Council considered a proposed ordinance to implement Senate Bill 1186 (SB 1186), which requires jurisdictions to allow reasonable access to medical cannabis delivery. Staff described a local approach: an annual, administratively issued medical cannabis delivery permit limited to one business on a first‑come, first‑served basis; placement in light industrial zones with a 500‑foot buffer from sensitive receptors (schools, parks, daycare, churches); security and odor‑control plans; limits on signage and inspections; and administrative revocation for violations.

Mark Watson, a member of the public, urged the council to reject the amendments, arguing that Sacramento’s mandate would dilute local control and increase youth access. "I do not believe Sacramento will compel Temecula to require a retail narcotic establishment," he said, urging Temecula to follow cities that retained prohibitions.

Council debate focused on three core issues: (1) whether the state law effectively eliminates local control, (2) whether adopting a guarded, restricted allowance would be preferable to taking no local rules and risking unregulated uses in commercial centers, and (3) the legal risk of litigation. Council member Ron said he wanted more time to coordinate with other cities and explore legal strategy. Mayor Pro Tem and others voiced strong opposition on principle, citing public health and youth‑safety concerns. The city attorney advised that litigation is possible and that some jurisdictions have chosen different approaches.

After extended discussion and public comment, the council directed staff to conduct additional research, review the statutory text and share peer city approaches; the item was tabled for further review rather than adopted. No ordinance was enacted and no permit was issued at this meeting.