CC - Item 4A - Extension of Proposition 64 Citywide Moratorium on Non-Medical Marijuana Facilities and Private Marijuana Cultivation for 10 months and 15 Days s
E M
' $ ° ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
,1
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 24,2017
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF PROPOSITION 64 CITYWIDE MORATORIUM ON
NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES AND PRIVATE
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FOR 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS
SUMMARY
On December 13, 2016, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance imposing a 45-day
moratorium on non-medical marijuana facilities and private marijuana cultivation activities in
the City. This ordinance will extend the moratorium for 10 months and 15 days beyond the 45-
day moratorium.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 971 under Government Code
section 65858(a), which implements a 10 month and 15 day extension to the moratorium on non-
medical marijuana facilities and private marijuana cultivation adopted under Ordinance No. 969.
This interim urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote for adoption.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 969, establishing a 45-day
moratorium pertaining to private marijuana cultivation and non-medical facilities. A copy of the
Staff Report for the meeting on December 13, 2016, (without Attachments) is Attachment A to
this Staff Report for further background.
Since December 13, 2016, City staff has undertaken an initial investigation of these matters
including consideration of what provisions should be included in a permanent ordinance
regarding non-medical marijuana with regard to marijuana businesses (including cultivation,
manufacturing, distribution, testing, and retail sales), outdoor cultivation, indoor cultivation and
delivery of non-medical marijuana to residents of the City of Rosemead. As noted, the State of
California is currently reviewing Proposition 64 for the purpose of drafting regulations relating
to non-medical marijuana. Those regulations are expected to take several months to be drafted
and approved by the State. Based on the latest information we have from the State, these
agencies will not be ready to issue any State marijuana licenses until January 2018.
ITEM NUMBER: q /�A __
City Council Meeting
January 24,2017
Page 2 of 4
Government Code Section 65858 provides that after a notice pursuant to Government Code
Section 65090 and public hearing, the City Council may extend the interim urgency ordinance
for 10 months and 15 days. The City has complied with these notice and public hearing
requirements. Here, an extension of the temporary moratorium until December 12, 2017, will
allow the City to protect public health, safety and welfare while the City Council evaluates its
options for provisions to be included in a permanent marijuana ordinance.
ANALYSIS
The proposed urgency ordinance to extend the moratorium for 10 months and 15 days continues
the following three temporary restrictions:
1. All commercial non-medical marijuana businesses that require a license under
Proposition 64 will be prohibited while the interim urgency ordinance is in effect. This
temporary prohibition will apply to recreational marijuana cultivation, manufacturing,
distribution,testing, and retail sales.
2. All private marijuana cultivation will be prohibited except that an individual may
cultivate no more than six living marijuana plants inside his or her private residence, or
inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence located upon the grounds of
that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against unauthorized entry,
provided that the owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the
marijuana cultivation to occur, the person conducting the marijuana cultivation complies
with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Chapter 16 of this code, there
is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane. natural gas, etc.) on the property for
purposes of marijuana cultivation, and the marijuana cultivation complies with Health
and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3). Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3)
provides that no more than six marijuana plants may be cultivated at or upon the grounds
of a private residence at one time.
3. Non-medical marijuana businesses, including nonprofit businesses, are prohibited from
delivering marijuana to people in the City.
This interim urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote for adoption. If approved by a four-
fifths vote, the interim urgency ordinance will be effective for a period of 10 months and 15
days, which will be through December 12, 2017. While the interim urgency ordinance is in
effect, City staff will continue to undertake a comprehensive review of its policies and potential
regulations regarding recreational marijuana businesses and private marijuana cultivation in light
of Proposition 64.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed interim urgency ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3, sections: 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined
in Section 15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that
City Council Meeting
January 24,2017
Page 2 of 3
Government Code Section 65858 provides that after a notice pursuant to Government Code
Section 65090 and public hearing, the City Council may extend the interim urgency ordinance
for 10 months and 15 days. The City has complied with these notice and public hearing
requirements. Here, an extension of the temporary moratorium until December 12, 2017, will
allow the City to protect public health, safety and welfare while the City Council evaluates its
options for provisions to be included in a permanent marijuana ordinance.
ANALYSIS
The proposed urgency ordinance to extend the moratorium for 10 months and 15 days continues
the following three temporary restrictions:
1. All commercial non-medical marijuana businesses that require a license under
Proposition 64 will be prohibited while the interim urgency ordinance is in effect. This
temporary prohibition will apply to recreational marijuana cultivation, manufacturing.
distribution, testing, and retail sales.
2. All private marijuana cultivation will be prohibited except that an individual may
cultivate no more than six living marijuana plants inside his or her private residence, or
inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence located upon the grounds of
that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against unauthorized entry,
provided that the owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the
marijuana cultivation to occur, the person conducting the marijuana cultivation complies
with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Chapter 16 of this code, there
is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas, etc.) on the property for
purposes of marijuana cultivation, and the marijuana cultivation complies with Health
and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3). Health and Safety Code section I1362.2(a)(3)
provides that no more than six marijuana plants may be cultivated at or upon the grounds
of a private residence at one time.
3. Non-medical marijuana businesses, including nonprofit businesses, are prohibited from
delivering marijuana to people in the City.
This interim urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote for adoption. If approved by a four-
fifths vote, the interim urgency ordinance will be effective for a period of 10 months and 15
days, which will be through December 12, 2017. While the interim urgency ordinance is in
effect, City staff will continue to undertake a comprehensive review of its policies and potential
regulations regarding recreational marijuana businesses and private marijuana cultivation in light
of Proposition 64.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed interim urgency ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3, sections: 15060(e)(2) (the activity will not result in a director reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined
in Section 15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that
City Council Meeting
January 24,2017
Page 3 of 3
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. The proposed ordinance maintains the status quo and prevents changes in the
environment pending the completion of the contemplated municipal code review. Because there
is no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, the
adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
LEGAL REVIEW
This Staff Report and Ordinance No. 971 has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT - None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT —None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes
publication in the Rosemead Reader on January 12, 2017, as well as posting of the notice at the
six (6) public locations.
Prepared by:
i/1 ..a.ja • WIV.
Michelle G. Ramirez, Commu ' `- elopment Director
Attachment A: Agenda Report of December 13, 2016, (without attachments, which are on file
with the City Clerk's Office for review).
Attachment B: 10 Day Report.
Attachment C: Proposed Urgency Ordinance extending a temporary moratorium pertaining to
private marijuana cultivation and non-medical marijuana facilities.
E M E
S
O 9
1 l! $ O
NIinilYbC•C 2'.-.' 1
CL IC PRIDE
Attachment A
Agenda Report of December 13, 2016 (without attachments,
which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review)
S E 4 P i
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
'n°aam^ce
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS,CITY MANAGER tGr
DATE: DECEMBER 13,2016
SUBJECT: INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE DECLARING AND IMPOSING A
CITYWIDE MORATORIUM ON NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA
FACILITIES AND PRIVATE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION IN LIGHT
OF THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 64.
SUMMARY
Proposition 64, which legalized various recreational marijuana activities, was passed by the
voters on November 8,2016. Though the Rosemead Municipal Code currently prohibits medical
marijuana dispensaries and marijuana cultivation facilities, it is silent on private marijuana
cultivation and non-medical marijuana facilities. Given uncertainties associated with
implementation of Proposition 64 and the impact of recreational marijuana uses on the
community, the City Council will consider adopting an Urgency Ordinance imposing a
moratorium on non-medical marijuana facilities and private marijuana cultivation activities in
the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 969 under Government Code section
65858(a), establishing a 45-day moratorium on non-medical marijuana facilities and private
marijuana cultivation, except for private indoor cultivation of six marijuana plants or less, which
shall be subject to reasonable regulations. This interim urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths
vote for adoption.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, known as the '`Control,
Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act" Proposition 64 allows individuals to possess,
use, and cultivate recreational marijuana in certain amounts. An individual may possess up to
28.5 grams of non-concentrated marijuana or 8 grams of marijuana in a concentrated form(e,g,
marijuana edibles). In addition, an individual may cultivate up to six marijuana plants at his or
her private residence provided that no more than six plants are being cultivated on the property at
one time, Proposition 64 also establishes a regulatory system for commercial businesses that is
ITEM NUMBER: T L-`
City Council Meeting
December 13,2016
Page 2 of4
very similar to the medical marijuana regulatory system that the state legislature created last
year. tinder Proposition 64, recreational marijuana cultivators, manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, and testing laboratories may operate lawfully if they obtain a state license to operate
and comply with local ordinances.
Proposition 64 does not limit local police power authority over commercial marijuana business
and land uses. Cities may prohibit such businesses completely if they so choose. With regard to IIII�
private cultivation,however,there is one important limitation on local police power. Cities may
ban private outdoor marijuana cultivation, but they may not completely ban private indoor
cultivation of six marijuana plants or less. Proposition 64 provides that private indoor cultivation
of six marijuana plants or less is lawful under both state and local law and is only subject to
"reasonable"local regulations.
The California Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and Agriculture, and
Department of Public Health are responsible under Proposition 64 for issuing state licenses to
commercial recreational marijuana businesses. No marijuana business can operate without a
state license from one of these agencies,which are currently drafting regulations that will govern
their respective areas of responsibility. Based on the latest information we have from the state,
these agencies will not be ready to issue any state marijuana licenses until January 2018.
ANALYSIS
Despite that lengthy timeframe for state marijuana licenses, there is a need for urgent action by
the City Council. Municipal Code section 17.40,020 currently prohibits all medical marijuana
businesses and all marijuana cultivation in the City, but the Municipal Code does not expressly
address recreational marijuana businesses. Staff anticipates that Proposition 64 will encourage
the establishment of various recreational marijuana businesses in the City. While unlicensed
marijuana businesses would be unlawful under state law and therefore prohibited under the
City's general public nuisance standards, express regulations will make enforcement easier and
minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City's marijuana policies. This will, in turn,
decrease the potential for unnecessary nuisance abatement litigation. This is significant because
many California cities have experienced negative secondary effects from medical marijuana
businesses, including dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and delivery services, as demonstrated
by the attached 2009 white paper from the California Police Chiefs Association(Attachment A),
the 2014 memorandum from the Santa Clara County District Attorney (Attachment B), and
various news stories from throughout the country(Attachment C).
In addition, express Municipal Code regulations are necessary to provide clear guidance to the
public regarding the scope of permissible private cultivation. Proposition 64 took effect
immediately upon voter approval. Staff anticipates that many individuals will now begin to
cultivate marijuana at their private residences. In light of Proposition 64,the City can no longer
enforce its existing marijuana cultivation ban against private indoor cultivation of six marijuana
plants or less, Such unregulated conduct could have significant adverse impacts for the City. As
demonstrated in the attachments to this staff report, indoor marijuana cultivation sites are often
City Council Meeting
December 13,2016
Page 3 of
associated with illegal construction, haphazard and unsafe electrical wiring, electricity theft,
fires, mold and fungus problems, diversion of public water, pollution of waterways, and
excessive water use.
Permanent regulations will take time. Based on existing case law,the City Council should treat
the regulation of marijuana businesses and cultivation as a land use issue. The City, therefore,
must follow Government Code section 65853,which requires a noticed public hearing before the
planning commission and a noticed public hearing before the city council. During the time it
takes to complete this process, the City could experience significant adverse impacts from
unlicensed recreational marijuana businesses and unregulated private marijuana cultivation.
For this reason, an interim urgency ordinance is appropriate. Government Code section 65858
authorizes the adoption of an interim urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, and to prohibit land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that a city's
legislative bodies are considering, studying, or intending to study within a reasonable time.
Here, an interim urgency ordinance will allow the City to protect public health, safety and
welfare while the City Council evaluates its options for permanent marijuana regulations. The
proposed interim urgency ordinance imposes the following three temporary restrictions:
• All commercial non-medical marijuana businesses that require a license under
Proposition 64 will be prohibited while the interim urgency ordinance is in effect. This
temporary prohibition will apply to recreational marijuana cultivation, manufacturing,
distribution,testing, and retail sales.
• All private marijuana cultivation will be prohibited except that an individual may
cultivate no more than six living marijuana plants inside his or her private residence, or
inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence located upon the grounds of
that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against unauthorized entry,
provided that the owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the
marijuana cultivation to occur, the person conducting the marijuana cultivation complies
with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Title 15 of the municipal
code, there is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas, etc.) on the
property for purposes of marijuana cultivation, and the marijuana cultivation complies
with Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3). Health and Safety Code section
11362.2(a)(3) provides that no more than six marijuana plants may be cultivated at or
upon The grounds of a private residence at one time.
• Non-medical marijuana businesses, including nonprofit businesses, are prohibited from
delivering marijuana to people in the City.
If approved by a four-fifths vote, the interim urgency ordinance will be effective for 45 days.
After providing notice and holding a public hearing, the City Council, upon a four-fifths vote,
may extend the interim urgency ordinance for 10 months and 15 days. The City Council may
subsequently extend the interim urgency ordinance for an additional year While the interim
City Council Meeting
December 13,2016
Page 4 of 4
urgency ordinance is in effect,the City will undertake a comprehensive review of its policies and
potential regulations regarding recreational marijuana businesses and private marijuana
cultivation in light of Proposition 64.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Ordinance No. 969 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3, sections: 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined
in Section 15378); and 15061(6)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. The proposed ordinance maintains the status quo and prevents changes in the
environment pending the completion of the contemplated municipal code review. Because there
is no possibility that this ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment,the
adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
LEGAL REVIEW
This staff report and Ordinance No.969 has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT-None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT—None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Submitted by:
dlitt
Michelle G.Ramirez, Common velopment Director
Attachment A: 2009 white paper from the California Police Chiefs Association
Attachment B:2014 memorandum from the Santa Clara County District Attorney
Attachment C:Various news stories from throughout the country
Attachment D: Urgency Ordinance No. 969
I
I
M \
o
et
cogpoRATED
wlc PRIDE
Attachment B
10 Day Report
10-DAY REPORT ON THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S
MORATORIUM ON PRIVATE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION
AND NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2016, pursuant to Government Code section 65858,the City Council of the City
of Rosemead enacted Ordinance No. 969 as an urgency measure imposing a 45-day moratorium
on private marijuana cultivation and non-medical marijuana facilities. The Ordinance prohibits
non-medical marijuana facilities citywide, prohibits any person or entity from cultivating
marijuana at any location in the City (with a limited exception for personal indoor cultivation of
six marijuana plants or Less),and prohibits non-medical marijuana facilities from delivering to any
person in the City. Government Code section 65858 allows an initial 45-day moratorium to be
extended for up to 10 months and 15 days after a noticed public hearing is held. A second
extension for up to an additional 12 months is also allowed. As required by Government Code
section 65858(d), the City must produce a report 10 days prior to extending a moratorium that
describes the measures taken since the adoption of the urgency ordinance.
UPDATE ON THE MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITIONS THAT
LED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE URGENCY ORDINANCE
1. The City is currently considering its options for regulating private marijuana cultivation
and non-medical marijuana facilities and businesses. With regard to private marijuana
cultivation, the City must evaluate the extent to which it wants to regulate private indoor
cultivation of six marijuana plants or less and the extent to which it wants to allow and
regulate other forms of private cultivation. With regard to non-medical marijuana
businesses, the City must analyze a range of regulatory options and their potential impacts
on the community and the enforceability of non-medical marijuana regulations.
2. The City is analyzing the potential negative impacts that could stem from private
cultivation and/or non-medical marijuana businesses, including but not limited to property
crimes, loitering, drugged driving, business displacement, nuisance conditions, and fire
hazards. This analysis includes an evaluation of issues that other cities have faced or are
facing with regard to marijuana land uses and how the City could avoid or minimize
negative secondary effects that may occur if the City were to allow non-medical marijuana
facilities.
3. The adoption of a comprehensive marijuana ordinance that addresses both private
cultivation and commercial recreational marijuana businesses will take time and careful
consideration and will require input from various community stakeholders and the general
public. There has been insufficient time since the adoption of Ordinance No. 969 to
complete this process. The City, therefore, needs additional time, as allowed under
Government Code section 65858,to fully address the conditions that led to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 969.
q
? M�O
\\\ CIVIC FRIOC
ORPOg1 g9
,,
Attachment C
Proposed Urgency Ordinance extending a temporary
moratorium pertaining to private marijuana cultivation and non-
medical marijuana facilities
ORDINANCE NO. 971
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY
MORATORIUM PERTAINING TO PRIVATE MARIJUANA
CULTIVATION AND NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. As set forth in Municipal Code section 17.40.020, the City of Rosemead prohibits all
medical marijuana dispensaries and marijuana cultivation facilities. The term "marijuana
cultivation facility"includes any property where marijuana cultivation occurs.
B. On November 8, 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64,
entitled the"Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act"
C. Proposition 64 legalizes and regulates recreational marijuana in California. Proposition 64
requires recreational marijuana businesses, including cultivators, manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, and testing laboratories, to obtain a state license in order to operate
lawfully. The State will not issue licenses if the proposed recreational marijuana business
violates a local ordinance. The State anticipates that it will begin issuing licenses for
recreational marijuana businesses on or about January 1, 2018.
D. Business and Professions Code section 26200, which is part of Proposition 64, expressly
recognizes the ability of cities to completely prohibit all recreational marijuana businesses
or to regulate such businesses.
E. Under Proposition 64,individuals may possess and use specified amounts of marijuana and
may cultivate up to six marijuana plants per private residence. Under Health and Safety
Code section 11362.2(6), cities may prohibit private outdoor marijuana cultivation, but
may not prohibit completely private indoor cultivation of six marijuana plants or less.
Cities,however,may reasonably regulate private indoor cultivation of six marijuana plants
or less.
F. It is imperative that the City maintain local control over all marijuana land uses to the
fullest extent allowed by law. The City anticipates that Proposition 64 may encourage the
establishment of various marijuana businesses within the City. The Municipal Code does
not currently address recreational marijuana businesses. While no such business can
operate in the City lawfully without a State license, express Municipal Code regulations
regarding recreational marijuana dispensaries, cultivation facilities, manufacturing sites,
transporters, distributors, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses are necessary to
provide clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and minimize the
potential for confusion regarding the City's policies.
G. Express Municipal Code regulations are also necessary to provide clear guidance regarding
the scope of permissible private cultivation. The City anticipates that many individuals
will begin to cultivate marijuana at their private residences following the passage of
Proposition 64.
H. The adoption of a comprehensive marijuana ordinance that addresses both private
cultivation and commercial recreational marijuana businesses will take time and careful
consideration and will require input from various community stakeholders and the general
public. Until that process is complete, an interim urgency ordinance under Government
Code section 65858(a) is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Marijuana establishments and activities often present health, welfare, and public safety
issues for cities. Several California cities and counties have experienced serious adverse
impacts associated with and resulting from marijuana dispensaries, delivery services, and
cultivation sites. According to these communities and according to news stories widely
reported.marijuana land uses have resulted in and/or caused an increase in crime,including
burglaries, robberies, violence, and illegal sales and use of marijuana in the areas
immediately surrounding such marijuana activities. There have also been large numbers
of complaints of odors related to marijuana cultivation and storage. Marijuana cultivation
sites are often associated with illegal construction,unsafe electrical wiring,excessive water
use, and fire hazards.
J. A California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports, news stories, and
statistical research regarding crimes involving medical marijuana businesses and their
secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white paper report,which was
Attachment A to the Staff Report presented to the City Council on December 13, 2016
when the City Council voted to adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a 45-day
temporary moratorium pertaining to private marijuana cultivation and non-medical
marijuana facilities. The report details numerous violent crimes that occurred throughout
the state in and around medical marijuana establishments.
K. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office issued a May 2014 memorandum
entitled `Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County," which outlined many of
the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a copy of this
memorandum was Attachment 2 to the Staff Report presented to the City Council on
December 13, 2016. According to the memorandum, marijuana cultivation sites were
often associated with illegal construction, haphazard electrical wiring, electricity theft,
fires,mold and fungus problems,diversion of public water,pollution of waterways,firearm
violations, crimes, and organized crime and street gang involvement.
L. Manufacturing of cannabis products can involve the use of chemicals and solvents and, as
a result, carries a significant risk of explosion due to the distillation process utilized to
extract tetrahydrocannabinol. Major burn treatment centers at two hospitals in Northern
California reported in 2015 that nearly 10 percent of severe burn cases were attributed to
butane hash oil explosions, which was more than burn cases from car accidents and house
fires combined.
M. News stories regarding adverse impacts of marijuana businesses, including dispensaries,
cultivation sites, and delivery services, were Attachment C to the Staff Report presented to
the City Council on December 13, 2016. As detailed in these stories, marijuana
establishments and cultivation sites are frequent targets of violent crimes, including
robberies and assaults, in part because banking institutions will not accept credit card
payments for illegal drugs under federal law, forcing such businesses to be cash-only.
There is also significant evidence that marijuana delivery services are targets of violent
crime and pose a danger to the public.
N. Marijuana processing has led to explosions across the country because the processing of
marijuana-related products, such as cannabis oils, often involves the use of butane gas
flames.
O. In 2015,there reportedly were at least five-marijuana-related wildfires linked to marijuana
growing operations.
P. In 2016, a New York firefighter died in an explosion at a residential marijuana cultivation
site.
Q. It is reasonable to conclude that marijuana businesses and private cultivation under
Proposition 64 would cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and
welfare in Rosemead.
R. In order to protect the public health, safety,and welfare,the City Council desires to amend
the Rosemead Zoning Code to address,in express terms,recreational marijuana businesses,
marijuana deliveries, and private marijuana cultivation. The City Council hereby
determines that the Municipal Code is in need of further review and possible revision to
protect the public against potential negative health, safety, and welfare impacts and to
address private marijuana cultivation and the new marijuana business models recognized
under Proposition 64.
S. Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the adoption of an urgency ordinance for a
period of 45 days to protect the public health, safety,and welfare, and to prohibit land uses
that may conflict with land use regulations that cities legislative bodies are considering,
studying. or intending to study within a reasonable time.
T. On December 13, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 969 establishing a 45-
day moratorium pertaining to private marijuana cultivation and non-medical facilities.
U. Since December 13,2016,City staff has undertaken an initial investigation of these matters
including consideration of what provisions should be included in a permanent ordinance
regarding non-medical marijuana with regard to marijuana businesses (including
cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and retail sales), outdoor cultivation,
indoor cultivation, and delivery of non-medical marijuana to residents of the City of
Rosemead. The State of California is currently reviewing Proposition 64 for the purpose
of drafting regulations relating to non-medical marijuana. Those regulations are expected
to take several months to be drafted and approved by the State. These regulations will be
reviewed by City Staff in connection with drafting proposed provisions for a permanent
ordinance to address the issues involved with non-medical marijuana.
V. City staff needs additional time to review the potential provisions for a permanent non-
medical marijuana ordinance and review the proposed State regulations which are expected
to be issued in 2017 and to recommend a course of action to the City Council. while
avoiding the potential adverse impacts of non-medical marijuana facilities and private
marijuana cultivation that may arise as the City develops permanent regulations.
W. Government Code section 65858 provides that after a notice pursuant to Government Code
section 65090 and public hearing, the City Council may extend the interim urgency
ordinance for 10 months and 15 days. The City has complied with the notice and public
hearing requirements of Government Code sections 65858(a) and 65090. Government
Code section 65858(d) requires that prior to adoption of the ordinance extending the
moratorium, a report is required to be submitted to the City Council describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. That
report has been made available to the public at the City Clerk's Office. In addition, the
agenda report accompanying this ordinance provides the information required under
Government Code section 65858(d).
X. Failure to adopt this ordinance extending the moratorium would impair the orderly and
effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the Municipal Code.
Y. The City Council further finds that the extension of this moratorium is a matter of local
and City-wide importance and is not directed towards any particular person or entity that
seeks to cultivate marijuana in Rosemead.
SECTION 2. Environmental Findings. The City Council exercises its independent
judgment and finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines,California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Chapter
3, sections: I5060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment); 15060(c)(3)(the activity is not a project as defined in Section
15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies
only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The
ordinance maintains the status quo and prevents changes in the environment pending the
completion of the contemplated municipal code review. Because there is no possibility that this
ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment,the adoption of this ordinance
is exempt from CEQA.
SECTION 3. Imposition of Moratorium. In accordance with Government Code section
65858(a), and pursuant to the findings stated herein, the City Council: (1) finds that there exists a
current and immediate threat to the public health, safety,and welfare requiring this interim urgency
ordinance; (2) finds that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace.health, and safety as set forth herein; and (3)declares and imposes a temporary moratorium
for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare as set forth below:
A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Rosemead under Government Code
section 65858(a). and pursuant to the findings stated herein, for a period of 10 months and
15 days from the expiration date of January 27, 2017:
1. Non-medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zoning districts in the City
and shall not be established or operated anywhere in the City.
2. No person or entity may cultivate marijuana at any location in the City,except that
a person may cultivate no more than six living marijuana plants inside his or her
private residence, or inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence
located upon the grounds of that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured
against unauthorized entry,provided that the owner of the property provides written
consent expressly allowing the marijuana cultivation to occur, the person
conducting the marijuana cultivation complies with all applicable Building Code
requirements, there is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas,
etc.) on the property for purposes of marijuana cultivation, and the marijuana
cultivation complies with Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3).
3. A non-medical marijuana facility may not deliver marijuana from any fixed or
mobile location, either inside or outside the city.to any person in the City.
B. For purposes of this ordinance,the following definitions apply:
"Cultivate" means to plant, grow,harvest, dry, cure, grade, and/or trim marijuana.
"Cultivation" means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying,
curing,grading, or trimming of marijuana.
"Marijuana" shall have the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 11018.
"Non-medical marijuana facility" means any building, property, business, establishment,
or location where any person or entity establishes, commences, engages in, conducts, or
carries on, or permits another person or entity to establish,commence, engage in, conduct,
or carry on, any activity that requires a state license or nonprofit license under Business
and Professions Code sections 26000 and following, including but not limited to marijuana
cultivation, marijuana distribution, marijuana transportation, marijuana storage,
manufacturing of marijuana products, marijuana processing, the sale of any marijuana or
marijuana products, and the operation of a marijuana microbusiness.
C. City staff is directed to study appropriate modifications to the City's ordinances regarding
non-medical marijuana facilities and marijuana cultivation.
D. Pending the completion of such studies and the adoption of an ordinance to establish
appropriate operational and zoning regulations, it is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public health, safety and welfare that this ordinance takes effect
immediately. In the absence of immediate effectiveness, such uses in the City may conflict
with existing regulations or requirements.
E. This ordinance will take effect immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City
Council.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every
section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without
regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. Effective Date and Duration. This urgency ordinance enacted under
California Government Code section 65858(a) will take effect on January 24, 2017 upon adoption
by a four fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. This ordinance will remain in effect for 10 months
and 15 days from the effective date, and will expire on December 12, 2017, unless extended.
SECTION 6. Study. City Staff is directed to continue to study and analyze issues related
to the establishment or operation of recreational marijuana businesses and private marijuana
cultivation within the City, including but not limited to, reviewing State regulations which are
expected to be drafted and adopted in 2017, evaluating conflicts in State and Federal law
concerning the validity of the legislation, the potential impacts of such facilities or activities on
public health, safety and welfare of the community, the desirability of such facilities or activities
in various zones, and the extent of regulatory controls, if any, to impose on such facilities or
activities.
SECTION 7. Report. Staff is directed to provide a written report to the City Council at
least ten days prior to the expiration of this ordinance, describing the study conducted of the
conditions that led to the adoption of this ordinance, in accordance with State law.
SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify this ordinance and cause
it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ORDAINED this 24th day of January,2017.
Sandra Armenta, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. 971,was duly and regularly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Rosemead held on the 24th day of January, 2017, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marc Donohue, City Clerk