e o w c° Y C p
U o n o (n m c r (o .0 p
m u " u v U N
N
u a > a v OD = D u E
I-
P9
L N
a > N;
Y U CO E
Y C ro CV a -
C. , U o c v = v to c y o C o
t0 L N E L a 2 u t0 -0 00 U c 73
c = 3 c l� a° o 'n v 201 c v w E Y c
0
7 u 0) 00 N O O> Y > > > O u CO ., o C L '-C ci•1R0 7 N m C . °0.1 CL vt 4- 1 Y r m E N c o B
CL ° Q w c .. O > o O to a o E u t a,
2 n -o — o ' YL0 • ncoo ' oo E o - Q - ct
ea O 'in a u nom
O p 0
U 453 p O o to
9 0. 0 LL J 7 VI y N ° O' N f0 > a j n a
c=v F . a -' = a v 2 v v Q c t E
N O' N n p i O e0 O' Y C c L N U t0 0 L L tO N L O N p cu N o 2 O Y > L O H
N CC to U a a Y 2 et N in u 0
L to
CU 'n
to E a O
O Yto L Cu
O L 'c
c Y > 0
O U too o c U L
•p y C U > 0 2 U
CO 00 00 y Y c H d
co 3-, .155, N 00 C N O N
N 14d
N > N 0 V W >
fyl CO X in
x L m p 0 c
N N N C u N •' C f0
o o c c o •- = c v
UN C 0 0 «' o CO 3 0 Y
O z z O C
N c Y c N d u w Y NU Q H ..' em
K 0 — ` c co u
O CO o tU
a ¢ .:
CI 0. = to o
0 Z 0 co c to
° E S °-
c .` w
0
0 2' m c E 0
� y v a C p a a ,, E
CD
D m 7 '°
O
° 0 Z, in O. c aa u l
n C
0 h E m U N > o
N _ to o o
c >3 `c o v c ?
3 N L 0 N
U N v = r o
u t o
to -
'x 0 E co '= '= — L p a C x x a E
rc to O a C m U u
co o : • c v Uv >-' E '7
7 O tj Y
O 0 u o -c co c• co pap
U Z ry L E Z Z v .; cu an c v
o m c a E m Y c
N o u c °1 Z' E r r ° CO t0 CO
NN y •-• 55-• L 'p L
4-I -° E -o L 7 }. O °
= 7 0 o a c co
m a z > c a U
c
f0
c m c
c u
u to O'
U > O - 00 •
00 �' C p c ,n
C w CO v W L • U N
c In to N Z +`• c o w
u t>b v T v m .p+ H tc0 c 0 ea J O
Cli
: L m C m C to on 2 ° U E
S. N 7 CO v 01 1- m 2 p
N Q 2 to CJ vl 2 cc w U F w
P10
Senate Bill 1262 (Correa)
Medical Marijuana Regulation
ISSUE public safety concerns triggered by such a
regulatory scheme.
Since the approval by voters in 1996 of the EXISTING LAW
Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215),
state law has allowed Californians access to Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act
marijuana for medical purposes, and (CUA), decriminalizes the use of marijuana for
prohibited punitive action against physicians medical purposes, provides for patient access
for making medical marijuana to medical marijuana, and prevents doctors
recommendations. SB 420 (2003), allowed from being penalized for making medical
patients and primary caregivers to cultivate marijuana recommendations. SB 420(2003),
marijuana for personal use and established in the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA),
the Department of Public Health a medical clarifies some implementation aspects of the
marijuana card program for patients to use on CUA, including issuance of identification cards
a voluntary basis. for qualified patients, and allowed patients
and their primary caregivers to collectively or
In the intervening 11 years, although there iiii cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana,
have been legislative attempts, no broader, : ' granting them immunity from nuisance
feasible regulatory structure has been abatement actions for this activity. More
established, and the implementation of the f ';recently, California law has decriminalized
Compassionate Use Act has been marked b ice, pr `-;marijuana possession so long as the amount
conflicting authorities, regulatory chaos, ,•gm ;,. ` ':does not indicate possession for sale.
intermittent federal enforcement action, and a
series of lawsuits which have tested the limits l , THIS BILL
of the Act, and focused on the extent of the
authority of local government.
SB 1262 will:
Most attempts at medical marijuana legislation
in California have been geared toward state 1) Protect local control by precluding an
pre-emption, and unsympathetic to the operator from obtaining a state license
authority of local government. None have unless the operator has first secured all
been health-based, despite the medical necessary local permits from a particular
rationale that spawned Prop. 215. None have
jurisdiction;
sought to impose any health and safety 2) Uphold local governments' ability to ban
standards, despite the fact that the regulatory
dispensaries and all related facilities;
structure they tried to establish would have 3) Impose tighter regulations on doctors
exercised oversight over what is known to be a who issue medical marijuana
psychotropic substance.And finally, no
recommendations, including new training
and record keeping requirements as well
legislation has squarely addressed the many
P11
as fines, and a strict regimen for
recommendations to minors;
4) Impose uniform quality assurance FOR MORE INFORMATION
standards as well as health and safety
standards to be administered by Contact: Amy Jenkins
counties with oversight by the Office of Senator Lou Correa
Department of Public Health; (916)651-4034
5) Require a series of detailed security amy.jenkins(c�sen.ca.gov
measures to prevent diversion and John Lovell
recreational use at all medical cannabis California Police Chiefs Association
facilities. (916) 261-7188
jlovell@johnlovell.com
RECENT LEGISLATION Tim Cromartie
League of California Cities
AB 473 (Ammiano, 2013) sought to establish a tcro ar ie ca
tcromartie(c�cacities.orq
mandatory statewide commercial registration
scheme for marijuana dispensaries.
SB 439 (Steinberg, 2013) sought to exempt
marijuana collectives and cooperatives from
various forms of criminal prosecution under
the California Health & Safety Code, as well as
from local nuisance abatement actions under ,
Health & Safety Code Section 11570.
it..
AB 604 (Ammiano, 2013) sought to establish._
for-profit sales of marijuana by commercial
operators, and significantly restrict municipa i
zoning powers and local law enforcement ! ,
authority.
SUPPORT
• California Police Chiefs Association
(Sponsor)
• League of California Cities (Co-sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None
STATUS
• Introduced February 21, 2014
Bill Text - SB-1262 Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultiv... Page 1 of 5
P12
dfradoritte„,
LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
SB-1262 Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries,and cultivation sites. (2013-2014)
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—2013-2014 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL No. 1262
Introduced by Senator Correa
February 21, 2014
An act to add Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) to Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and
Professions Code, and to add Article 7 (commencing with Section 111657) to Chapter 6 of Part 5 of
Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to medical marijuana.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1262, as introduced, Correa. Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultivation sites.
(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of
Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the
issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical
purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical
use.
This bill would require the State Department of Public Health to license dispensing facilities and cultivation sites
that provide, process, and grow marijuana for medical use, as specified, and would make these licenses subject
to the restrictions of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or proposes to operate. The bill would
require the department to establish standards for quality assurance testing of medical marijuana and would
prohibit the use of nonorganic pesticides in any marijuana cultivation site. The bill would require licensed
dispensing facilities and licensed cultivation sites to implement sufficient security measures to both deter and
prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana and theft of marijuana at those facilities,
including establishing limited access areas accessible only to authorized facility personnel, and would require
these facilities to notify appropriate law enforcement authorities within 24 hours after discovering specified
breaches in security. The bill would make enforcement of these provisions the responsibility of the county
health departments, with oversight by the department. Violation of these provisions would be punishable by a
civil fine of up to $35,000 for each individual violation. By expanding the duties of local health officers, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, provides for licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by
the Medical Board of California.
This bill would establish requirements for a physician and surgeon to recommend medical marijuana, including
prescribed procedural and recordkeeping requirements, and would require a recommendation for medical
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml 3/25/2014
Bill Text - SB-1262 Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultiv... Page 2 of 5
P13
marijuana for a minor to include a specific justification for the recommendation and why the benefit of use is
more important than the possible neurological damage that could be caused by the minor using marijuana and
to be approved by a board certified pediatrician. The bill would require a physician and surgeon that
recommends medical marijuana to report to the board the number of recommendations issued, with supporting
documentation on patient medical need.
This bill would require the board to audit a physician and surgeon who recommends medical marijuana more
than 100 times in a year to ensure compliance with existing law and would require the board to establish a
certification process for physicians who wish to issue medical marijuana recommendations, including a
mandatory training in identifying signs of addiction and ongoing substance abuse.
Violation of these provisions would be punishable by a civil fine not to exceed $5,000.
(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain
costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)The California Constitution grants cities and counties the authority to make and enforce, within their
borders, "all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws."
This inherent local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of public health, safety, and
welfare, the appropriate uses of land within the local jurisdiction's borders. The police power, therefore, allows
each city and county to determine whether or not a medical marijuana dispensary or other facility that makes
medical marijuana available may operate within its borders. This authority has been upheld by City of Riverside
v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 and County of Los Angeles v. Hill
(2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 861.
(b) If, pursuant to this authority, a city or county determines that a dispensary or other facility that makes
medical marijuana available may operate within its borders, then there is a need for the state to license these
dispensaries and other facilities for the purpose of adopting and enforcing protocols for training and certification
of physicians who recommend the use of medical marijuana and for agricultural cultivation practices. This
licensing requirement is not intended in any way nor shall it be construed to preempt local ordinances regarding
the sale and use of medical marijuana, including, but not limited to, security, signage, lighting, and inspections.
(c) Given that the current system of all-cash transactions within the medical marijuana industry is
unsustainable in the long term, there is a need to provide a monetary structure, as an alternative to the federal
banking system, for the operation, regulation, and taxation of medical marijuana dispensaries.
(d)All of the following elements are necessary to uphold important state goals:
(1) Strict provisions to prevent the potential diversion of marijuana for recreational use.
(2) Audits to accurately track the volume of both product movement and sales.
(3) An effective means of restricting access to medical marijuana by minors, given the medical studies
documenting marijuana's harmful and permanent effects on the brain development of youth.
(4)Stricter provisions relating to physicians and their recommendation procedures in order to address
widespread problems of questionable medical marijuana recommendations by physicians without a bona-fide
doctor-patient relationship with the person to whom they are issuing the recommendation.
(e) Nothing in this act shall be construed to promote or facilitate the nonmedical, recreational possession, sale,
or use of marijuana.
SEC. 2.Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) is added to Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and
Professions Code, to read:
Article 25.Recommending Medical Marijuana
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml 3/25/2014
Bill Text - SB-1262 Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultiv... Page 3 of 5
P14
2525. (a) Prior to recommending marijuana to a patient pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section
11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, a physician and surgeon shall meet all of
the following requirements:
(1) Have a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, with medical marijuana recommendations to be made by a
patient's primary care physician or by a physician and surgeon to whom the patient is referred by their primary
care physician.
(2) Conduct an in-person examination to establish the patient's need for medical marijuana.
(3) Consult with the patient as necessary and periodically review the treatment's efficacy.
(b) A physician and surgeon that recommends medical marijuana shall do all of the following:
(1)Address, in the recommendation, the quantity of use and method of delivery, including a discussion of side
effects. If the recommended method of delivery is smoking, the recommendation shall state the reasons for
selecting this method of delivery in the context of health issues created by smoking.
(2)Address, in the recommendation, what kind of marijuana to obtain, including high tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) levels, low THC levels, high cannabidiol (CBD) levels, low CBD levels, and explain the reason for
recommending the particular strain. Under no circumstances shall a physician and surgeon recommend butane
hash oil.
(3) Maintain a system of recordkeeping that supports the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana
for individual patients.
(c) A recommendation for medical marijuana provided to a minor shall include a specific justification for the
recommendation and why the benefit of use is more important than the possible neurological damage that could
be caused by the minor using marijuana. A recommendation for a minor shall be approved by a board certified
pediatrician. A recommendation for a minor shall be for high CBD marijuana and all recommendations for
minors must be for nonsmoking delivery.
2525.1. (a) A physician and surgeon who recommends medical marijuana shall report to the California Medical
Board the number of recommendations issued, with supporting documentation on patient medical need. The
board shall forward these reports to the State Department of Public Health.
(b)A physician and surgeon who makes more than 100 recommendations in a calendar year shall be audited by
the California Medical Board to determine compliance with Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of
Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.
2525.2.The California Medical Board shall establish a certification process for physicians who wish to issue
medical marijuana recommendations, including a mandatory training in identifying signs of addiction and
ongoing substance abuse.
2525.3. In addition to all other remedies available pursuant to this chapter, violation of any provision of this
article shall be punishable by a civil fine of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000).
SEC. 3. Article 7 (commencing with Section 111657) is added to Chapter 6 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the
Health and Safety Code, to read:
Article 7.Medical Marijuana
• 111657. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply: •
(a) "Department"means the State Department of Public Health.
(b)"Licensed cultivation site"means a facility that grows or grows and processes marijuana for medical use and
that is licensed pursuant to Section 111657.1.
(c)"Licensed dispensing facility"means a dispensary, mobile dispensary, marijuana processing facility, or other
facility that provides marijuana for medical use that is licensed pursuant to Section 111657.1.
111657.1. (a) Except as provided in Section 11362.5 of, and Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of
Chapter 6 of Division 10 of, the Health and Safety Code, a person shall not sell or provide marijuana other than
at a licensed dispensing facility.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml 3/25/2014
Bill Text - SB-1262 Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultiv... Page 4 of 5
P15
(b) Except as provided in Section 11362.5 of, and Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6
of Division 10 of, the Health and Safety Code, a person shall not grow or process marijuana other than at a
licensed cultivation site.
(c)The department shall require, prior to issuing a license to a dispensing facility or a cultivation site, all of the
following:
(1)The name of the owner or owners of the proposed facility. •
(2)The address and telephone number of the proposed facility.
(3) A description of the scope of business of the proposed facility.
(4) A certified copy of the local jurisdiction's approval to operate within its borders.
(5) A completed application, as required by the department.
(6) Payment of a fee, in an amount to be determined by the department not to exceed the amount necessary,
but that is sufficient to cover, the actual costs of the administration of this article.
(7) Any other information as required by the department.
111657.2.The department shall, after consulting with outside entities as needed, establish standards for quality
assurance testing of medical marijuana, to ensure protection against microbiological contaminants. Nonorganic
pesticides shall not be used in any marijuana cultivation site, irrespective of size or location.
111657.3. (a)A licensed dispensing facility shall not acquire, possess, cultivate, deliver, transfer, transport, or
dispense marijuana for any purpose other than those authorized by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section
11362.7)of Chapter 6 of Division 10.
(b) A licensed dispensing facility shall not acquire marijuana plants or products except through the cultivation of
marijuana by that facility, if the facility is a licensed cultivation site, or another licensed cultivation site.
111657.4. (a) A facility licensed pursuant to this article shall implement sufficient security measures to both
deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana and theft of marijuana at those
facilities. These security measures shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1)Allow only registered qualifying patients, personal caregivers, and facility agents access to the facility.
(2) Prevent individuals from remaining on the premises of the facility if they are not engaging in activity
expressly related to the operations of the facility.
(3) Establish limited access areas accessible only to authorized facility personnel.
(4) Store all finished marijuana in a secure, locked safe or vault and in a manner as to prevent diversion, theft,
and loss.
(b)A facility licensed pursuant to this article shall notify appropriate law enforcement authorities within 24
hours after discovering any of the following:
(1) Discrepancies identified during inventory.
(2) Diversion, theft, loss, or any criminal activity involving the facility or a facility agent.
(3)The loss or unauthorized alteration of records related to marijuana, registered qualifying patients, personal
caregivers, or facility agents.
(4)Any other breach of security.
(c) A licensed cultivation site shall weigh, inventory, and account for on video, all medical marijuana to be
transported prior to its leaving its origination location. Within eight hours after arrival at the destination, the
licensed dispensing facility shall re-weigh, re-inventory, and account for on video, all transported marijuana.
111657.5. (a) Enforcement of this article shall be the responsibility of the county health departments, with
oversight by the department.
http://leginfo.legisl ature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml 3/25/2014
Bill Text - SB-1262 Medical marijuana: regulation of physicians, dispensaries, and cultiv... Page 5 of 5
P16
(b) An enforcement officer may enter a facility licensed pursuant to this article during the facility's hours of
operation and other reasonable times to do either of the following:
(1) Conduct inspections, issue citations, and secure samples, photographs, or other evidence from the facility,
or a facility suspected of being a dispensing facility or cultivation site.
(2) Secure as evidence documents, or copies of documents, including inventories required pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 111657.4, or any record, file, paper, process, invoice, video, or receipt for the
purpose of determining compliance with this chapter.
(c) A written report shall be made and a copy shall be supplied or mailed to the owner of the facility at the
completion of an inspection or investigation.
(d) Upon request by the department, local governments shall provide the department with reports on the
number and types of facilities operating within their jurisdiction.
111657.6. In addition to the provisions of this article, a license granted pursuant to this article shall be subject to
the restrictions of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or proposes to operate. Even if a license
has been granted pursuant to this article, a facility shall not operate in a local jurisdiction that prohibits the
establishment of that type of business.
111657.7.Violation of this provision shall be punishable by a civil fine of up to thirty-five thousand dollars
($35,000) for each individual violation.
SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500)of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
•
http://leginfo.Iegisl ature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml 3/25/2014
P17
STAFF REPORT a
tt
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Lj
RANCHO
Date: April 2, 2014 CUCAMONGA
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
John R. Gillison, City Manager
From: Donna Finch, Management Analyst
Subject: Consideration to Update the 2014 Legislative Platform and Add an Item
Advocating for Increased Massage Parlor Regulations
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council update the 2014 Legislative Platform to include an item
advocating for increased regulations for the massage industry.
BACKGROUND
The Legislative Platform serves as a guide for legislative positions and objectives that shape the
actions of both City Council and staff. It is the foundation of a focused advocacy strategy with the
primary objective of adopting official City positions on legislative issues that will have an impact on
the City or local governments in general. The 2014 Legislative Platform was adopted by the City
Council at their December 4, 2013 meeting and directs the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Legislative
Program through key strategic actions that communicate the City's position on legislative issues that
are anticipated to continue or develop in 2014.
A new issue that has emerged over the past several months and is not identified in the Legislative
Platform is the topic of massage parlor regulation. This issue is based around SB 731, which was
enacted by the State Legislature in 2008 and provides for a voluntary certification process for
massage professionals by the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC). CAMTC is a nonprofit
organization (not a state agency) comprised of 20 board members who are mostly individuals that
earn their living in the massage community. The bill prevents jurisdictions from regulating certified
massage therapists and businesses that employ certified massage therapists unless the jurisdiction
is applying the same regulations to other professional services in a uniform manner. Since the
enactment of SB 731, cities have seen a tremendous increase in the number of massage parlors,
many of which are illicit establishments. In Rancho Cucamonga, the number of massage
establishments has increased from four (4) in 2009 to 37 in 2014. Since there is no way for
jurisdictions to uniformly regulate professional services, businesses claiming to only use certified
massage therapists go unregulated.
SB 731 is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2015 and the League of California Cities is working
with jurisdictions to ensure that if the provisions of SB 731 are extended, cities will regain some of
the tools they lost with the passage of the bill. Specifically, cities are advocating for a state agency to
oversee the certification and licensing of massage professionals instead of a nonprofit, and for local
jurisdictions to have the ability to regulate massage businesses if the owner is not certified or
registered. Additionally, cities would like the ability to determine where massage establishments can
and cannot locate. Currently, they are permitted in all zones except for residential because other
professional services are allowed in these zones.
P18
CONSIDERATION TO UPDATE THE 2014 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND ADD AN ITEM ADVOCATING PAGE 2
FOR INCRI.'.ASED MASSAGE PARLOR REGULATIONS
APRIL.2,2014
Staff has been actively monitoring the discussions regarding additional regulations for massage
establishments and is requesting that this item be added to our 2014 Legislative Platform so the City
can take an official position on any legislation pertaining to this issue.
An updated copy of the 2014 Legislative Platform with the proposed addition is attached for your
consideration. The additional item is identified in red as "Support legislation that provides increased
local control for cities to properly regulate the massage industry."
Respectfully Submitted,
floM Zialt.
Donna Finch
Management Analyst I
Attachment: 2014 Legislative Platform
P19
RANCHO
It City'111/Cl
2014 Legislative Platform
LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM PURPOSE STATEMENT
The 2014 Legislative Platform provides a framework for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Legislative
Program. Adopted annually, the City's Legislative Platform is the foundation of a focused advocacy
strategy and serves as a reference guide for legislative positions and objectives that provide direction for
the City Council and staff throughout the year.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
The primary objective of the Legislative Platform is for the City Council to adopt official City positions on
clearly stated legislative issues at the start of the legislative session. By doing this,the legislative approval
process is streamlined by receiving clear direction at the beginning of the legislative session from the City
Council on pertinent legislative issues.
The Legislative Platform is developed and maintained using the goals and objectives of the City Council, a
review of legislative priorities from the League of California Cities, League's Inland Empire Division, input
from City Council and Staff, research of current law and pending legislation, as well as discussions with
local legislative staff and the City's legislative advocates.
Federal and state legislative proposals and policies consistent with the Legislative Platform may be
supported by the City. Those policies or proposals inconsistent with this agenda may be opposed by the
City. For proposed legislation, either consistent with the City's Legislative Platform or consistent with
legislative positions the City has taken in the past, City staff shall be authorized to prepare position letters
for the Mayor's signature. Items not addressed in the City's Legislative Platform may require further
Council direction.
Legislative priorities may only address issues directly relevant to or impacting the provision of municipal
services. Generally,the City will not address matters that are not pertinent to the City's local government
services such as social or international issues. City departments are encouraged to monitor and be
knowledgeable of any legislative issues related to their discipline. Any requests for the City to take a
position on a legislative matter must be directed to the City Manager's Office. City departments may not
take positions on legislative issues without City Manager's Office review and approval.
10500 Civic Center Dr.•P.O.Box 807•Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729•'I'cl 909 477-2700•Fax 909 477-2849•ww v.ci.tancho-cucamonga.ca.us
P20
°L 2014 Legislative Platform
Page 2
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
PROGRAM GOALS AND STRATEGIES/ACTIONS
The Legislative Program Goals and Strategies/Actions are outlined below.
Program Goals:
• Advocate the City's legislative interests at the Federal,State and County levels.
• Inform and provide information to our Legislators,City Council,and Staff on the legislative process
and key issues and legislation that could have a potential impact on the City.
• Serve as an active participant with other local governments, the League of California Cities,
regional agencies such as SANBAG, SCAG, SCAQMD, OmniTrans, and local professional
organizations on legislative/regulatory issues that are important to the City and our Region.
• Seek grant and funding assistance for City projects, services, and programs to enhance services
for our community.
Strategies/Actions:
I. Communicate legislative positions on proposed Federal, State, and County legislation, measures,
initiatives, and governmental regulations.
A. Work with city departments and our legislative advocates to develop positions on proposed
Federal and State legislative measures.
B. Staff will review the positions and analysis done by the League of California Cities, our legislative
advocates' feedback, and other local government/professional associations in formulating our
positions.
C. The City will take positions only on proposals that clearly impact our City or are a threat to local
control.
D. Actively track key bills through the legislative process, utilizing the City's advocacy services,
various Legislative websites, and government/professional associations.
E. Communicate the City's position to our Federal, State, and County Legislators, bill author(s),
committees, and Legislature,through correspondence, testimony, and in-person meetings.
F. Work cooperatively with other Cities, associations, and the League of California Cities on
advocating our legislative positions.
G. As necessary, participate in the drafting and amending of proposed Federal and State measures
that have the potential to significantly impact the City.
H. Meet with Legislators and their representatives, as well as other Federal, State and County
government officials on a regular basis,to discuss local government issues, proposed legislation,
requests for funding assistance, and City programs and services.
II. Seek Federal, State, and County funding through earmarks, grants, and other discretionary funding
for City projects, services, and programs.
A. Annually identify City projects for potential submittal for Federal earmark consideration. Develop
a submittal packet for Legislators that provides information and need for the projects.
B. Provide information to City departments on potential grant funding opportunities and recognition
programs.
C. Advocate and request letters of support for City projects and grant applications or other resources
that are being considered for Federal, State, and County funding.
P21
irfin I f 2014 Legislative Platform
L11 Page 3
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
III. Work closely with the League of California Cities, our legislative advocates, and other cities and
organizations in advocating for City's Federal, State, and County legislative interests.
A. Actively participate in the League of California Cities' Inland Empire Division activities.
B. Participate in League of California Cities, including active involvement in League Policy
Committees and other organization briefings and activities in order to stay updated on trends,
upcoming initiatives, and pending legislation.
C. Support the League of California Cities Multi-Year Strategic Initiatives and Advocacy Strategies.
D. Interact with other cities on issues of mutual concern or impact.
E. Interact with regional groups that are involved with legislative programs (e.g., Chamber of
Commerce, SANBAG, CalTrans, CVWD, SCAG, SCAQMD, etc.)
F. Review requests from other governmental and regional organizations to consider supporting their
legislative positions and/or funding requests.
IV. Share information with the City Council, City staff, and the community on legislative issues.
A. Work closely with department heads and staff to determine their legislative priorities and funding
needs for the upcoming legislative session.
B. Provide updates on legislative issues to the Council and departments throughout the year.
C. Educate and involve the community in the City's advocacy efforts on legislative issues and
State/Federal funding requests.
P22
�
i L at] 2014 Legislative Platform
' � _ Page 4
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
2014 LEGISLATIVE PLATOFRM
The City of Rancho Cucamonga strongly promotes local control and home rule for cities and will
support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional amendments based on whether they
advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues, land use, community
development and other municipal activities.
STATE PRIORITIES
ADMINISTRATIVE AND EMPLOYMENT RELATED
• Support efforts to enact workers' compensation reforms that lower employers' costs while still
protecting workers.
• Oppose legislation or regulations that would unreasonably increase employer medical costs for
workers'compensation.
• Oppose legislation which would increase employer liability for unemployment compensation, or
which would reduce local discretion to manage this risk.
• Support reasonable limitations on tort liability, including tort immunities for public entities for
unauthorized use of public property.
• Support limitations on the joint and separate liability of governmental agencies to a liability equal
to their percentage of their wrongdoing.
• Oppose legislative efforts to impose binding arbitration that would remove local government
authority on matters of local interest. Specifically, support all legislative and legal efforts to
overturn any legislation that implements binding arbitration on local government.
• Oppose legislation that increases the statute of limitations for workers' compensation benefit
claims.
• Oppose legislation that limits the ability of non-profit organizations that represent public agencies
from participating in state and local ballot initiatives.
• Oppose legislation that limits local authority to contract for various services.
COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Support funding for a comprehensive approach to expanding and enhancing arts programs in the
community.
• Support legislation that provides incentives or grant opportunities for community improvements.
• Support legislation that provides funding for transportation services,especially for senior citizens.
• Support legislation that provides funding and resources for local governments to implement
P23
•�
'°;f< 2014 Legislative Platform
„-44 Page 5
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Healthy Cities programs and policies aimed at reducing obesity, childhood obesity, high rates of
diabetes, heart disease, and other health conditions.
• Support legislative efforts to increase opportunities for community-wide citizen volunteer
programs.
• Support funding for a coordinated and comprehensive approach to address the needs of youth in
the community.
ENVIRONMENT
• Oppose legislation that imposes undue hardship on local agencies to implement environmental
regulations.
• Support legislation that provides resources and funding to local governments for the
implementation of SB 375.
• Support streamlined environmental processing for federal regulatory permits issued by Caltrans
and various other state and federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure
developments.
• Support legislation to provide changes to AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management
Act, which will streamline its provisions and assist in compliance, placing more emphasis on
implementation of waste diversion programs and less on strict mathematical accounting.
• Support financial incentives for water reuse and legislation that encourages the treatment of
municipal wastewater for non-potable reuse and promote the development of reasonable
regulations to encourage and maximize the responsible use of reclaimed water as an alternative
to California's fresh water supply.
• Oppose air quality legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities.
• Support efforts to streamline and improve the CEQA process.
• Support legislation that allows cities and other local agencies to compete for Proposition 39
funding.
• Support efforts to provide adequate funding to assist local government in water conservation,
ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs.
LAND USE. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• Support legislation that provides increased local control for cities to properly regulate the
massage industry.
• Oppose legislation that imposes a mandatory cap on local parking standards in transit intensive
areas.
• Support legislation that strengthens the concept of local control/local home rule for local decision
P24
L$ .�J 2014 Legislative Platform
r
a Page6
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
making on land use and zoning matters.
• Support legislation that preserves municipal authority over the public right-of-way including fair
and reasonable compensation for use of the right-of-way.
• Support a streamlined right-of-way acquisition process.
• Support legislation that expands community and economic development tools and funding
options for infrastructure and affordable housing.
• Oppose efforts by any regulatory commission from promulgating rules and regulations that
infringe on local land use decisions and management of the public right-of-way.
• Oppose additional affordable housing production mandates without necessary funding to support
said housing mandate.
• Support legislation that enhances the City's ability to promote economic development and job
creation.
• Support efforts that increase the City's ability to reasonably oversee the location of community
care facilities.
• Support legislation that provides funding for the identification, acquisition, maintenance and
restoration of historic sites and structures.
• Oppose legislation that requires additional development review requirements for large
"superstore" retailers.
PUBLIC SAFETY
• Support efforts to maintain permanent,sufficient Public Safety Realignment funding and establish
an equitable county allocation formula in order for local governments to adequately manage the
shifting of inmates from state prisons to local jails.
• Support efforts to increase frontline public safety funding for cities to address increases in crime
as a result of Public Safety Realignment and the early release of prisoners.
• Support legislative "fixes" to AB 109, the 2011 Corrections Realignment, in order to minimize its
impacts on public safety.
• Support legislation that provides funding support for disaster preparedness, earthquake
preparedness, Homeland Security, hazardous material response, State COPS program, booking
fee reimbursement and other local law enforcement activities.
• Support efforts that strengthen local law enforcement's ability to prevent and fight crime.
• Support legislation that minimizes alcohol-related criminal behavior and underage drinking.
• Oppose legislation that alters distribution of revenues from traffic and parking violations, resulting
P25
w I 2014 Legislative Platform
Page 7
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
in lower revenue for local governments.
• Oppose legislation that would impede local law enforcement from addressing crime problems and
recovering costs resulting from a crime committed by the guilty party.
• Support legislation that limits the placement of sex offender and parolee homes within the City
limits.
• Support statewide efforts to coordinate disaster preparedness programs in local jurisdictions and
support guidelines to identify the strengths and weaknesses of local preparedness efforts.
• Support and promote programs that enhance the benefits of mutual aid agreements between
local governments.
• Support increased authority and resources devoted to cities for abatement of graffiti and other
acts of public vandalism.
• Support additional funding in order for local agencies to recoup the costs associated with fire
safety in the community.
• Support legislation which increases home rule in adopting Fire and Life Safety Codes.
• Oppose legislation that restricts local authority jurisdiction over the enforcement of fire and life
safety regulations.
• Support efforts which strengthen local fire and life safety services.
• Support legislation that provides resources and funding opportunities related to wildfire
prevention and wildfire response.
• Support regional efforts to improve interoperability of voice and data communications
equipment.
• Support legislation that provides local law enforcement agencies authority to recover any costs
associated with complying with any federal, state or court-ordered licensing, registration and
testing requirements.
• Support efforts to promote and fund programs to combat pet overpopulation, increase pet
adoptions and spay/neuter programs and educate citizens on the dangers and nuisance of
roaming, uncontrolled animals and other animal control issues that risk public health and safety
and quality of life.
• Support legislation and budget actions to fund immediate and critical court services and provide
funding consistent with court workloads.
REVENUE AND TAXATION
• Oppose any legislation that would make local agencies more dependent on the State for financial
P26
12,44',:;t1 2014 Legislative Platform
a Page 8
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
stability and policy direction.
• Oppose legislation that would impose State mandated costs for which there is no guarantee of
local reimbursement or offsetting benefits.
• Support efforts to protect local government revenue sources and the provisions of Proposition
1A. Support legislation/initiatives that ensure that all local funding sources remain a dedicated
revenue source for local governments.
• Oppose any legislation that would pre-empt or reduce local discretion over locally-imposed taxes.
• Support full cost reimbursement to the City for all federal, state and county-mandated programs.
• Oppose legislative and administrative efforts by online travel companies to circumvent remittance
of transient occupancy taxes to local governments from hotel reservations purchased using the
internet.
• Oppose legislation that removes the municipal bond tax exemption.
TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS
• Support efforts to reverse the decline of Ontario International Airport, including gaining regional
control of the Airport.
• Oppose efforts to redirect,eliminate,or reduce amount of Highway User Tax Account(HUTA)that
cities receive for street maintenance and improvements.
• Support legislation or policy that provides funding to local governments for local transportation,
water,sewer and storm system projects.
• Support legislation that provides funding and resources for alternative fuel vehicles for
replacement of municipal fleet equipment.
• Support efforts to provide adequate charging station infrastructure for emerging electric vehicle
technology.
• Support legislation that provides funding and resources for retrofitting municipal buildings to
increase energy efficiency.
• Support efforts for continuing and increasing funding sources for street maintenance projects and
transportation improvements.
• Support legislation that would lift the minimum requirement of payment of prevailing wages on
municipal Public Works projects.
• Oppose any legislation that diminishes or does not assure local franchise fees for all utilities' use
of City right-of-way.
• Support legislation that improves the availability of renewable energy and increases energy
2 P27
x 2014 Legislative Platform
� . J
RANCHO Page 9
CUCAMONGA
efficiency programs.
• Oppose legislation that seeks to lessen the City's ability to enforce contractual language agreed
to and contained within existing franchise documents.
• Support legislation that provides clarification and improvements to Infrastructure Financing
District (IFD) Law that will enable local agencies to use this tool for a variety of infrastructure
financing needs
• Oppose legislation that places the burden and liability of replacing all sidewalks solely on cities.
• Support efforts to ensure and protect the water supply for local agencies.
P28
*'II 2014 Legislative Platform
L9-49, Page 10
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
FEDERAL PRIORITIES
TRANSPORTATION
• Support efforts to adopt a long-term transportation authorization bill that provides a stable and
reliable revenue stream for current and future transportation projects.
• Support continued federal funding for Safe Routes to Schools programs.
LOCAL REVENUE AND LAND USE AUTHORITY
• Support collecting and remitting state and local sales taxes to the state and city in which the
purchaser is residing, (e.g., purchases made over the Internet; by mail order; by catalog, etc.).
• Oppose legislation and the promulgation of rules and regulations that allow any agency to intrude
on, or supersede local authority, including, but not limited to, the City's right to regulate the
development of wireless facilities.
• Oppose legislation that would reduce or eliminate local government resources by providing a tax
moratorium for the expanding cellular telecommunications industry.
• Oppose efforts to eliminate the tax exempt status of municipal bonds and proposals to cap the
investor tax deduction on municipal securities investments, which are critical tools used by local
governments to finance community and capital improvement projects.
• Oppose legislative and regulatory efforts by online travel companies to circumvent remittance of
transient occupancy taxes to local governments from hotel reservations purchased using the
internet.
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• Support streamlined environmental processing for federal regulatory permits issued by the US
Army Corp of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Federal Highway Administration and various
other state and federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure projects.
• Support legislation to include consideration of the economic impacts of proposed species listings,
as well as support the delisting of species no longer threatened or endangered.
•
• Oppose funding cuts to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME program and
Section 8 Housing funds. Advocate for a more streamlined application process and for greater
flexibility of local appropriation and use of monies.
• Support legislation that provides incentives and resources to stimulate economic development
and encourage job creation in the Inland Empire region.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
• Support continued adequate federal investment in resources critical to enabling local law
enforcement to sufficiently provide public safety services, including full funding for Byrne/JAG and
1; P29
� + ;;; 2014 Legislative Platform
Lf°,1"�f Page 11
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
COPS programs, and renew suspension of the COPS grant local cost share requirement.
• Support continued funding for disaster preparedness, prevention, recovery, and response for all
hazard threats,including investment in assisting communities with necessary upgrades to existing
flood control systems.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
P. Advocate for the inclusion of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility in the Hoover Power
Allocation Act of 2011 provision that provides for 5 percent of existing power allocation to be
apportioned to new entities.
• Support continued funding for the Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program in order to provide
resources directly to local governments for programs that improve energy efficiency, develop and
implement energy conservation programs, and promote and develop alternative and renewable
energy sources.
• Oppose legislative or administrative actions that prohibit or hinder local government's ability to
implement Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs.
P. Support federal resources to assist regional and local governments in developing and
implementing energy efficiency and conservation strategies that maximize available resources,
reduce costs, expand community access and protect public health.
• Support federal incentives that assist local governments in integrating new growth into existing
communities, and develop and implement transportation, land use and building policies that
encourage maximum use of resources and lower energy consumption.
COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Support funding for the National Endowment of Arts for the purpose of expanding and enhancing
arts programs in the community.
P. Support legislation that provides incentives or grant opportunities for community improvements
and historic preservation.
• Support legislative efforts to create a San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area with the
inclusion of Cucamonga Canyon.
P. Support efforts to attract federal resources to assist with the management of Cucamonga Canyon.
Recycled Water Rate Study
Executive Summary
Subject: CVWD's Recycled Water Rate Study
Timing: CVWD's existing Recycled Water Rates expire 06/30/14
Analysis: CVWD undertook a full cost of service study to determine the
adequacy of the existing Recycled Water rates. CVWD currently has just over
100 retail Recycled Water accounts. CVWD purchases wholesale Recycled
Water from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA).
Recycled Water costs less for its customers and helps save potable drinking
water for home and business use. Recycled Water provides a reliable water
source to customers, especially in times of drought. Recycled Water is reliable,
sustainable, and is a renewable resource.
The District operates the Recycled Water system as a separate, self-supporting
fund. The rate study is based only on projected expenses for the Recycled Water
fund for FY2015 — FY2019. The single-largest operating expense in this fund is the
Wholesale purchase of Recycled Water from IEUA. Over the five-year study
period, an average of 70% of all operating expenses are related to the
purchase of water. Projected increases to the wholesale water purchases are as
follows:
IEUA's Current Adopted Projected
Wholesale Rates 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Cost per Acre Foot $ 215 $ 290 $ 335 $ 380 $ 425 $ 470
Increase (year-over-year) 35% 16% 13% 12% 11%
% Increase (cumulative) 35% 56% 77% 98% 119%
In addition to the water purchases, the District directly charges the recycled
water fund for inspection salaries, system maintenance, and customer billing
supplies. These charges amount to 25%, 3%, and 2% of the average operating
expenses for the five-year period, respectively. District staff is required to monitor
the Recycled Water system on a daily basis in order to protect the public's
health and safety. In addition, each Recycled Water customer undergoes
periodic inspections conducted by District staff.
11 Page
Recycled Water Rate Study
Executive Summary
Another component of the rate study analysis includes non-operating costs
incurred by the Recycled Water Fund. The annual repayment of debt service
amounts to an average of 57% of the total non-operating expenses, while the
remaining 43% is allocated to future investment in capital repairs and
maintenance of the system.
Findings: The Recycled Water rate study finds that the existing rate structure is
not adequate to fund the operations and debt repayment of the Recycled
Water system; therefore, staff will present to the Board of Directors the following
recommended rate adjustments.
Current Proposed
Recycled Water Rates 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Meter Charge I%increase) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Commodity Rate $ 1.49 $ 1.53 $1.58 $1.63 $ 1.68 $ 1.73
Commodity Rate (%increase) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Conclusions: District staff is currently working with a rate consultant to undertake
a five year rate study for the potable drinking water system. Over the past five
years, the average potable water rate increased by 5.2%. The proposed
volumetric Recycled Water rates are set to increase three percent for each of
the next five years. If potable drinking water rates maintain the same historical
rate trajectory, recycled water rates could be 27% to 33% lower than potable
water. Recycled Water is cost-saving alternative to potable drinking water.
21Page
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Analysis for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Recycled Water Accounts .
Annual Cost Comparison
Recycled Water Rates vs. Potable Water Rates
Annual Cost at:
Account Recycled Rate Eff. Potable Rate Eff. 'Recycled Water
Location# Meter Size 7/1/2014 5/1/2014 Annual Savings
58770 1 inch $ 73.44 $ 72.96 $ (0.48)
97586 1 inch 223.38 241.76 18.38
101634 1 inch 443.70 518.02 74.32
101636 1 inch 174.42 184.16 9.74
102080 1 inch 220.32 240.00 19.68
31500 1-1/2 inch 270.81 277.68 6.87
31502 1-1/2 inch 858.33 981.72 123.39
58768 1-1/2 inch 362.61 383.92 21.31 •
58818 1-1/2 inch 515.61 595.40 79.79
84426 1-1/2 inch 924.12 1,082.42 158.30
94770 1-1/2 inch 1,129.14 1,354.56 225.42
99922 1-1/2 inch 789.48 922.70 133.22
100192 1-1/2inch 921.06 1,062.28 141.22
101638 1-1/2inch 549.27 605.52 56.25
35754 2 inch 593.64 638.40 44'76
50880 2 inch 8,938.26 14,110.32 5,172.06
50886 2 inch 4,157.01 5,793.52 1,636.51
50890 2 inch 4,228.92 6,007.70 1,778.78
50896 2 inch 589.05 619.12 30.07
50902 2 inch 2,247.57 2,797.20 549.63
60284 2 inch 452.88 464.96 12.08
60544 2 inch 3,237.48 4,319.79 1,082.31
60550 2 inch 2,308.77 2,945.94 637.17
85190 2 inch 526.32 551.04 24.72
92306 2 inch 2,281.23 2,859.18 577.95
92308 2 inch 1,119.96 . 1,250.56 130.60
92310 2 inch 3,733.20 5,106.21 1,373.01
92812 2 inch 685.44 733.76 48.32
92996 2 inch 8,297.19 12,969.55 4,672.36
95086 2 inch 436.05 447.28 11.23
96034 2 inch 849.15 931.28 82.13
98670 2 inch 1,188.81 1,333.04 144.23
35132 3 inch 13,330.89 21,462.45 8,131.56
50888 3 inch 19,730.88 31,612.00 11,881.12
50900 4 inch 36,905.13 61,042.89 24,137.76
92998 4 inch 19,640.61 29,594.49 9,953.88
35126 6 inch 41,759.82 67,054.87 25,295.05
•
Grand Total $ 184,693.95 $ 283,168.65 $ 98,474.70
•
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Analysis for:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Recycled Water Accounts
Annual Cost Comparison
Recycled Water Total Cost FY2014 vs. Recycled Water Total Cost FY2015
Annual Cost
Account Commodity Cost Meter Charge Commodity Cost Meter Charge Impact of 7/1/2014 Rate
Location# Meter Size FY2014 FY2014 FY2015 FY2015 Changes
58770 finch $ 71.52 $ 162.12 $ 73.44 $ 170.22 $ 10.02
97586 finch 217.54 162.12 223.38 170.22 13.94
101634 1 inch 432.10 162.12 443.70 170.22 19.70
101636 1 inch 16926 162.12 174.42 170.22 12.66
102080 1 inch 214.56 162.12 220.32 170.22 13.86
31500 1-1/2 inch 263.73 539.88 270.81 566.88 34.08
31502 1-1/2 inch 835.89 539.88 858.33 566.88 49.44
58768 1-1/2 inch 353.13 539.88 362.61 566.88 36.48
58818 1-1/2 inch 502.13 539.88 515.61 566.88 40.48
84426 1-1/2 inch 899.96 539.88 924.12 566.88 51.16
94770 1-1/2 inch 1,099.62 539.88 1,129.14 566.88 56.52
99922 1-1/2 inch 768.84 539.88 789.48 566.88 47.64
100192 1-1/2inch 896.98 539.88 921.06 566.88 51.08
101638 1-1/2 inch 534.91 539.88 549.27 566.88 41.36
35754 2 inch 578.12 720.10 593.64 756.10 51.52
50880 2 inch 8,704.58 864.12 8,938.26 907.32 276.88
50886 2 inch 4,048.33 864.12 4,157.01 907.32 151.88
50890 2inch 4,118.36 864.12 4,228.92 907.32 153.76
50896 2 inch 573.65 864.12 589.05 907.32 58.60
50902 2 inch 2,188.81 864.12 2,247.57 907.32 101.96
60284 2 inch 441.04 864.12 452.88 907.32 55.04
60544 2 inch 3,152.84 864.12 3,237.48 907.32 127.84
60550 2 inch 2,248.41 864.12 2,308.77 907.32 103.56
85190 2 inch 512.56 864.12 526.32 907.32 56.96
92306 2 inch 2,221.59 864.12 2,281.23 907.32 102.84
92308 2 inch 1,090.68 864.12 1,119.96 907.32 72.48
92310 2 inch 3,635.60 864.12 3,733.20 907.32 140.80
92812 2 inch 667.52 864.12 685.44 907.32 61.12
92996 2 inch 8,080.27 864.12 8,297.19 907.32 260.12
95086 2 inch 424.65 864.12 436.05 907.32 54.60
96034 2 inch 826.95 864.12 849.15 907.32 65.40
98670 2 inch 1,157.73 864.12 1,188.81 907.32 74.28
35132 3 inch 12,982.37 1,080.84 13,330.89 1,134.88 402.56
50888 3 inch 19,215.04 1,621.26 19,730.88 1,702.32 596.90
50900 4 inch 35,940.29 2,702.64 36,905.13 2,837.82 1,100.02
92998 4 inch 19,127.13 2,702.64 19,640.61 2,837.82 648.66
35126 6 inch 40,668.06 3,602.48 41,759.82 3,782.60 1,271.88
Grand Total $ 179,865.35 $ 32,789.52 $ 184,693.95 $ 34,429.00 $ 6,468.08
Note: Utilizing actual consumption volume during Calendar Year 2013 applied to rates in the respective Fiscal Years.
r O 0) N CO W CO O CO r
O LO
r O CC) V' O .- N- r O CO EC) o
O 'Cr O N CO V' V N- N O O o
N M V O N V CO Lo r- N O co
} N V CO- N- CO V co- Cp (O N C7
U. N r r
N
ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER
•
0 O N- CO CO O CO O r N
O N O CO O CO t CO EC) LO N
•
r O r 00 CO 0 0 4 CO O O
O L r CO V (C) CO N CO O V o
N N CO N CO N r N r CO CO CO
} N V N CO to V r N CO CM
LL N r r Cr)
r N
ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER
CO LO CC) 00 C CO
LL
N V CO ' 0 0) co O CO N V
r r -
V r CO N- O N M O V o
O CO co co (C) CO r E17 (O CO CO 0
^ N r r r O O O O. N- (O CO CO
▪ w > N V r CO CC) V CO co- O N- M
cr, C LL r N
0 p o ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER
U
E
L 0 r I� M CO EC) r N N
CO r
Q) r N O f - CO CO CO CO
C 'p O O O C LU W O (O (NO V N- M o
2 N r O N- V co CO N- V N r
.- } N Cr; O r V co- O O Lri N N- M
r " r N
N (R Ef) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER (R
O N N CO 0 r CO I3 CO N- O N
0 M O N CO h CO O CO In CO r In
CV r M M 00 N EM O
ce >- N O CO O O) O r CO
M
(O } N CO- O V V M CV-
O M M
• p LL r N r
e ER ER ER FR ER ER ER ER 5
C a
< N O O N- O N CO CO CO N
.a m et r 0 N CO r O 0 CO (O
•} co O CO O CO 00
w v N 0) (O CO 'Cr o (^C) LOO r CO
>_ r- CO- O V'- M (O 0) 0 CO
▪ LL N (I)
(J) ER to ER (R (R ER ER ER ER >'
C
X C2
a)
E o
C_ p
ca m o 0 0 uu))
'p 2 r N co O r N p f6
= t 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo .E
lL 4 2 2 2 2 2 0 ,C
O co co co co CO N CO N N
r O 0 0 0 0 r O e
CO E O M O O O ,E E
O co co co co d' O V -
O r r r <- r N- CO W W