CC - Item 5A - Extension of Citywide Moratorium on non-Medical Marijuana Facilites and Private Marijuana CultivationROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER,
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2017
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF CITYWIDE MORATORIUM ON NON-MEDICAL
MARIJUANA FACILITIES AND PRIVATE MARIJUANA
CULTIVATION
SUMMARY
Under Ordinance Nos. 969 and 971, the City has enacted a temporary moratorium pertaining to
private marijuana cultivation and non-medical marijuana facilities. This moratorium will expire
on December 12, 2017. The proposed urgency ordinance will extend the moratorium for one
year while City Staff continues to study a potential permanent ordinance regulating all marijuana
land uses in the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt urgency Ordinance No. 977 under Government Code section
65858(a), extending the citywide moratorium on non-medical marijuana facilities and private
marijuana cultivation, except for private indoor cultivation of six marijuana plants or less, which
are subject to reasonable regulations. This extension ordinance requires a four-fifths vote for
adoption.
BACKGROUND
Under Ordinance Nos. 969 and 971, the City has enacted a temporary moratorium pertaining to
private marijuana cultivation and non-medical marijuana facilities. The past City Council Staff
Reports (dated December 13, 2016, and January 24, 2017) are attached as Attachment "A". This
moratorium will expire on December 12, 2017.
California's marijuana laws have undergone significant changes in the past two years, including
further legislative amendments that were adopted subsequent to the City's enactment of its
moratorium. These changes have included the following:
• On October 9, 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 (collectively, the
"Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act" or "MCRSA") were enacted to create a
ITEM NUMBER: -
City Council Meeting
November 14, 2017
Page 2 of 4
state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution
of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of medical marijuana products, and physician
recommendations for medical marijuana. MCRSA expressly preserved local control over
medical marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit medical
marijuana facilities and cultivation completely.
• 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" (the "AUMA").
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(b), 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. Proposition 64 also established a regulatory system for
commercial marijuana businesses commencing at Business and Professions Code section
26000. Under 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. The state will not issue licenses if
the proposed marijuana business violates a local ordinance. Business and Professions
Code section 26200, which is part of Proposition 64, expressly recognized the ability of
cities to completely prohibit all recreational marijuana businesses or to regulate such
businesses.
• On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 94, which repealed MCRSA and
included provisions from MCRSA regarding medical marijuana in the AUMA, so that the
regulations governing both medical and non-medical marijuana were contained under one
regulatory structure. Senate Bill 94 renamed the AUMA as the Medicinal and Adult -Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ("MAUCRSA" ). In addition to consolidating state
laws regarding medical marijuana and adult -use marijuana, Senate Bill 94 introduced
more uniform terminology. Senate Bill 94 revised references in existing law to
"marijuana" or "medical marijuana" to instead refer to "cannabis" or "medicinal
cannabis", and revised references to "nonmedical" to "adult -use."
• On September 16, 2017, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 133, which further revised
MAUCRSA's provisions regarding marijuana deliveries, the state licensing of marijuana
businesses, and marijuana taxation.
Since the extension of the moratorium, the City has studied the issues related to the regulation
and control of marijuana businesses. hi light of the recent changes to state marijuana law
described above and the pending release of state marijuana regulations, which is anticipated in
November, 2017, City staff needs additional time to research options regarding a potential
permanent marijuana ordinance and to receive direction from the City Council. A moratorium
extension will help the City avoid the potential adverse impacts of non-medical marijuana
facilities and private marijuana cultivation that may arise as the City develops such permanent
City Council Meeting
November 14,2017
Page 3 of 4
regulations.
Government Code section 65858 authorizes the adoption and extension 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, the extension will allow the City more time to
protect public health, safety, and welfare while the City Council evaluates its options for
permanent marijuana regulations. (See Attachment `B"). The proposed urgency ordinance to
extend the moratorium for one year 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, except in accordance with Business
and Professions Code §26054.
If approved by a four-fifths vote, the moratorium that was adopted on December 13, 2016, and
extended on January 24, 2017, will be extended for another year, until December 12, 2018.
While the interim urgency ordinance is in effect, the City 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 and SB 94. (See
Attachment "C").
City Council Meeting
November 14, 2017
Page 4 of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed 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 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. 977 has been drafted 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 November 2, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six
(6) public locations.
Prepared by:
JA�&
Lily T. Valenzuela
City Planner
Submitted by:
Bent,
Community Development Director
Attachment A: City Council Staff Reports, dated December 13, 2016 and January 24, 2017
(without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review)
Attachment B: 10 -Day Report
Attachment C: Urgency Ordinance No. 977
Attachment A
City Council Staff Reports, dated December 13, 2016 and
January 24, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with
the City Clerk's Office for review)
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER ,46?�
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: 14 fk
City Council Meeting
December 13, 2016
Page 2 of 4
very similar to the medical marijuana regulatory system that the state legislature created last
year. Under 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
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 Q.
In addition, express Municipal Code regulations are necessary to provide cleat 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 4
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 heating, 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.
FNV120N MENTAL 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(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 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 CityzAttomoy.
FISCAL LWACT - None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT —None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Submitted by:
Michelle G. Ramirez, Common evelopment 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
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
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. jy
ITEM NUMBER; ,__
City Council Meeting
January 24, 2017
Page 2 of 4
Government Code Section 65858 provides that after a notice pursuant to Government Code
Section 65040 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:
I. 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 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:
A
Michelle G. Ramirez, Commit ' 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.
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. On January 24, 2017, the City
Council extended the moratorium until December 12, 2017.
Government Code section 65858 also allows a second extension for up to an additional 12
months. 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
and Ordinance No. 971 to complete this process, especially with the adoption of Senate
Bill 94, which amends existing state law regulations on marijuana. 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 Nos. 969 and 971.
Attachment C
Urgency Ordinance No. 977
ORDINANCE NO. 977
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 October 9, 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643
(collectively, the "Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act" or "MCRSA") were enacted to
create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution
of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of medical marijuana products, and physician
recommendations for medical marijuana. MCRSA expressly preserved local control over
medical marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit medical marijuana
facilities and cultivation completely.
C. 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" ("AUMA" ).
D. 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(b), 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.
E. Proposition 64 also established a regulatory system for commercial marijuana
businesses commencing at Business and Professions Code section 26000. Under 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.
The state will not issue licenses if the proposed marijuana business violates a local ordinance.
F. 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.
G. Following Proposition 64's passage, the City Council determined that it was
imperative that the City maintain local control over all marijuana land uses to the fullest extent
allowed by law. The City anticipated that Proposition 64 would 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 were deemed necessary to provide clear guidelines regarding
the scope of prohibited conduct and minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City's
policies.
H. 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.
I. The City Council concluded that the adoption of a comprehensive marijuana
ordinance that addresses both private cultivation and commercial recreational marijuana
businesses would take time and require careful consideration and input from various community
stakeholders and the general public. Until that process was complete, an interim urgency
ordinance under Government Code section 65858(a) was necessary to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare.
J. 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.
K. On January 24, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 971 under
Government Code section 65858 to extend the moratorium pertaining to private marijuana
cultivation and non-medical facilities until December 12, 2017.
L. 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.
M. As the City studied the issue of marijuana regulations and dealt with the
unpermitted marijuana facility, California's marijuana laws continued to undergo important
changes. On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 94, which repealed MCRSA and
included provisions from MCRSA regarding medical marijuana in the AVMA, so that the
regulations governing both medical and non-medical marijuana were contained under one
regulatory structure. Senate Bill 94 renamed the AUMA as the Medicinal and Adult-Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ("MAUCRSA"). In addition to consolidating state laws
regarding medical marijuana and adult-use marijuana, Senate Bill 94 introduced more uniform
terminology. Senate Bill 94 revised references in existing law to "marijuana" or "medical
marijuana" to instead refer to "cannabis" or "medicinal cannabis", and revised references to
"nonmedical" to "adult-use."
N. On September 16, 2017, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 133, which further
revised MAUCRSA's provisions regarding marijuana deliveries, the state licensing of marijuana
businesses, and marijuana taxation.
O. The Bureau of Cannabis Control has announced that the state will begin issuing
temporary licenses under MAUCRSA for marijuana businesses on or about January 1, 2018. In
the meantime, the Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and Agriculture, and
the Department of Public Health, which are each responsible for issuing state marijuana licenses,
are drafting state regulations that will implement MAUCRSA. It is anticipated that the state will
release draft regulations for public review in November, 2017.
P. As described in the findings supporting Ordinance Nos. 969 and 971, which the
City Council incorporates herein, 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. 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
the City.
Q. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council
reaffirms its desire to amend the Municipal Code to address, in express terms, recreational
marijuana businesses, marijuana deliveries, and private marijuana cultivation. The City Council
hereby determines that the Municipal Code remains 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.
R. In light of the recent changes to state marijuana law and the pending release of
state marijuana regulations, City staff needs additional time to review a potential permanent
marijuana ordinance and receive direction from 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 such permanent regulations.
S. 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 ("First Extension"), and, after the First Extension,
extend the interim urgency ordinance for a year. 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).
T. Failure to adopt this ordinance extending the moratorium would impair the
orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the Municipal Code.
U. 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: 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
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. Extension of Moratorium. In accordance with Government Code section
65858(a), and pursuant to the findings, 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 1 year from the
expiration date of December 12, 2017:
1. Non-medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zoning districts in
the City and may 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, except
in accordance with Business and Professions Code §26054.
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 immediately upon adoption by a
four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. This ordinance will remain in effect for 1 year from
the effective date, and will expire on December 12, 2018.
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 new and proposed
State law and State regulations, 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 ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2017.
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk
y
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. 977, was duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of
November, 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marc Donohue, City Clerk