HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - PROP 64 MORATORIUM EXTENSION (2)Agenda Item: 18
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Q:° AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7,
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1 j4 _ "
DATE: November 28, 2017
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 64 MORATORIUM EXTENSION AND A
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE PROHIBITION OF
COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA -RELATED LAND USES
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: David Peterson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN URGENCY
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM PERTAINING
TO PRIVATE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND NON-MEDICAL
MARIJUANA FACILITIES;" and
2. Direct staff to prepare an Ordinance prohibiting all commercial land uses associated with
recreational marijuana and restricting personal growth of marijuana in a manner consistent
with Proposition 64.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64 (Prop 64), the "Control,
Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act." Prop 64 allows individuals age 21 years old
and over to possess, use, and cultivate recreational (non -medicinal) marijuana at their residence
in specific amounts. Prop 64 also establishes a regulatory system for commercial businesses
and defines specific business categories including sales, distribution, cultivation, manufacturing,
and testing of marijuana Under Prop 64, recreational marijuana cultivators, manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, and testing laboratories may operate lawfully if they obtain a state license
to operate and if they comply with local ordinances.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 148
At the City Council meeting on December 13, 2016, the City Council adopted an Urgency
Ordinance implementing a temporary moratorium on all commercial recreational marijuana land
uses. The moratorium allowed staff time to research implementation issues associated with Prop
64. The moratorium was extended by the City Council via Urgency Ordinance at their meeting
on January 24, 2017, and is set to expire on December 12, 2017. The moratorium can be
extended by an additional year with an action of the City Council.
Summary ofProp 64:
Prop 64 addresses both the personal use and commercial use of recreational marijuana.
For personal use of recreational marijuana, Prop 64 allows adults age 21 years old and over to do
the following:
• Possess, process, purchase, obtain, transport, or give away specific amounts of
recreational marijuana,
• Smoke or ingest recreational marijuana products; and
• Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six recreational marijuana plants
per residence. Prop 64 allows local jurisdictions to "reasonably regulate" but not prohibit
the residential growth of up to six recreational marijuana plants.
For personal use of recreational marijuana, Prop 64 prohibits any individual from doing the
following:
• Smoking recreational marijuana in a public place;
• Smoking recreational marijuana where tobacco smoking is prohibited;
• Smoking recreational marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school, day care, or youth facility;
and
• Smoking recreational marijuana while driving or riding in a vehicle.
For commercial use of recreational marijuana, Prop 64 allows local jurisdictions to retain land
use authority over all commercial use types. These include the cultivation, manufacturing,
testing, delivery, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. This enables every city and county
within the State of California to independently determine whether these commercial use types
should be prohibited or allowed via a licensing and/or entitlement process within their individual
jurisdiction. Local jurisdictions may prohibit or allow any or all recreational marijuana
commercial use types in any combination.
Commercial use types are generally described as follows:
• Cultivators grow and harvest marijuana plants. Under Prop 64, cultivators under 10,000
square feet may also have a retail sales component on the premises;
• Manufacturers take cultivated plant material and produce other products including oils,
extracts, and edibles;
• Testing facilities test recreational marijuana for compliance with established standards
identified by the State of California,
• Delivery of recreational marijuana includes the delivery by a licensed retailer to
customers within the City. Prop 64 does not allow jurisdictions to prohibit transportation
Page 2
Packet Pg. 149
of recreational marijuana through its boundaries, but does allow cities to prohibit the
delivery of recreational marijuana to addresses within its jurisdiction; and
Retail sales of recreational marijuana include the direct retail sale of products, including
edibles and manufactured products, to the general public. Because they are not licensed
retailers, restaurants would not be able to sell edibles and convenience stores would be
prohibited from selling recreational marijuana.
Prop 64 is only related to the recreational use of marijuana and has no impact on medicinal
marijuana. All commercial medicinal marijuana land uses are currently prohibited by the City's
Municipal Code.
Prop 64 creates a new state excise tax of 15% on all retail purchases of recreational marijuana
and recreational marijuana products. Another excise tax has been created for cultivation of
flowers and leaves, and is charged on a per -ounce basis in the amount of $9.25 and $2.75
respectively. Taxes are in addition to any existing state and local sales tax. Local jurisdictions
may also elect to impose additional excise taxes via the ballot initiative process.
ANALYSIS:
Conflict with Federal Law
Although passed by voter initiative, Prop 64 is in violation of the Federal Controlled Substance
Act (CSA). Marijuana is still identified by the CSA as a Schedule 1 drug. In 2013, the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo indicating its resources are best directed to
the enforcement of marijuana cases regarding sales to minors, preventing revenue from criminal
organizations, and preventing the interstate sale of marijuana The memo concludes, however,
that neither the guidance within the memo "...nor any state or local law provides a legal defense
to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA."
Other Communities
Staff contacted eight other jurisdictions in southern California and made inquiries regarding
the direction each of them are taking or intend to take regarding the implementation of Prop 64.
The eight jurisdictions contacted were the cities of Fillmore, Glendale, Lancaster, Palmdale,
Pasadena, Santa Monica, Ventura, and the County of Los Angeles. Table 1 briefly summarizes
the status of each jurisdiction:
Table 1:
Action by Other Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Status
City of Fillmore
Prohibits commercial land uses.
City of Lancaster
Prohibits commercial land uses.
City of Ventura
Prohibits commercial land uses.
City of Pasadena
Prohibits commercial land uses, but may
allow them in the future pending ongoing
research.
County of Los
Prohibits commercial land uses, but may
Angeles
allow them in the future pending ongoing
research.
Page 3
Packet Pg. 150
City of Santa Monica Prohibits commercial land uses, with the
exception of manufacturing.
City of Glendale No action. Conducting research.
City Palmdale No action. Conducting research.
Research in Colorado
A ballot initiative, Amendment 64, was passed by voters in the State of Colorado in 2012
legalizing the adult use of recreational marijuana Amendment 64 is very similar to California's
Prop 64. In August 2017, a staff team from the City traveled to Colorado and interviewed staff
and elected officials from three cities in the Denver area, as well as a representative from the
Denver County District Attorney's Office (DA). Table 2 summarizes the cities that were visited
and their regulatory status:
Table 2:
Colorado Cities Visited by Santa Clarita Staff
Name
City Information
Regulatory Status
City of Aurora
Size: 154 square miles
Allows all commercial marijuana -
Population: 361,000
related uses.
City of Fort Collins
Size: 57 square miles
Allows all commercial marijuana -
Population: 167,000
related uses.
City of Centennial
Size: 29 square miles
Prohibits all commercial marijuana -
Population: 109,000
related uses.
Because no jurisdictions in California have any practical experience with recreational marijuana
due to the recent passage of Prop 64, meeting with representatives from cities that have
experience with commercial marijuana programs as well as regulation of personal growth
provided City staff with a unique perspective on the implementation of recreational marijuana
programs and associated impacts on their communities. Staff chose the selected cities based on
their relative similarity to the City of Santa Clarita. The team also met with the DA to identify
trends their office has observed regarding impacts the legalization of marijuana has had on the
region and the state.
The following is a summary of the statements and observations provided by the DA:
• Marijuana retailers have proliferated in the City of Denver. There are now more
marijuana retailers in Denver than all Starbucks, McDonalds, and 7 -Elevens combined;
• Marijuana has not been a significant revenue generator for the state or local jurisdictions
when weighed against the costs associated with implementation and enforcement;
• The number of marijuana -related vehicle fatalities increased by 145% between 2013 and
2016 (from 47 to 115 cases);
• The marijuana industry is an all cash business. No bank underwritten by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) can accept deposits from marijuana -related
businesses because marijuana is still defined as a Schedule 1 drug by the CSA;
• Because marijuana is still defined as a Schedule 1 drug by the CSA, marijuana related
business cannot claim federal tax exemptions, and pay between 40% and 60% federal tax;
• The marijuana market is beginning to be dominated by larger, better funded companies.
There are few remaining "mom and pop" operations that are successful;
Page 4
Packet Pg. 151
Cultivation facilities have a very high energy demand. Small facilities can pay as much as
$10,000 per month in electric utility bills. Larger facilities pay significantly more;
Colorado has significant safety concerns regarding edibles, their dosage, and labelling
standards; and
Legalization of marijuana use has resulted in an increase in the homeless population.
The following is a summary of the statements and observations provided by staff from the cities
of Aurora and Fort Collins. Both of these cities allow all types of commercial marijuana -related
land uses via a license and entitlement process:
• Marijuana programs have not been revenue -positive. In both cities, the cost of
administration and enforcement exceeds the amount of revenue generated;
• Both cities began these programs because residents in their jurisdictions voted in favor of
Amendment 64;
• Recreational sales began in 2014. Aurora has 45 locations and Fort Collins has 11;
• The marijuana industry has increased local warehouse lease rates between two and three
times. Marijuana uses pay leases in cash. This has led to concentrations of marijuana land
uses and, in some cases, resulted in forcing previously existing businesses out;
• Odor complaints and illegal home growth operations are the most common enforcement
issues. Aurora averages three -to -five illegal home growth investigations per week;
• Administration and enforcement requires significant staffing. Both cities created informal
marijuana divisions to oversee their programs. Generally, their staff teams consist of a
Licensing Officer, City Planner, Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Officer,
Accounting Clerk, Police or Sheriff's Field Officer (including vehicle) and, in the case
of Fort Collins, a Staff Attorney; and
• The legalization of marijuana has resulted in an increase in the local homeless
populations.
The following is a summary of the statements and observations provided by the staff and elected
officials of the City of Centennial. Centennial prohibits all types of commercial land uses:
• Centennial chose to prohibit marijuana -related land uses because they believe that
allowing them would send the wrong message to youth and is contrary to their existing
anti-drug programs;
• Local law enforcement strongly recommended against allowing commercial marijuana -
related land uses;
• Centennial recommends requiring all home -growth be conducted within a residence for
purposes of public health and safety. Home -growth should not be allowed outside or in
an accessary structure;
• The local business community feared negative impacts to local businesses from
marijuana -related commercial land uses; and
• Centennial maintains a 35% General Fund operating reserve, and did not identify any
potential revenue generated by marijuana -related land uses as a compelling reason to
implement a regulatory program.
The City of Aurora Police Department (APD) maintains detailed statistics regarding marijuana
within its jurisdiction. Table 3 contains statistics regarding illegal home growth of marijuana
Page 5
Packet Pg. 152
between 2012 and 2016.
Table 3:
Illegal Home Growth Investigations by Year (2012-2016) in Aurora, Colorado
2012
109
2013
107
2014 (Marijuana sales begin)
144
2015
172
2016
166
TOTAL
678
The number of illegal home growth investigations increased by 58% between 2012 and 2016.
Notably, the number of investigations increased by 34% between 2013 and 2014, the year the
City of Aurora began permitting the sale of recreational marijuana. The City of Aurora and the
APD indicated that their staff responds to between three and five illegal growth operations per
week and have a Building Inspector, Code Enforcement Officer and Police Officer dedicated to
enforcement. The 678 total investigations have resulted in the seizure of approximately 27,000
marijuana plants and over $160,000 of fines.
The APD has identified an increase in the number of traffic cases related to driving under the
influence of marijuana between 2014 and 2016. Table 4 reflects this data.
Table 4:
Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana Traffic Cases by Year (2014-2016)
in Aurora, Colorado
2014 60
2015
72
2016
178
TOTAL
310
During the reporting period, traffic cases related to driving under the influence of marijuana have
increased by 197%. Although no current sobriety test exists for marijuana use that is similar to
testing for blood alcohol content, officers in Aurora have received training to identify drivers that
are under the influence of marijuana. The APD anticipates that the number of marijuana -related
traffic incidents will increase overtime.
As indicated earlier in this staff report, the number of marijuana -related automobile fatalities
increased in the State of Colorado between 2013 and 2016. The total number of all fatal crashes
in Colorado increased during that time frame from 627 to 880. Of those incidents, the number of
marijuana -related fatalities increased from 47 in 2013 to 115 in 2016, an increase of 145%.
Other Agency Responses
To date, staff has received letters from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and the
William S. Hart Union High School District supporting staff's recommendation for prohibition
of marijuana -related commercial land uses. These letters are attached as Exhibit A. The Los
Angeles County Fire Department has not expressed a position, but indicated they will partner
with the City for additional services as required. Southern California Edison (Edison) has also
Page 6
Packet Pg. 153
not expressed a position, but contemplates additional stress on the existing power network and
electrical panels.
Moratorium Extension
Under Ordinance Nos. 16-12 and 17-01, the City Council enacted atemporary moratorium
pertaining to private, recreational marijuana cultivation and recreational marijuana facilities. This
moratorium will expire on December 12, 2017. For reference, previous staff reports associated
with the existing moratorium are attached as Exhibit B.
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
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 June 27, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 94, which repealed MCRSA and
included provisions from MCRSA regarding medical marijuana in the Adult Use of
Marijuana Act (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 the 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 in January 2017, as detailed in this staff report, the City
has studied the issues related to the regulation and control of marijuana businesses. A
moratorium extension will allow time for the City Council to provide direction to staff on how to
proceed, and allow time for staff to prepare the appropriate documents related to implementing
the City Council's direction. These documents will be presented to the Planning Commission
and, ultimately, the City Council for adoption. Once adopted, the moratorium would be
superseded by the permanent ordinance.
Government Code section 65858 authorizes the adoption and extension of an 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
Page 7
Packet Pg. 154
marijuana regulations. The law requires jurisdictions to generate a 10 -day report when preparing
an Urgency Ordinance. The 10 -day report is attached as Exhibit C.
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 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: 1) the owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing
the marijuana cultivation to occur; 2) the person conducting the marijuana cultivation
complies with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Chapter 16 of this
code; 3) there is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas, etc.) on the
property for purposes of marijuana cultivation; and 4) 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.
This Urgency Ordinance requires a four-fifths vote for adoption. If approved by a four-fifths
vote, the moratorium adopted on December 13, 2016, and extended on January 24, 2017, will be
extended for another year, until December 12, 2018. The Urgency Ordinance is attached.
DISCUSSION
Home Growth
Prop 64 allows the home growth of up to six marijuana plants per residence. This applies to all
types of residential units, regardless of square footage. The maximum number of plants per
residence is always six, regardless of how many individuals live within the residence. Prop 64
does not allow local jurisdictions to prohibit home growth operations, but does allow home
growth to be reasonably regulated.
The primary life -safety issue associated with illegal home growth operations is fire from illegally
installed electrical equipment. Edison maintains energy demand profiles for homes that do not
grow marijuana and for homes that legally grow up to six marijuana plants. Table 5 summarizes
their data:
Page 8
Packet Pg. 155
Table 5:
Southern California Edison Energy Use Statistics
Home With No Marijuana Growth Home With Growth of Six Marijuana Plants
Highest Monthly Energy Use: 1.77 kW Highest Monthly Energy Use: 5.87 kW
Lowest Monthly Energy Use:. 83 kW Lowest Monthly Energy Use: 1.92 kW
As demonstrated by the data, a home that legally grows up to six marijuana plants uses
approximately three times the electricity as a home that does not grow any plants. Edison
acknowledges that the legalizations of home growth operations, along with the potential increase
in illegal home growth operations, will place an increased demand on the existing power
network. In addition, home growth operations, legal and illegal, are anticipated to result in an
increase in the number of electrical panel failures which, in turn, increases the risk of fire and
personal injury. Photographs of electrical systems associated with illegal home growth
operations in Aurora, Colorado, are attached as Exhibit D.
Based on feedback and research, staff recommends prohibiting the home growth of recreational
marijuana to within private residences. Home growth operations that result in the need to
improve or alter the residence would be subject to a permit from the Building & Safety Division.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The 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 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.
PUBLIC NOTICING
All public noticing required by law has been completed, including:
Placement of an advertisement in The Signal Newspaper on November 18, 2017; and
Posting of the 10 -day report at the City Clerk's Office within the City Hall building, and
on the City's website www.santa-clarita.com.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as identified by the City Council.
Page 9
Packet Pg. 156
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of staffs recommendation. However, it is anticipated
that there will be an increase in the level of enforcement associated with illegal recreational
marijuana land uses and illegal home growth operations.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Hearing Notice
Ordinance
EXHIBIT A: Public Correspondence
EXHIBIT B: Previous Staff Reports
EXHIBIT C: 10 Day Report
EXHIBIT D: Photographs
Page 10
Packet Pg. 157
18.a
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita will conduct a
public hearing on Tuesday, November 28, 2017, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, located at
23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California, to consider the following:
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON PRIVATE
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES
On December 13, 2016, the City of Santa Clarita considered and adopted by 4/5t' vote Ordinance
No. 16-12, imposing a moratorium on non-medical marijuana facilities and private marijuana
cultivation ("Moratorium"). The Moratorium was effective for a period of 45 days from its
adoption and was extended on January 24, 2017 until December 12, 2017 by Ordinance No. 17-
01. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider and act upon a proposed extension to the
Moratorium under Government Code section 65858, extending the temporary moratorium on
private marijuana cultivation and non-medical marijuana facilities within the City for one year.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d), a written report describing the measures taken to
alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of the interim urgency ordinance will be made
available at the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at www.santa-clarita.com 10 days
before the hearing noticed above.
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under State
CEQA Guidelines 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 proposed ordinance will have no
potential for resulting in any significant physical change to the environment, either directly or
indirectly.
For further information regarding this ordinance, you may contact David Peterson, Associate
Planner with the City of Santa Clarita's Planning Division at (661) 284-1406 or dyetersonAsanta- i
v
clarita.com. Copies of the agenda report including the proposed ordinance will be available for
review prior to the public hearing on the City's website at www.santa-clarita.com and at the City a'
Clerk's counter at Santa Clarita City Hall located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita,
California.
E
t
v
Any person interested in these matters is invited to attend and present testimony either for or
against the above item. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing.
Mary Cusick, City Clerk
LA#4839-5349-8450 V1
Packet Pg. 158
18.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
PERTAINING TO PRIVATE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND NON-MEDICAL
MARIJUANA FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. As set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.43.010.14, the City of Santa Clarita prohibits
medical marijuana dispensaries in all City zones. Medical marijuana dispensaries are
defined as "any site, facility, location, use, cooperative or business, including vending
machines, which distributes, sells, exchanges, processes, delivers, gives away, or
cultivates marijuana for medical purposes to qualified patients, health care providers,
patients' primary caregivers, or physicians."
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 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
Packet Pg. 159
18.b
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.
L 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 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. 16-12 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. 17-01 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.
M. 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 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 to "marijuana" or "medical
marijuana" in existing law instead be referred to as "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.
Packet Pg. 160
18.b
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. 16-12 and 17-01, 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 Urgency
Ordinance for 10 months and 15 days ("First Extension"), and, after the First Extension,
extend the 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).
Packet Pg. 161
18.b
T. Failure to adopt this Urgency 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 the City.
SECTION 2. Environmental Findings. The City Council exercises its independent
judgment and finds that this 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), (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 stated herein, the City Council: (1) finds that there exists a
current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare requiring this Urgency
Ordinance; (2) finds that this Urgency 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 under Government Code section
65858(a), and pursuant to the findings stated herein, for a period of one year from the
expiration date of December 12, 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 set
forth in Title 18 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).
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.
Packet Pg. 162
18.b
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 Urgency Ordinance takes
effect immediately. In the absence of immediate effectiveness, such uses in the City may
conflict with existing regulations or requirements.
E. This Urgency 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 December 13, 2017, upon
adoption by a four fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. This Urgency Ordinance will remain in
effect for one 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 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
Packet Pg. 163
18.b
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 10 days prior to the expiration of this Urgency Ordinance, describing the study conducted
of the conditions that led to the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance, in accordance with state
law.
SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Urgency Ordinance
and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 12017.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance 17- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2017. That thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance and
was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806).
CITY CLERK
Packet Pg. 164
EXHIBIT A:
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
18.c
0
.N
0
a
0
L
a
E
a
Packet Pg. 165
November 9, 2017
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
H[1I.I. �F JUSTICE
�.
Jim MCDONNELL, SHERIFF
Mayor Smyth and Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California, 91386
Dear Mayor Smyth and Members of the City Council:
POTENTIAL LEGALIZATION OF COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
MARIJUANA BUSINESSES
The purpose of this letter is to express the significant concern posed to the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Santa Clarity Valley Sheriff's Station
regarding the potential legalization of commercial recreational marJjuana
businesses. As you know, under Proposition 64, individual cities have the
authority to allow or prohibit the commercial sale, cultivation, manufacturing,
and distribution of recreational marijuana within their jurisdictions. Allowing
these types of businesses in Santa Clarita would create the following concerns:
• It would be contrary to the current City of Santa Clarita and Santa
Clarita Valley Sheriff s Station's drug-free programs, including the
Juvenile Intervention Team (J -Team) enforcement and the Drug
Free Youth Program in Santa Clarita Valley.
It would desensitize the community to the dangers of marijuana and
potentially lead to an increase in mwJ juana possession among the
youth in our community.
• It would potentially increase the number of impaired drivers on the
roads within the community.
I would like to remind the City Council that Proposition 64 is in violation of
Federal law, specifically the Controlled Substance Act. Under the Act,
- 211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, -Lo9 ANGELES, CiALIFORN[A-90012
j� V/ TM4ice
�— Ance X so —
18.c
Packet Pg. 166
Mayor Smyth and Members of -2-
the City Council
November 9, 2017
marijuana is listed as a schedule one drug and Proposition 64 does not alter
this status.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Santa Clarita Valley Station
strongly encourages the City Council to consider the prohibition of all
commercial recreational marijuana businesses. Should you have questions
or concerns, please feel free to contact me at your convenience at (661) 799-
6101.
Sincerely,
JIM MoDONNELL, SHERIFF
Robert J. Lewis, Captain
Santa Clarita Valley Sherifra Station
18.c
Packet Pg. 167
18.c
z'
WXlliam S. Hart Union High School District
I Me Mea M -
The Wm. S. Hart UHSD joins other organizations in the City of Santa Clarita to strongly oppose
the licensing and operation of marijuana enterprises. Simply put, the commercialization of
marijuana and related products in our valley would increase marijuana use, hamper public
safety, education, and health, and pose a significant cost to the public.
Of particular concern to the School District is the relaxed attitude of adults regarding the use of
marijuana by the youth in our valley. This relaxed attitude leads to increased accessibility and
reduced perception of harm which will undoubtedly contribute to greater use and abuse by our
youth.
In June of 2017, the District was forced to permanently close the doors to Action Academy
Sober School. The Academy began in 2012 and was designed to support students struggling
with sobriety. Following the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, the school suffered
greatly from the lack of support for students testing positive for THC. Students and families
frequently made the comment that "it's just marijuana" and refused to follow through with
treatment recommendations therefore crippling the school's ability to provide a truly safe and
sober environment for all students. Since the closing of Action Academy, the District receives
calls on a regular basis requesting educational options for students struggling with substance
use and abuse. While many of these students are accessing cocaine, meth, and other narcotics,
the school cannot function with a lax attitude toward marijuana use.
Although recreational marijuana and alcohol continue to be illegal for minors, it appears that
the perception held by some in the general population is that marijuana is more acceptable for
use by minors as compared to alcohol. Adults know that alcohol can lead to alcoholism, liver
disease, DUI, and other health and safety hazards. Marijuana use by minors has many hazards
that adults are not aware of including reduction in IQ, memory loss, decreased judgment,
increased anxiety, psychotic reactions, psychological dependency, DUI, and respiratory illness.
Any effort to review the data collected in Colorado since its establishment of the marijuana
industry should dissuade our city from following suit. Most citizens selected Santa Clarita for
their home because of its high level of safety and excellent schools. With the continued impact
caused by the new marijuana legislation, marijuana use at our schools has increased and over
time will certainly have a negative effect on the academic performance by our students.
During the 2016-2017 school -year, the District documented 7 students being taken from school
by ambulance to the hospital due to severe adverse reactions to the ingestion of THC laced
edibles. The marijuana products on the market today are designed to appeal to youth. There
are candies, cookies, sodas, cartoon -themed paraphernalia, and vaporizers being used by adults
at home and accessed by minors with and without parental knowledge. Cigarettes and other
tobacco products were initially designed to appeal to the youth until 1965 when the Cigarette
21380 Centre Pointe Parkway, Santa Clarita, California 91350 • (661) 259-0033 - FAX (661) 254-8653
Packet Pg. 168
Labeling and Advertising Act required health warnings to be placed on all tobacco products.
Marijuana appears to be the new "tobacco industry" which is frightening for our current and
future generations. Hbw long will it take before the public is fully informed of the health risks?
School administrators are charged with the mission to provide a safe educational environment
for all students. Eliminating the use of mind altering substances on campus is a significant focus
of this mission which becomes more difficult every year as the marijuana industry grows and
more money is poured into research and development. The schools have seen an increase in
edibles and devices used for smoking marijuana specifically marketed to disguise its use. The
smokebuddy, for example, is a newer device that eliminates marijuana odor. Vape pens are
decreasing in size and varying in shape making them easier to conceal. This industry is
booming and will continue to create products that appeal to our youth. Annually, the District
averages 193 students being disciplined for drug and alcohol offenses. This number does not
account for the true number of offenses committed as it is becoming increasingly difficult for
school administrators to detect.
The District currently spends $30,000 per year to provide confidential random drug testing for
students as a free service to families. The District also runs the Drug Free Youth program at
every campus in collaboration with the City and law enforcement partners. TIDE is offered
every week to provide education to students found in possession or under the influence of
drugs and tobacco. ACTION provides Tuesday night support groups at one of our high schools
for families dealing with substance abuse. If the city is not able to deter the establishment of
the marijuana industry in our community, it is certain that the costs to the schools and our
youth
will be dramatically increased. We therefore implore the city to vote no on any expansion of the
drug culture to our community.
Kathy Hunter
Director of Student Services
William S. Hart Union High School District
1� �-- &M14�
Vicki Engbrecht
Superintendent
William S. Hart Union High School District
Packet Pg. 169
EXHIBIT B:
PREVIOUS STAFF REPORTS
18.d
0
.N
0
CL
0
I-
CL a
E
0
�L
O
L
C0
C
W
O
i
O
.N
i
d
K
W
0
Q
Nd
N
W
Co
O
d
L
CL
m
m_
x
x
Lu
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 170
Agenda Item• 21
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
NEW BUSINESS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: December 13, 2016
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 64 MORATORIUM
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PRESENTER: Joseph Montes
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MORATORIUM PERTAINING TO PRIVATE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND NON-
MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES."
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 eight grams of marijuana in a concentrated form,
such as 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 very similar to the medical marijuana regulatory system 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 they 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. However, with
regard to private cultivation, 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.
18.d
Packet Pg. 171
Under Proposition 64, the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and
Agriculture, and Department of Public Health are responsible for issuing state licenses to
commercial recreational marijuana businesses. No marijuana business can operate without a
state license from one of these agencies, who are drafting regulations that will govern their
respective areas of responsibility. Based on the latest information from the state, these agencies
will not be ready to issue any state marijuana licenses until January 2018.
Despite that lengthy time -frame for state marijuana licenses, there is a need for urgent action by
the City Council. Municipal Code Section 17.43.010.14 currently prohibits all medical
marijuana businesses and all marijuana cultivation in the City of Santa Clarita (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 will minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City's
marijuana policies. This will 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 1), the 2014 memorandum from the Santa
Clara County District Attorney (Attachment 2), and various news stories from throughout the
country (Attachment 3).
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
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 for the consideration
of all proposed marijuana businesses. 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.
Therefore, an Urgency Ordinance is appropriate. Government Code Section 65858 authorizes
the adoption of an 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. An Urgency Ordinance
will allow the City to protect public health, safety, and welfare while the City Council evaluates
Page 2
18.d
Packet Pg. 172
its options for permanent marijuana regulations.
The proposed 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 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: 1) the owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing
the marijuana cultivation to occur; 2) the person conducting the marijuana cultivation
complies with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Title 15 of the
Municipal Code; 3) there is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas,
etc.) on the property for purposes of marijuana cultivation; and 4) 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 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 Urgency Ordinance for 10 months and 15 days. The City Council may subsequently
extend the Urgency Ordinance for an additional year. While the 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.
The 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) (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 Urgency 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 Urgency Ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, its adoption is exempt from CEQA.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Direct further modifications to the Urgency Ordinance.
2. Other action as directed by City Council.
Page 3
18.d
Packet Pg. 173
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ATTACHMENTS
2009 White Paper from the California Police Chiefs Association
2014 Memorandum from the Santa Clara County District Attorney
Various News Stories from Throughout the Country
Urgency Ordinance
Page 4
18.d
Packet Pg. 174
Agenda Item: 20
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: lVd11J
DATE:
January 24, 2017
SUBJECT:
EXTENSION OF PROPOSITION 64 MORATORIUM
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
PRESENTER:
Joseph Montes
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
PERTAINING TO PRIVATE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA
FACILITIES."
BACKGROUND:
On December 13, 2016, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 16-12, establishing a
45 -day moratorium pertaining to private marijuana cultivation and non-medical facilities. The
staff report for the meeting on December 13, 2016, without attachments, is attached for your
reference.
Since December 13, 2016, City of Santa Clarita (City) staff has investigated what provisions
should be included in a permanent ordinance for 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.
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 received from
the State, marijuana licenses will not be ready to be issued until January 2018.
Government Code Section 65858 provides that, after a notice pursuant to Government Code
Section 65090 and public hearing, the City Council may extend the 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.
18.d
Packet Pg. 175
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 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 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: 1) the owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the
marijuana cultivation to occur; 2) the person conducting the marijuana cultivation
complies with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Title 18 of the
Municipal Code; 3) there is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas,
etc.) on the property for purposes of marijuana cultivation; and 4) 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.
The 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) (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 Urgency 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 Urgency Ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, its adoption is exempt from CEQA.
This Urgency Ordinance requires a four-fifths vote for adoption. If approved by a four-fifths
vote, the Urgency Ordinance will be effective for a period of 10 months and 15 days, until
December 12, 2017. While the Urgency Ordinance is in effect, City staff will continue a
comprehensive review of its policies and potential regulations regarding recreational marijuana
businesses and private marijuana cultivation, in light of Proposition 64.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
Page 2
18.d
Packet Pg. 176
ATTACHMENTS
Public Notice
Urgency Ordinance Extension
Staff Report - Dec. 13, 2016 Prop 64 Moratorium
10 -Day Report (Marijuana Moratorium Extension)
Page 3
18.d
Packet Pg. 177
EXHIBIT C:
10 DAY REPORT
18.e
0
.N
0
CL
0
I-
CL a
E
El
Packet Pg. 178
18.e
10 -DAY REPORT ON THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA'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 Santa Clarita enacted Ordinance No. 16-12 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 City-wide, 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 adopted Ordinance No. 17-01 and 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. 16-12 and
Ordinance No. 17-01 to complete this process, especially with the adoption of Senate Bill 94,
LA #4852-4167-3810 v1
Packet Pg. 179
18.e
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 No. 16-12 and Ordinance No. 17-01.
LA #4852-4167-3810 v1
Packet Pg. 180
EXHIBIT D:
PHOTOGRAPHS OF ILLEGAL HOME GROWTH OPERATIONS
18.f
0
.N
0
a
0
L
a
E
0
�L
O
L
C0
C
W
O
i
O
.N
i
d
K
W
t
Q
P
L
Cm
0
4+
0
t
a
0
m_
x
x
LU
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 181
18.f
6ki
Packet Pg. 183
18.f
co
0
.N
0
CL
0
L-
CL a
E
0
�L
O
L
C0
C
W
O
i
O
.N
i
d
K
W
t
Q
P
L
Cm
0
4+
0
t
a
0
m_
x
x
LU
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 184