HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - STATE LEGISLATION AB 6 (2)Agenda Item: 6
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: fill
DATE: March 28, 2017
SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATION: ASSEMBLY BILL 6
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
PRESENTER: Masis Hagobian
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt the City Council Legislative Committee recommendation to support
Assembly Bill 6 (Lackey) and transmit position statements to Assembly Member Lackey, Santa
Clarita's state legislative delegation, appropriate legislative committees, Governor Brown, and
the League of California Cities.
BACKGROUND
Authored by Assembly Member Tom Lackey (R-36) and introduced in the Assembly on
December 5, 2016, Assembly Bill 6 directs the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to establish a
task force to develop recommendations on driving under the influence of drugs. Assembly
Member Lackey has requested that the City Council consider supporting Assembly Bill 6.
Specifically, this bill:
1. Requires the CHP Commissioner to appoint a drugged driving task force to develop
recommendations for best practices, protocols, proposed legislation, and other policies
that will address the issue of driving under the influence of drugs, including cannabis and
prescription drugs.
2. Requires the task force to report its policy recommendations and what steps state
agencies are taking regarding drugged driving to the State Legislature. The current
version of the bill, as amended March 2, 2017, does not include a time frame or deadline
for the task force to submit its reports to the State Legislature.
3. Provides that the task force consist of the CHP Commissioner as the Chairperson and at
least one member from each of the following:
A. The Office of Traffic Safety;
Page 1
Packet Pg. 36
O
B. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
C. Local law enforcement;
D. District attorneys;
E. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
F. Local government representatives;
G. The California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research;
H. The medical cannabis industry;
I. The pharmaceutical industry;
J. Licensed physicians; and
K. Non -governmental organizations that focus on improving roadway safety.
On November 8, 2016, Proposition 64 passed in California, legalizing the recreational use of
marijuana. Current law prohibits driving under the influence of cannabis; however, the ability to
test if a driver is under the influence of cannabis is limited.
As of January 1, 2017, eight states have legalized the recreational use of cannabis. As the drug is
made more accessible, states that have legalized the recreational use of cannabis have
experienced an increase in traffic violations and collisions involving drivers under the influence
of cannabis. Most notably, the state of Colorado, which was one of the first states to legalize the
recreational use of cannabis on November 6, 2012, has experienced a significant rise in the
number of drivers testing positive for cannabis since the law was passed.
Specifically, in the last three years, Colorado has had a 74 percent increase in the number of
fatalities involving a driver that tested positive for cannabis. Table 1 shows the rise of traffic
fatalities in Colorado, involving a driver under the influence of cannabis, and the percent those
fatalities represent when compared to the total number of traffic fatalities between 2013 and
2015. The Colorado Department of Transportation began recording the number of traffic
fatalities involving drivers under the influence of cannabis in 2013.
Table 1: Traffic Fatalities Involving a Driver Under the
Influence of Cannabis in Colorado (2013-2015)
Year
Total
Fatalities
Number of Fatalities where Drivers
Tested Positive for Cannabis
Percentage of Total
Fatalities (%)
2013
482
39
8.1%
2014
488
63
12.9%
2015
547
68
12.4%
Colorado Department of Transportation, 2017
Proposition 64 includes new funding for the CHP to address driving under the influence,
including driving under the influence of cannabis. Through revenue generated by the sales tax
and cultivation tax on cannabis in Proposition 64, $3 million is allocated to the CHP each year
for four years starting in fiscal year 2018-2019. That money is for the CHP to establish and
Page 2
Packet Pg. 37
O
adopt protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, including
impairment by the use of cannabis or cannabis products, and to establish and adopt protocols
setting best practices to assist law enforcement agencies. These funds can also be used by the
CHP to invest in research for the purpose of developing technology to determine when a driver is
operating a vehicle while impaired by the use of cannabis and other drugs.
Proposition 64 also includes continuous annual funding for the CHP to conduct training
programs to detect, test and enforce laws against driving under the influence of alcohol and other
drugs, including driving under the influence of cannabis.
Assembly Bill 6 passed the Assembly Committee on Public Safety with a unanimous vote on
February 28, 2017. Assembly Member Lackey, as a committee member on Public Safety, was
recorded in the vote to support the bill. This bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations on March 6, 2017. No hearing has been scheduled by the Committee on
Appropriations as of March 13, 2017.
The City Council Legislative Committee met on March 10, 2017, and recommends that the City
Council adopt a "support" position for Assembly Bill 6.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Adopt a "neutral" position on Assembly Bill 6
2. Adopt an "oppose" position on Assembly Bill 6
3. Take no action on Assembly Bill 6
4. Refer Assembly Bill 6 back to the Legislative Committee
5. Other action, as determined by the City Council
FISCAL IMPACT
The resources required to implement the recommended action are contained within the City's
adopted 2016/17 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
AB 6 - Drugged Driving Taskforce
Page 3
Packet Pg. 38
6.a
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 2, 2017
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 22, 2017
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2o17-18 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 6
Introduced by Assembly Member Lackey
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Travis Allen, Baker, Chavez,
Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Flora, Gallagher, Kiley, Patterson,
and Steinorth)
(Coauthors: Senators Anderson, Bates, Gaines, Morrell, Nielsen, and
Wilk)
December 5, 2016
An act to add Section 2429.7 to the Vehicle Code, relating to driving
under the influence.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 6, as amended, Lackey. Driving under the influence: drugged
driving task force.
Existing law specifies the duties and powers of the Commissioner of
the California Highway Patrol.
This bill would require the commissioner to appoint, and serve as the
ehair chairperson of, a drugged driving task force, with specified
membership, to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols,
proposed legislation, and other policies that will address the issue of
driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription drugs. The
bill would also require the task force to examine the use of technology,
including field testing technologies, to identify drivers under the
influence of dmgs,
programs using those teehnologies. drugs. The bill would require the
97
Packet Pg. 39
AB 6 —2—
6.a
task force to report to the Legislature its policy recommendations and
the steps that state agencies are taking regarding drugged driving.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 2429.7 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
2 read:
3 2429.7. (a) The commissioner shall appoint a drugged driving
4 task force to develop recommendations for best practices, protocols,
5 proposed legislation, and other policies that will address the issue
6 of driving under the influence of drugs, including prescription
7 drugs. The task force shall also examine the use of technology,
8 including field testing technologies, to identify drivers under the
9 influence of drttgs, and may eonduet pilot programs ttsing th
10 teehnologi drugs. The task force shall consist of the
11 commissioner, who shall serve aster, chairperson, and at least
12 one member from each of the following:
13 (1) The Office of Traffic Safety.
14 (2) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
15 (3) Local law enforcement.
16 (4) District attorneys.
17 (5) Local government representatives.
18 .
19 (6) California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
20 (7) The California Marijuana Researches Program,
21 known as the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, authorized
22 pursuant to Section 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code.
23 (8) Medical cannabis industry representatives.
24 (9) Pharmaceutical industry representatives.
25 (10) Licensed physicians.
26 (11) Nongovernmental organizations that focus on improving
27 roadway safety.
28 (b) The members of the task force shall serve at the pleasure of
29 the commissioner and without compensation.
30 (c) The task force shall report to the Legislature its policy
31 recommendations and the steps state agencies are taking regarding
97
Packet Pg. 40
—3— AB 6
6.a
1 drugged driving. The report shall be submitted in compliance with
2 Section 9795 of the Government Code.
I
97
Packet Pg. 41