HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2014 MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGENDA PACKETWASH I NGTONJ
Municipal Services Committee
August 25, 2014 - 3:30 PM
City Hall Conference Room 3
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Announcements
C. Agenda Modifications
11. CONSENT AGENDA
A. August 11, 2014 Minutes*
111. ACTION
A. Ordinance No. 6529* (Heid)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending
sections 6.01.050, 6.01.070 and 6.01.100 of the Auburn City Code, relating to
animal control.
B. Resolution No. 5093* (Heid)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, declaring a
certain item of property as surplus and authorizing its disposal.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ordinance No. 6525* (Chamberlain /Heid)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending
Sections 1.04.060, 5.10.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010, 18.02.020 and 18.07.010 of
the Auburn City Code, relating to enforcement of State regulations regarding
production, processing and /or retail outlet and sales of marijuana, and
terminating the moratorium implemented pursuant to Resolution No. 4992,
passed on September 16, 2013.
B. Shopping Carts (Bailey)
C. Auto Thefts* (Lee)
D. Project Matrix*
V. ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City
website (http: / /www.auburnwa.gov), and via e -mail. Complete agenda packets are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 62
Page 2 of 62
AuBuRN ITY OF �
\VASH E NGTo
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
August 11, 2014 Minutes August 14, 2014
Department: Attachments: Budget Impact:
Police 08 -11 -14 Fl NAL M inutes $0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember: Peloza Staff:
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 Item Number: CA.A
CA.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 3 of 62
YC F %ti
A.IY
UBURN
WASH kNGTN
Municipal Services Committee
August 11, 2014 - 3:30 PM
City Hall Conference Room 3
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Peloza called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in Conference
Room 3 of City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
A. Roll Call
Members present: Chair Bill Peloza, Vice Chair Wayne Osborne
and Member Claude DaCorsi.
Staff present: Mayor Nancy Backus, Assistant Chief of Police Bill
Pierson, Innovation & Technology Director Ron Tiedeman,
Community Development and Public Works Director Kevin Snyder,
Public Works Assistant Director Randy Bailey, Human Resources
and Risk Management Director Rob Roscoe, City Attorney Dan
Heid, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Parks, Arts & Recreation
Director Daryl Faber and Police Secretary /Scribe Heather Shaw.
Others present: Auburn Reporter representative Robert Whale,
Auburn Valley Humane Society President Don Edwards and Auburn
Valley Humane Society Executive Director Phil Morgan.
B. Announcements
C. Agenda Modifications
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. July 28, 2014 Minutes
Vice Chair Osborne moved to accept the Minutes as presented.
Member DaCorsi seconded. Chair Peloza concurred.
MOTION PASSED: 3 -0
III. ACTION
A. Resolution No. 5089 - Data Service Change (Tiedeman)
Innovation & Technology Director Ron Tiedeman briefed the
committee on Resolution No. 5089 which authorizes the Mayor to
execute a five year contract with Comcast for phone and internet
data services. The city's current data and internet services ar.e
Iage 1 of 4
CA.A Page 4 of 62
provided by 3 service providers, all of which have contracts that are
expiring in 2014. Through a competitive bidding process, Comcast
came back with a significant upgrade proposal including 50 MB of
internet service at City Hall with a redundant 20 MB at the Police
Department and an upgrade of phone services. Thus making it
three to four times faster than previous services provided. New
service costs will be an approximate annual increase of $10,000.00
per year due to adding the airport and police department, though the
proposed services provided are increased over what is currently
provided. Additionally, there was a considerable amount of savings
found through auditing our current records and services. This
additional service cost is offset due to additional service
cancellations estimating that we will cut even despite the new
service add -ons. Services to be provided at the airport would be a
minimum of 5 phones to start with as well as 20 MB of internet
service. Member DaCorsi inquired about the amount of time
provided in the agreement to review and discuss revisions prior to
invoice notice of changes. Director Tiedeman added that the
original agreement stated that the city would have thirty calendar
days from the invoice notice to provide Comcast with written notice
that the revisions made would adversely the city as their customer.
That has since been changed to sixty days to allow additional time
for the city to review and notify Comcast as necessary.
Vice Chair Osborne moved to forward Resolution No. 5089 to full
Council for consideration. Member DaCorsi seconded. Chair Peloza
concurred.
MOTION PASSED: 3 -0
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Animal Control - City Codes (Lee)
Assistant Chief of Police, Bill Pierson provided the current animal
control codes and proposed revisions for discussion and review as
requested by the committee. Committee discussion followed where
specific sections of the current code were identified with proposed
changes throughout their review. Chair Peloza posed questions
regarding code section 6.35.020 which led to additional discussion
pertaining to dangerous dog licensing and registration as well as
how many dangerous dogs are registered within the city. City
Attorney Dan Heid offered to provide that information at the next
municipal services meeting. Vice Chair Osborne inquired as to what
caused the request for revisions within the current code. Assistant
Chief Pierson informed the committee that the police department
identified portions of the process that needed to be cleaned up to
ensure that a proper process was in place in moving forward that
clearly outlined what the city's due process is. Additional committee
Page2of4
CA.A Page 5 of 62
discussion followed while reviewing the proposed revisions to the code.
The committee reviewed the proposed revisions to city code
6.01.070(b). The language and timelines were addressed and it was
decided that additional changes were needed to be made by the city
attorney to clarify the code further.
In addition, Phil Morgan, AVHS Director, provided the committee with a draft
revision to the Impound Document (rules and procedures) that will be
provided to pet owners with the release of their animal. This topic with code
revisions will be discussed at the next MSC meeting on 25 August.
B. Shopping Carts (Bailey)
Assistant Director of Public Works, Randy Bailey, updated the
committee on the shopping cart program costs by providing a
breakdown of invoice collection and subsequent costs incurred by the
city. Chair Peloza suggested that the committee make an agenda item
for the next council meeting to disband the shopping cart program.
Mayor Backus recommended that the motion be addressed at the next
municipal services meeting so that the committee can review the
current ordinance.
Current costs exceed the revenue of the program. This topic will come
back to the committee for final review /options for the program.
C. Cemetery Update (Faber)
Parks, Arts and Recreation Director, Daryl Faber provided an update on
the cemetery including a second quarter status. Faber reports
that there was an operating loss of $27,980.00 compared to an
operating loss of $3,089.00 for the previous year. Additionally, year
to date services provided have increased from 109 in 2013 to 116 in
2014. Cremations have outnumbered burials and staff is watching the
trend to ensure that they price burial lots appropriately as burials
bring in more revenue than cremations. Director Faber also mentioned
that they are working with city department, planning and
public works to determine whether two decommissioned wells could
be used for irrigation purposes to save money to the city on the
cemetery's water bill.
D. Pet Licensing Program /AVHS Board Review (Coleman)
Finance Director Shelley Coleman reported that pet license sales are
slightly ahead of where we were year to date last year though it does
not appear that we will meet the 2014 budget goal of
$240,000.00. Chair Peloza addressed that the city is not getting the
impact from the veterinary clinics as they previously thought they would.
In response, Auburn Valley Humane Society's Executive Director, Phil
Morgan mentioned that many local veterinary clinics are struggling with
King County's push to have animals vaccinated for rabies. Committee
Page3of4
CA.A Page 6 of 62
discussion followed regarding additional suggestions on how to raise
awareness and provide additional promotions for pet licensing.
E. 200 -62 Vacation Leave Policy Revision (Roscoe)
Policy 200 -62
Human Resources and Risk Management Director Rob Roscoe
reported on the vacation leave policy proposed revisions to include
the mayor in with the department heads to the policy.
F Project Matrix
The following updates were identified for the Project Matrix:
Item 24P: Review date changed to 05/2015.
Item 31 P: Review date changed to 10/27/2014.
Item 31: Review date changed to 08/25/2014.
Item 61: Review date changed to 10/27/2014.
V. ADJOURNMENT
CA.A
The meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m. The next regular meeting of the
Municipal Services Committee is scheduled for Monday, August 25,
2014 at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room 3 of City Hall, 25 West Main
Street, Auburn, WA.
Signed this day of August, 2014.
Bill Peloza, Chair Heather Shaw, Police Secretary /Scribe
Page4of4
Page 7 of 62
AuBuRN ITY Cdr •
wAs - IENGTo
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6529
Department:
Legal
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6529
Administrative Recommendation:
Date:
August 20, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
City Council approve Ordinance No. 6529.
Background Summary:
Animal control regulations located in Title 6 of the Auburn City Code provide for
licensing of animals (dogs and cats) and also provide for the impounding of animals
running at large. When animals are impounded on successive occasions, the City
Code provides that the animal may be spayed or neutered is a requirement for
redemption of the animal from impound.
The current provisions of the City Code, however, do not give as much detail as could
be given regarding the notice to be given to the owner of an impounded animal. It is
appropriate for the city code to be amended to provide greater specificity in terms of
the notice to owners. It is also appropriate that, as a preliminary step to spaying or
neutering an impounded animal, the animal should be microchipped, so that the
identity of the animal can be determined with certainty, should the animal
subsequently be impounded.
With these other changes, it is also appropriate for the City Code to be amended to
identify an appeal process, should the owner of an animal that has been impounded
objects to an order calling for the animal to be microchipped or spayed or neutered.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember: Peloza Staff: Heid
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 Item Number: ACT.A
ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 8 of 62
ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 9 of 62
ORDINANCE NO. 6 5 2 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS
6.01.050, 6.01.070 AND 6.01.100 OF THE AUBURN CITY
CODE, RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL
WHEREAS, the current provisions of the Auburn City Code provide for animal control,
including impoundment of animals running at large; and
WHEREAS, the city code also provides for spaying and neutering of animals as a
condition of release where the animals have been impounded on multiple occasions; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the impoundment of animals and the potential spaying or
neutering of these impounded animals, it is appropriate that the City take steps to provide
reasonable notice to the owners of the consequences that could occur with respect to their
animals; and
WHEREAS, and it is also appropriate to clarify what opportunities exist for an owner to
appeal an order to spay or neuter an impounded animal; and
WHEREAS, as a preliminary step to spaying or neutering an impounded animal, it would
be valuable for animal control purposes to have the animal microchipped so that, should the
animal be subsequently impounded, its identity could be determined with certainty.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows
Section 1. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. Section 6.01.050 of the Auburn
City code be, and the same hereby is, amended:
Ordinance No. 6529
August 14, 2014
Page 1 of 4
ACT.A Page 10 of 62
6.01.050 Notice of impounding animal.
Upon the impoundment of any animal under the provisions of this title, the
animal control officer or shelter shall notify the owner, if the owner is known, of
the impounding of such animal and the terms upon which said animal can be
redeemed. The notifying of any person over the age of 18 who resides at the
owner's domicile or mailing the notice to the address given to the city at the time
the animal was licensed shall constitute actual notice to the owner. If the owner
of said animal so impounded is unknown, thcn the animal control officcr or
animal and cannot be reasonably determined or located, no notice of impound
shall be required, and the city and /or the animal shelter shall be entitled to take
such action allowed under the city code as if notice were given. There shall be no
obligation to determine the owner of such animal if the animal is not wearing a
license or other identification or is not microchipped. (Ord. 6424 § 1, 2012.)
Section 2. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. Section 6.01.070 of the Auburn
City code be, and the same hereby is, amended:
6.01.070 Redemption of animals.
A. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this title, the owner of any
animal impounded under this title may shall redeem said animal within 72 hours
from time of impounding notice of impound pursuant to Section 6.01.050 of the
City Code by paying the appropriate redemption fee as well as any applicable
boarding charge for the caring and keeping of such animal. All fees and charges
must be paid prior to redeeming the animal. A dog or cat may not be redeemed
unless it is properly licensed.
B. If an impounded animal is not redeemed by the owner within-4g
hours 72 hours from time of impounding notice of impound pursuant to Section
6.01.050 of the City Code, then the animal shall become the property of the
animal shelter, and any person may purchase adopt it within the next /18 hours by
complying with the animal shelter's purchasc adoption provisions. In casc the
event that such animal is not redeemed or adopted within 120 hours after notice
of impoundment, it may be humanely euthanized or otherwise disposed of within
the discretion of the animal shelter. It is provided, however, that if the animal
control officer and /or the animal shelter deem(s) the impounded animal to be
dangerous and /or unadoptable, the animal may be humanely euthanized after 72
hours from time of impounding notice of impound pursuant to Section 6.01.050 of
the City Code. (Ord. 6424 § 1, 2012.)
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. Section 6.01.100 of the Auburn
City code be, and the same hereby is, amended:
Ordinance No. 6529
August 14, 2014
Page 2 of 4
ACT.A Page 11 of 62
6.01.100 Mandatory microchip /spay /neuter for impounded dogs and cats —
Exception.
A. No unaltered un microchipped impounded dog or cat that is—has
previously been impounded morc than oncc in anywithin the preceding 42-24 -
month period may be redeemed by any person until the animal is spayed or
n°�dmicrochipped pursuant to an order of the animal control officer directing
the microchippinq. The alteration microchippinq shall be accomplished by the
shelter or by any duly licensed veterinarian. In all cases, the veterinarian fees
and costs shall be paid at the time of redemption by the animal's owner or person
redeeming the animal.
B. No unaltered impounded dog or cat that has previously been
impounded twice within the preceding 24 -month period may be redeemed by any
person until the animal is spayed or neutered pursuant to an order of the animal
control officer directing the alteration. The alteration shall be accomplished by the
shelter or by any duly licensed veterinarian. In all cases, the veterinarian fees
and costs shall be paid at the time of redemption by the animal's owner or person
redeeming the animal.
C. Exceptions to mandatory microchipping or alteration. The alteration
shall not be required upon a showing of proof of alteration from a licensed
veterinarian. The microchipping or alteration shall not be required if the owner or
other person redeeming the animal provides a written statement from a licensed
veterinarian stating that and explaining why the microchip, spay or neuter
procedure would be harmful to the animal.
u. Appeal of order for microchipping or alteration. If the owner of the
animal objects to the order directing microchippinq or alteration of the animal, the
owner may submit a written appeal of the order within 72 hours of notice of the
impound, which appeal shall be heard by the police chief or designee. The owner
shall, at the same time, pay $100.00 as a non - refundable appeal fee, and shall
post a cash deposit of $250.00 to cover the additional costs incurred by the city
and /or the animal shelter related to the impound, including but not limited to
impound charges and costs of microchippinq and alteration. It is further provided
that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the owner shall be responsible for
the costs of or related to the impound and any resulting microchippinq and /or
alteration. The decision of the police chief or designee on the appeal shall be
final, unless the owner seeks injunctive relief from the King County Superior
Court. (Ord. 6424 § 1, 2012.)
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Ordinance No. 6529
August 14, 2014
Page 3 of 4
ACT.A Page 12 of 62
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
Ordinance No. 6529
August 14, 2014
Page 4 of 4
ACT.A Page 13 of 62
AuBuRN ITY OF �
\VASH E NGTo
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 5093
Department:
Legal
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Attachments:
Resolution No. 5093
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council approve Resolution No. 5093.
Background Summary:
Date:
August 21, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember: Peloza Staff: Heid
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 Item Number: ACT.A
ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 14 of 62
RESOLUTION NO. 5 0 9 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON DECLARING A
CERTAIN ITEM OF PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND
AUTHORIZING ITS DISPOSAL
WHEREAS, the Auburn Police Department has a 2004 Jeep Liberty
vehicle that shows approximately 120,000 miles on its odometer; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Jeep liberty vehicle is scheduled to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, it would be appropriate to surplus the above - described
property and dispose of it by auction or other sale mechanism, or to dispose of it,
in whole or in part, through gift to another governmental agency or an appropriate
charitable non - profit entity, as deemed most expedient by the Mayor.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. That the property identified below is declared to be surplus,
and the Mayor is authorized to dispose of and convey such property through
appropriate sale or donation to another governmental agency or charitable non-
profit entity.
2004 Jeep Liberty red in color. VIN 1J4GL48K24W246337
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this
legislation.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
upon passage and signatures hereon.
Resolution No. 5093
August 20, 2014
ACT.A Page 1
Page 15 of 62
Dated and Signed this day of , 2014.
CITY OF AUBURN
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Resolution No. 5093
August 20, 2014
ACT.A Page 2
Page 16 of 62
DI.A
AUBURN 171,r
vASH1[ u
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6525
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6525 Option 2
Ordinance No. 6525 Option 1
PC Findings Option 2
M emo from the Legal Department
Preliminary! -502 Zoning Map
Administrative Recommendation:
Date:
August 20, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
A majority of the Planning Commission voted (5 -1) on August 6, 2014 to recommend
to the City Council and Ordinance that would allow for City enforcement of State
marijuana regulations without the City being the licensing or approving agency. This
proposal would amend Auburn City Code sections 1.04.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010,
18.02.020, and 18.07.010 to enforce State regulations regarding production,
processing and /or retail outlets and sales of marijuana, and terminating the
moratorium pursuant to Resolution No. 4992 (File No. ZOA14- 0003).
On November 6, 2012, the people of the State of Washington voted to pass State
Initiative 502 (1 -502) allowing the State to license and regulate recreational marijuana
production, distribution, and possession for persons over 21. On September 16,
2013, the City Council passed its Resolution No. 4992 imposing an initial one -year
moratorium on the acceptance or processing of applications for business licenses and
other licenses, permits, and approvals for marijuana /cannabis related businesses or
uses.
This moratorium was established to act as a stop -gap measure in order to 1) provide
the City with an opportunity to study the issues concerning the siting of such State
licensed related businesses and prepare appropriate revisions to the City's codes and
regulations, and 2) to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
Auburn my ameliorating negative impacts of marijuana related businesses /uses.
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 17 of 62
DI.A
As part of the Work Plan as established in Section 5B of the moratorium, Planning and
Legal staff have engaged in a collaborative research and analysis effort and prepared
Options for Planning Commission to consider. Those Options were to construct
amendments to the City Code that would either, 1) prohibit all marijuana related
businesses /uses in the City; 2) ensure compliance with State regulations whereby City
would be the enforcing entity but not the permitting or licensing agent for marijuana
related uses; or 3) City place additional regulations on top of the State regulations
making the City both the enforcing entity as well as a permitting and licensing agent
for marijuana related uses.
The Planning Commission reviewed the issue over several meetings and held a public
hearing on August 6, 2014 to review and make a final recommendation to move
forward to City Council. By a 5 -1 vote, the Commission voted to recommend Option 2
as written to Council for approval. The amendments were also presented to the
Municipal Services Committee on
8 -25 -14 for discussion.
In considering its possible recommendation(s) to the City Council, the Planning
Commission reviewed alternatives including the option they recommended. At its
August 6th public hearing and meeting, the materials that were presented to the
Planning Commission included: two alternative findings of fact (Options 1 and 2), two
alternative Ordinances (Options 1 and 2), a memo from the City Attorney, and other
materials. Although the Planning Commission recommended Option 2 to the City
Council, Option 1 is being included as reference during the Committee's discussion.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development Other: Legal, Planning
Commission
Councilmember: Peloza Staff: Chamberlain /Heid
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 Item Number: DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 18 of 62
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE MARIJUANA REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
ORDINANCE NO. 6 5 2 5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS
1.04.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010, 18.02.020 AND 18.07.010 OF
THE AUBURN CITY CODE, RELATING TO
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE REGULATIONS REGARDING
PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND /OR RETAIL OUTLETS
AND SALES OF MARIJUANA, AND TERMINATING THE
MORATORIUM IMPLEMENTED PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION NO. 4992, PASSED ON SEPTEMBER 16,
2013
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has in its City Code a provision that precludes
enactment of City ordinances that are in conflict with state or federal law, as follows:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein, shall not
be in conflict with all other regulations and /or requirements of state and federal
law, insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use or conduct which is in
violation of or prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any
such provisions that cannot be implemented or enforced because of provisions of
state or federal law, or that cannot be reconciled with any state or federal law,
shall be deemed to be in conflict therewith. Any provisions of city ordinances or
of the city code deemed by the city council to be in conflict with state or federal
law shall be null and void. This provision does not allow any action, use or
conduct which is in violation of any local, state or federal laws, regulations, codes
and /or ordinances. Any action, use or conduct which is not permitted or allowed
is prohibited;
and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington
approved Initiative Measure No. 502 ( "Initiative 502 "), now codified within Chapters
69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21 and 46.61 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which
Initiative (a) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and
marijuana paraphernalia; (b) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the
influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (c)
authorized promulgation of regulations and issuance of licenses by the Washington
State Liquor Control Board ( "WSLCB ") for the production, processing and retailing of
marijuana; and
DI.A Page 19 of 62
Whereas, the Attorney General of Washington issued an opinion, AGO 2014 No.
2, concluding that under Washington law there is a strong presumption against finding
that state law preempts local ordinances, and although Initiative 502 established a
licensing and regulatory system for marijuana producers, processors and retailers in
Washington state, it includes no clear indication that it was intended to preempt local
authority to regulate such businesses, and the Attorney General, therefore, concluded
that Initiative 502 left in place the normal powers of local government to regulate within
their jurisdictions; and the Attorney General also concluded that local governments have
broad authority to regulate within their local jurisdictions and nothing in the initiative
limits that authority with respect to licensed marijuana businesses; and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [Pub.L. No. 91 -513, 84 Stat. 1236], creating a
comprehensive drug enforcement regime called the Controlled Substances Act, codified
as 21 USC § 801 -971; and
WHEREAS, under the Controlled Substances Act, Congress established five
"schedules" of controlled substances whereby controlled substances are placed in
specific schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their accepted medical use in
treatment, and the physical and psychological consequences of abuse of the substance
[See 21 USC § 812(b)]; and
WHEREAS, marijuana is currently listed as a "Schedule I" controlled substance
in 21 USC § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(10); and
WHEREAS, for a substance to be designated a Schedule I controlled substance
under the Controlled Substances Act, it must be found that the substance: (1) has a
high potential for abuse, (2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States; and (3) that there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the substance
under medical supervision [See 21 USC § 812(b)(1)]; and
WHEREAS, the Controlled Substances Act sets forth procedures by which the
schedules may be modified [See 21 USC § 811(a)]; and
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 2 of 11
Page 20 of 62
WHEREAS, under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unlawful to knowingly or
intentionally "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to
manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," except as otherwise
provided in the statute [21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1)]; and
WHEREAS, possession of a controlled substance, except as authorized under
the Controlled Substances Act, is also unlawful; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545
U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2005), that Congress was within its rights and
powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled
substance pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, and that, under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Controlled Substances Act will prevail over
any conflicting state law; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 11 of Section 314 -55 -020 of the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC), promulgated by the WSCLB under the authority of
Initiative 502, describes the license permit process and includes the following limitation:
(11) The issuance or approval of a license shall not be construed as a license
for, or an approval of, any violations of local rules or ordinances including, but not
limited to: Building and fire codes, zoning ordinances, and business licensing
requirements;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, § 11 of the Constitution of the State of
Washington, the general police powers granted to cities empower and authorize the City
of Auburn to adopt land use controls to provide for the regulation of land uses within the
city and to provide that such uses shall be consistent with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that documented secondary
effects associated with analogous medical marijuana dispensaries in other cities and
counties include murders, robberies, burglaries, drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering,
heavy foot and vehicle traffic, increased noise, odors, health hazards such as
proliferation of molds [See, "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," issued by the
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 3 of 11
Page 21 of 62
California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries on April
22, 2009, ( "CAPCA White Paper "); City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health
and Welfare Center, 56 Ca1.4th 729, 756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013)], however, the City
Council finds that the State licensing and regulatory scheme, if enforced by the City and
the State, may adequately mitigate these secondary effects; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Auburn has held and
conducted various public meetings and authorized a public workshop to address
marijuana production, processing and retailing, as defined in Initiative 502 and its
implementing regulations, and has held an open public hearing on the 6th day of
August, 2014, all pursuant to required notice and applicable procedures of the City of
Auburn, and has adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its
recommendation for adoption of the above - described amendments, which Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law are of record and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
Whereas, illustrative of an area of concern is the fact that in relationship to the
Washington state legislatures passage of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill
5073, then Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed portions of the bill that would have
legalized use of marijuana for medical purposes out of concern that the vetoed portions
of the bill would authorize state employees to issue licenses for marijuana related
activities and would thus open public employees to federal prosecution as the United
States attorneys have made it clear that state law would not provide an automatic safe
harbor from federal prosecution, and because of her concern that no state employee
should be required to violate federal criminal law in order to fulfill the duties under state
law [See Governor Gregoire's letter of April 29, 2011 to the Washington state
legislature /Senate]; and
WHEREAS, because a majority of the voters of the City of Auburn voted in
support of Initiative 502, expressing support for legalization /decriminalization of
marijuana activities, the City Council of the City of Auburn faces a dilemma of potentially
having to choose between supporting a citizen - approved state law that
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 4 of 11
Page 22 of 62
legalize /decriminalize marijuana related activities or supporting the federal law under
which marijuana is illegal; and
WHEREAS, the dilemma would be exacerbated if the City of Auburn were to be
the governmental entity responsible for the licensing and permitting of those marijuana
related activities that are illegal under federal law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the state law and the accompanying
regulations promulgated by the WSLCB essentially, adequately address the issues and
impacts that would be involved by licensing and permitting activities if handled by the
City, so that the City of Auburn could restrict its activity in connection with such
businesses to enforcing and ensuring compliance with state law without the City having
to be the licensing and permitting agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the record herein, and all evidence and testimony presented;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that approval of such
amendments is in the best interests of the City of Auburn.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows
Section 1. Recitals Adopted. The City Council hereby adopts the recital
clauses contained in this Ordinance as Findings of Fact or Conclusions, as may be
appropriate given the context of each recital.
Section 2. Amendment To City Code. That Section 1.04.060 of the Auburn
City Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 5 of 11
Page 23 of 62
A. All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein,
shall not be in conflict with all other regulations and /or requirements of state and
federal law, insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use or conduct which
is in violation of or prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes.
Any such provisions that cannot be implemented or enforced because of
provisions of state or federal law, or that cannot be reconciled with any state or
federal law, shall be deemed to be in conflict therewith. Any provisions of city
ordinances or of the city code deemed by the city council to be in conflict with
state or federal law shall be null and void. This The provisions of this Section
€1-Gesdo not allow any action, use or conduct which is in violation of any local,
state or federal laws, regulations, codes and /or ordinances, and the city is not
authorized to permit, or license such action, use or conduct.
B. Any action, use or conduct which is not permitted or allowed is
prohibited. It is provided, however, that the provisions of this Subsection B do not
apply to any person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful license issued by
the State of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana, marijuana
concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products and is acting
in full conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related to such
license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 —
540 WAC. In such instances, the State of Washington, not the city, is the
permitting and licensing entity. It is provided, however, that this provision does
not preclude the city from taking enforcement action in instances where conduct
or activity that is licensed or permitted under Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW,
and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC occurs within the City of Auburn but is not
in compliance with or violates the requirements of such state licensing or
permitting. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of Sections
69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted
by reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6416 § 3, 2012.)
Section 3. Amendment To City Code. That Section 5.10.040 of the Auburn
City Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
5.10.040 General business license required - Exception.
A. Any person desiring to establish or conduct any business enterprise or
undertaking as defined in ACC 5.10.020 within the corporate limits of the city,
shall first apply to the business license clerk, as designated by the mayor, for a
license to conduct such business and obtain such license as approved by the
city. The application shall be upon a form furnished by the business license clerk
on which the applicant shall state the business name, address, and telephone
number; the nature of the business activity or activities in which the applicant
desires to engage; the place where the business will be conducted; the number
of employees, and the name of the contact person along with an address and
telephone number, and the business identification number issued by the state of
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 6 of 11
Page 24 of 62
Washington; and the IRS letter testifying to nonprofit status or the copy of the
application to the IRS.
B. It is unlawful for any person to operate or physically conduct any
business within the city without having first obtained a general business license
for the current business year or portion thereof. The applicant for a business
license required under this title shall be over the age of 18 years. If any person
required to pay a license fee, by the terms and provisions of this chapter, for any
period fails or refuses to do so, they shall not be granted a license for the current
period until such delinquent license fee, together with penalties, has been paid in
full.
C. Specific businesses identified in Chapters 3.80, 3.84, 3.88, 5.20, 5.30,
5.84 ACC or elsewhere in this title or other titles of the Auburn City Code will be
required to obtain an individual business license as otherwise indicated.
D. Any business within the city jurisdiction on any project requiring a
permit must have a business license.
E. Exception to city business licensing requirement. A business license is
not required by the city of any person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful
license issued by the state of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana,
marijuana concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products in
conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related to such
license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 —
540 WAC. (Ord. 5897 § 3, 2005; Ord. 5814 § 2, 2004; Ord. 5754 § 1, 2003; Ord.
4012 § 2, 1984.)
Section 4. Amendment To City Code. That Section 9.22.010 of the Auburn
City Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
9.22.010 Marijuana prohibited.
A. Except as authorized under United States Code (USC) Title 21:
Controlled Substances Ac by thc Rcviscd Codc of Washington, it is unlawful for
any person or persons to grow, manufacture, process, deliver, grow, or posscss
sell marijuana.
B. Except as authorized by the Revised Code of Washington, it is
unlawful for any person to possess marijuana.
C. "Marijuana: also known as "marihuana" means all parts of the plant
of thc gcnus cannabis Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds
thereof; the resins extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the such plant, its seeds
or resin, and includes all marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, and
marijuana- infused products. Such term does not include the mature stalks of
the such plant, fiber produced from the such stalks, oil or cake made from the
seeds of thc such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the such mature stalks (except the resins extracted
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 7 of 11
Page 25 of 62
therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the such plant which is
incapable of germination.
D. It is unlawful for any person or persons who has /have a license
issued by the state of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana,
marijuana concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products to
fail to comply with or violate any of the requirements of the state of Washington
related to such license issued by the state of Washington, including, but not
limited to the requirements of Sections 69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314-
55 -515 — 535 WAC. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of
Sections 69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are
hereby adopted by reference and Incorporated herein.
E. Violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed by
the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the
court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and
fine. (Ord. 6300 § 1, 2010; Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
Section 5. Amendment To City Code. That Section 18.02.020 of the Auburn
City Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
18.02.020 Authority to adopt code.
A. The City of Auburn comprehensive zoning ordinance is adopted by
City of Auburn ordinance, pursuant to Article XI, Section 11 of the Washington
State Constitution, the State Growth Management Act, RCW Title 35A, Optional
Municipal Code, and Chapter 36.70B RCW. In accordance with ACC 1.04.060.;
R4
B. notwithstanding Notwithstanding any provisions otherwise, this title
does not permit or allow any action, use or conduct which is in violation of or
prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any action, use or
conduct which is prohibited by state or federal law is prohibited hereby. It is
provided, however, that the provisions of this Subsection B do not apply to any
person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful license issued by the State of
Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana, marijuana concentrates,
usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products and is acting in full
conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related to such
license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 —
540 WAC. In such instances, the State of Washington, not the city, is the
permitting and licensing entity. It is provided, however, that this provision does
not preclude the city from taking enforcement action in instances where conduct
or activity that is licensed or permitted under Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW,
and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC occurs within the City of Auburn but is not
in compliance with or violates the requirements of such state licensing or
permitting. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of Sections
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 8 of 11
Page 26 of 62
69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted
by reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6416 § 4, 2012; Ord. 6245 § 2,
2009.)
Section 6. Amendment To City Code. That Section 18.07.010 of the Auburn
City Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
18.07.010 Intent.
A. General. This section describes the intent for each of the city's
residential zones. These intent statements may be used to guide the
interpretation of the regulations associated with each zone.
B. (RC) Residential Conservancy Zone — One Dwelling Unit per Four
Acres. The RC residential conservancy zone is intended primarily to provide for
low- intensity single - family residential uses with characteristics of an agricultural
environment; provided, that the agricultural uses are secondary to the single -
family uses. These areas allow for a lifestyle similar to that of rural areas that
includes allowance of farm animals and streets without sidewalks. This zone is
intended to protect areas with significant environmental constraints or values
from impacts typically associated with urban levels of development while allowing
low- intensity development designed to minimize impacts on the natural
environmental features designated for conservation.
Public improvements required within the R -C zone will be less than is
normally required for the higher intensity residential zones within the city.
This zone shall only be applied in areas designated as residential
conservancy on the comprehensive plan. This zone shall allow one dwelling unit
per four acres minimum lot area.
C. R -1 Residential Zone — One Dwelling Unit per Acre. The intent of
the R -1 residential zone is to provide areas for estate -type residential
development on large lots. This zone would normally be located in the areas
particularly suited for such development.
Appropriate development standards required of other urban areas shall be
required to serve this zone.
D. R -5 Residential Zone — Five Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -5
single - family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of
optimum standards for single - family dwellings. It is further intended to achieve
development densities of four to five dwelling units per net acre. This zone will
provide for the development of single - family detached dwellings and for such
accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the single - family
residential environment.
E. R -7 Residential Zone — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre.
The R -7 single - family residential zones are intended to create a living
environment of optimum standards for single - family dwellings. It is further
intended to achieve development densities of five to seven dwelling units per net
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 9 of 11
Page 27 of 62
acre. This zone will provide for the development of single - family detached
dwellings and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not
detrimental to the residential environment.
F. R -10 Residential Zone — 10 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -10
residential zones are intended to permit some increase in population density in
those areas to which this classification applies by permitting single - family
dwellings and duplexes on a minimum size lot while at the same time, by means
of the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter, maintaining a
desirable family living environment by establishing minimum lot areas, yards and
open spaces. A related consideration is to provide a transition between single -
family areas and other intensive designations or activities which reduce the
suitability for single - family uses.
G. R -16 Residential Zone — 16 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -16
zone is intended to provide for medium density multiple - family residential
development as designated in the comprehensive plan, and is further intended
as a residential zone of single, duplex and multiple - family residences, except as
specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter.
H. R -20 Residential Zone — 20 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -20
zone is intended to provide for multiple - family residential development and is
further intended as a residential zone primarily of multiple - family residences,
except as specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter. A related consideration
is to make it possible to more efficiently and economically design and install all
physical public service facilities in terms of size and capacity to adequately and
permanently meet needs resulting from a defined intensity of land use.
Except as specifically provided in the city code, no business or
commercial use shall be allowed in a residential district of the city that does not
have a city of Auburn business license. (Ord. 6245 § 5, 2009.)
Section 7. Termination of Moratorium. The Moratorium implemented pursuant
to City of Auburn Resolution No. 4992, passed on September 16, 2013, shall terminate
upon the date this Ordinance becomes effective in accordance with the provisions of
Section 9 below.
Section 8. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 10 of 11
Page 28 of 62
Section 9. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
DI.A Page 11 of 11
Page 29 of 62
PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA
ORDINANCE NO. 6 5 2 5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
9.22.010 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE, PROHIBITING
PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND /OR RETAIL OUTLETS
AND SALES OF MARIJUANA IN ALL ZONES OF THE
CITY, AND TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM
IMPLEMENTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 4992,
PASSED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has in its City Code a provision that precludes
enactment of City ordinances that are in conflict with state or federal law, as follows:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein, shall not
be in conflict with all other regulations and /or requirements of state and federal
law, insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use or conduct which is in
violation of or prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any
such provisions that cannot be implemented or enforced because of provisions of
state or federal law, or that cannot be reconciled with any state or federal law,
shall be deemed to be in conflict therewith. Any provisions of city ordinances or
of the city code deemed by the city council to be in conflict with state or federal
law shall be null and void. This provision does not allow any action, use or
conduct which is in violation of any local, state or federal laws, regulations, codes
and /or ordinances. Any action, use or conduct which is not permitted or allowed
is prohibited;
and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington
approved Initiative Measure No. 502 ( "Initiative 502 "), now codified within Chapters
69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21 and 46.61 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which
Initiative (a) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and
marijuana paraphernalia; (b) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the
influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (c)
authorized promulgation of regulations and issuance of licenses by the Washington
State Liquor Control Board ( "WSLCB ") for the production, processing and retailing of
marijuana; and
DI.A Page 30 of 62
WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91 -513, 84 Stat. 1236, creating a
comprehensive drug enforcement regime called the Controlled Substances Act, codified
as 21 USC § 801 -971; and
WHEREAS, under the Controlled Substances Act, Congress established five
"schedules" of controlled substances whereby controlled substances are placed in
specific schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their accepted medical use in
treatment, and the physical and psychological consequences of abuse of the substance
[See 21 USC § 812(b)]; and
WHEREAS, marijuana is currently listed as a "Schedule I" controlled substance
in 21 USC § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(10); and
WHEREAS, for a substance to be designated a Schedule I controlled substance
under the Controlled Substances Act, it must be found that the substance: (1) has a
high potential for abuse, (2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States; and (3) that there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the substance
under medical supervision [See 21 USC § 812(b)(1)]; and
WHEREAS, the Controlled Substances Act sets forth procedures by which the
schedules may be modified [See 21 USC § 811(a)]; and
WHEREAS, under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unlawful to knowingly or
intentionally "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to
manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," except as otherwise
provided in the statute [21 USC § 841(a)(1)]; and
WHEREAS, possession of a controlled substance, except as authorized under
the Controlled Substances Act, is also unlawful; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545
U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2005), that Congress was within its rights and
powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
Page 2of7
DI.A Page 31 of 62
substance pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, and that, under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Controlled Substances Act will prevail over
any conflicting state law; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 11 of Section 314 -55 -020 of the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC), promulgated by the WSCLB under the authority of Initiative
502, describes the license permit process and includes the following limitation:
(11) The issuance or approval of a license shall not be construed as a license
for, or an approval of, any violations of local rules or ordinances including, but not
limited to: Building and fire codes, zoning ordinances, and business licensing
requirements;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, § 11 of the Constitution of the State of
Washington, the general police powers granted to cities, the City of Auburn is
empowered and authorized to adopt land use controls to provide for the regulation of
land uses within the City, which regulations are not to be in conflict with general laws.;
and
WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of the Growth Management Act is to
empower cities planning under the Act to develop and adopt land use controls reflecting
the local needs of the community, and as provided in RCW 36.70A.010: IT is in the
public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector
cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that Initiative 502 does not
preempt the City of Auburn from exercising and administering its constitutional and
statutory land use regulatory authority to either allow and regulate land uses within the
corporate limits of the City, or to prohibit and ban such uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of
marijuana production, processing and retailing as defined by Initiative 502 and
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
Page 3of7
DI.A Page 32 of 62
regulations promulgated thereunder is consistent with federal law and not in conflict
therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that documented secondary
effects associated with analogous medical marijuana dispensaries in other cities and
counties include murders, robberies, burglaries, drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering,
heavy foot and vehicle traffic, increased noise, odors, health hazards such as
proliferation of molds [See, "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," issued by the
California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries on April
22, 2009, ( "CAPCA White Paper "); City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health
and Welfare Center, 56 Cal. 4th 729, 756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013)]; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of
marijuana production, processing and retail uses within the City of Auburn is the only
effective means to protect residential districts, recreational facilities, families and
children within the City of Auburn; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn finds and determines that
Section 9.22.010 of the Auburn City Code should be amended to prohibit marijuana
production, processing and retailing, as defined in Initiative 502 and its implementing
regulations, within the City of Auburn; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of
marijuana production, processing and retailing is subject to the authority and general
police power of the City to develop specific and appropriate land use controls regarding
such uses, and the City Council reserves its powers and authority to appropriately
amend, modify and revise such prohibition to implement such land use controls in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that such amendments
authorized herein are not intended to regulate the individual use of marijuana as
authorized by Initiative 502 ; and
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
Page 4of7
DI.A Page 33 of 62
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Auburn has held and
conducted various public meetings and authorized a public workshop to address
marijuana production, processing and retailing, as defined in Initiative 502 and its
implementing regulations, and has held an open public hearing on the day
of , 2014, all pursuant to required notice and applicable procedures of the City of
Auburn, and has adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its
recommendation for adoption of the above - described amendments, which Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law are of record and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the record herein, and all evidence and testimony presented;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that approval of such
amendments is in the best interests of residents of the City of Auburn and will promote
the general health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows
Section 1. Recitals Adopted. The City Council hereby adopts the recital
clauses contained in this Ordinance as Findings of Fact or Conclusions, as may be
appropriate given the context of each recital.
Section 2. Amendment To City Code. That Section 9.22.010 of the Auburn
City Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
9.22.010 Marijuana prohibited.
A. Except as authorized under United States Code (USC) Title 21:
Controlled Substances Ac, it is unlawful for any person or persons to grow,
manufacture, process, deliver, or sell marijuana.
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
Page 5of7
DI.A Page 34 of 62
B. Except as authorized by the Revised Code of Washington, it is
unlawful for any person to possess marijuana.
C. "Marijuana," also known as "marihuana" means all parts of the plant
Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resins
extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin, and includes
all marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, and marijuana- infused products.
Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from
such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks
(except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of
such plant which is incapable of germination.
D. Violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed by
the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the
court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and
fine. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of Sections 69.50.325 —
369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted by
reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6300 § 1, 2010; Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
Section 3. Termination of Moratorium. The Moratorium implemented pursuant
to City of Auburn Resolution No. 4992, passed on September 16, 2013, shall terminate
upon the date this Ordinance becomes effective in accordance with the provisions of
Section 6 below.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
Page 6of7
DI.A Page 35 of 62
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
Ordinance No. 6525
August 19, 2014
Page 7of7
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
DI.A Page 36 of 62
PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION — Option 2 — Enforcement of State Marijuana Regulations Only
[Ordinance No. 6525]
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Auburn has held and conducted
various public meetings and authorized a public workshop to address marijuana
production, processing and retailing, as defined in Initiative 502 and its implementing
regulations, and has held an open public hearing on the 6th day of August, 2014.
2. The City of Auburn has in its City Code a provision that precludes
enactment of City ordinances that are in conflict with state or federal law, as follows:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein, shall not
be in conflict with all other regulations and /or requirements of state and federal
law, insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use or conduct which is in
violation of or prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any
such provisions that cannot be implemented or enforced because of provisions of
state or federal law, or that cannot be reconciled with any state or federal law,
shall be deemed to be in conflict therewith. Any provisions of city ordinances or
of the city code deemed by the city council to be in conflict with state or federal
law shall be null and void. This provision does not allow any action, use or
conduct which is in violation of any local, state or federal laws, regulations, codes
and /or ordinances. Any action, use or conduct which is not permitted or allowed
is prohibited;
and
3. On November 6, 2012, the voters of the State of Washington approved
Initiative Measure No. 502 ( "Initiative 502 "), now codified within Chapters 69.50, 46.04,
46.20, 46.21 and 46.61 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which Initiative (a)
decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana
paraphernalia; (b) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of
intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (c) authorized
promulgation of regulations and issuance of licenses by the Washington State Liquor
Control Board ( "WSLCB ") for the production, processing and retailing of marijuana; and
4. The United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91 -513, 84 Stat. 1236, creating a
comprehensive drug enforcement regime called the Controlled Substances Act, codified
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 1 of 9
Page 37 of 62
as 21 USC § 801 -971, whereby controlled substances are placed in specific schedules
based upon their potential for abuse, their accepted medical use in treatment, and the
physical and psychological consequences of abuse of the substance; and
4. Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as a "Schedule I"
controlled substance in 21 USC § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(10); and
5. Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unlawful to possess a controlled
substance, except as authorized under the Controlled Substances Act, and it is also
unlawful to knowingly or intentionally "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess
with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," except as
otherwise provided in the [federal] statute; and
6. Under the Controlled Substances Act, in order for a substance to be
designated a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, it
must be found that the substance: (1) has a high potential for abuse, (2) has no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) that there is a
lack of accepted safety for use of the substance under medical supervision; and
7. In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2005),
the United States Supreme Court held that Congress was within its rights and powers
under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled
substance pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, and that, under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Controlled Substances Act will prevail over
any conflicting state law; and
8. Paragraph 11 of Section 314 -55 -020 of the Washington Administrative
Code (WAC), promulgated by the WSCLB under the authority of Initiative 502,
describes the license permit process and includes the following limitation:
(11) The issuance or approval of a license shall not be construed as a license
for, or an approval of, any violations of local rules or ordinances including, but not
limited to: Building and fire codes, zoning ordinances, and business licensing
requirements;
and
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 2 of 9
Page 38 of 62
9. Article 11, § 11 of the Constitution of the State of Washington, the general
police powers granted to cities, empowers and authorizes the City of Auburn to adopt
regulations, land use and otherwise, that are not to be in conflict with general laws; and
10. One of the primary purposes of the Growth Management Act is to
empower cities planning under the Act to develop and adopt land use controls reflecting
the local needs of the community, and as provided in RCW 36.70A.010: "[i]t is in the
public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector
cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning;" and
11. The Attorney General of the State of Washington and the City Attorney for
the City of Auburn have concluded that Initiative 502 does not preempt the City of
Auburn from exercising and administering its constitutional and statutory land use
regulatory authority to either allow and regulate land uses within the corporate limits of
the City, or to prohibit and ban such uses; and
12. City regulations licensing and permitting marijuana production, processing
and retailing as defined by Initiative 502 and regulations promulgated thereunder is not
consistent with federal law and is in conflict therewith; and
13. Documented secondary effects associated with analogous medical
marijuana dispensaries in other cities and counties include murders, robberies,
burglaries, drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy foot and vehicle traffic,
increased noise, odors, health hazards such as proliferation of molds; and
14. Consistent with the concerns the City could face if it were the agency
involved in licensing and permitting marijuana production, processing and retailing as
defined by Initiative 502 and regulations promulgated thereunder, when the Washington
state legislatures passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073, then Governor
Christine Gregoire vetoed portions of the bill that would have legalized use of marijuana
for medical purposes out of concern that the vetoed portions of the bill would authorize
state employees to issue licenses for marijuana related activities and would thus open
public employees to federal prosecution as the United States attorneys have made it
clear that state law would not provide an automatic safe harbor from federal
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 3 of 9
Page 39 of 62
prosecution, and because of her concern that no state employee should be required to
violate federal criminal law in order to fulfill the duties under state law; and
15. Because a majority of the voters of the City of Auburn voted in support of
Initiative 502, expressing support for legalization /decriminalization of marijuana
activities, the City of Auburn faces a dilemma of potentially having to choose between
supporting a citizen - approved state law that legalize /decriminalize marijuana related
activities or supporting the federal law under which marijuana is illegal; and
16. That dilemma would be exacerbated if the City of Auburn were to be the
governmental entity responsible for the licensing and permitting of those marijuana
related activities that are illegal under federal law; and
17. However, these concerns would be mitigated if the state of Washington
were the licensing and permitting agency, and if the state law and the accompanying
regulations promulgated by the WSLCB were fully enforced, thereby addressing the
issues and impacts that would be involved by licensing and permitting activities, with the
City of Auburn restricting its activity in connection with marijuana businesses to
enforcing and ensuring compliance with state law, without the City having to be the
licensing and permitting agency; and
18. Sections 1.04.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010, and 18.02.020 of the Auburn City
Code should be amended, as set forth below, to address marijuana production,
processing and retailing, within the City of Auburn:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
A. All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein,
shall not be in conflict with all other regulations and /or requirements of state and
federal law, insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use or conduct which
is in violation of or prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes.
Any such provisions that cannot be implemented or enforced because of
provisions of state or federal law, or that cannot be reconciled with any state or
federal law, shall be deemed to be in conflict therewith. Any provisions of city
ordinances or of the city code deemed by the city council to be in conflict with
state or federal law shall be null and void. This The provisions of this Section
does do not allow any action, use or conduct which is in violation of any local,
state or federal laws, regulations, codes and /or ordinances, and the city is not
authorized to permit, or license such action, use or conduct.
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 4 of 9
Page 40 of 62
B. Any action, use or conduct which is not permitted or allowed is
prohibited. It is provided, however, that the provisions of this Subsection B do not
apply to any person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful license issued by
the State of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana, marijuana
concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products and is acting
in full conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related to such
license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 —
540 WAC. In such instances, the State of Washington, not the city, is the
permitting and licensing entity. It is provided, however, that this provision does
not preclude the city from taking enforcement action in instances where conduct
or activity that is licensed or permitted under Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW,
and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC occurs within the City of Auburn but is not
in compliance with or violates the requirements of such state licensing or
permitting. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of Sections
69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted
by reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6416 § 3, 2012.)
5.10.040 General business license required - Exception.
A. Any person desiring to establish or conduct any business enterprise or
undertaking as defined in ACC 5.10.020 within the corporate limits of the city,
shall first apply to the business license clerk, as designated by the mayor, for a
license to conduct such business and obtain such license as approved by the
city. The application shall be upon a form furnished by the business license clerk
on which the applicant shall state the business name, address, and telephone
number; the nature of the business activity or activities in which the applicant
desires to engage; the place where the business will be conducted; the number
of employees, and the name of the contact person along with an address and
telephone number, and the business identification number issued by the state of
Washington; and the IRS letter testifying to nonprofit status or the copy of the
application to the IRS.
B. It is unlawful for any person to operate or physically conduct any
business within the city without having first obtained a general business license
for the current business year or portion thereof. The applicant for a business
license required under this title shall be over the age of 18 years. If any person
required to pay a license fee, by the terms and provisions of this chapter, for any
period fails or refuses to do so, they shall not be granted a license for the current
period until such delinquent license fee, together with penalties, has been paid in
full.
C. Specific businesses identified in Chapters 3.80, 3.84, 3.88, 5.20, 5.30,
5.84 ACC or elsewhere in this title or other titles of the Auburn City Code will be
required to obtain an individual business license as otherwise indicated.
D. Any business within the city jurisdiction on any project requiring a
permit must have a business license.
E. Exception to city business licensing requirement. A business license is
not required by the city of any person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful
license issued by the state of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana,
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 5 of 9
Page 41 of 62
marijuana concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products in
conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related to such
license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 - 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 -
540 WAC. (Ord. 5897 § 3, 2005; Ord. 5814 § 2, 2004; Ord. 5754 § 1, 2003; Ord.
4012 § 2, 1984.)
9.22.010 Marijuana prohibited.
A. Except as authorized under United States Code (USC) Title 21:
Controlled Substances Ac by the Revised Code of Washington, it is unlawful for
any person or persons to grow, manufacture, process, deliver, grow, or posscss
sell marijuana.
B. Except as authorized by the Revised Code of Washington, it is
unlawful for any person to possess marijuana.
C. "Marijuana: also known as "marihuana" means all parts of the plant
of the gcnus cannabis Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds
thereof; the resins extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the-such plant, its seeds
or resin, and includes all marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, and
marijuana- infused products. Such term does not include the mature stalks of
the such plant, fiber produced from the such stalks, oil or cake made from the
seeds of the such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the such mature stalks (except the resins extracted
therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the-such plant which is
incapable of germination.
D. It is unlawful for any person or persons who has /have a license
issued by the state of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana,
marijuana concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products to
fail to comply with or violate any of the requirements of the state of Washington
related to such license issued by the state of Washington, including, but not
limited to the requirements of Sections 69.50.325 - 369 RCW, and Sections 314-
55 -515 - 535 WAC. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of
Sections 69.50.325 - 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 - 535 WAC are
hereby adopted by reference and Incorporated herein.
E. Violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed by
the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the
court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and
fine. (Ord. 6300 § 1, 2010; Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
18.02.020 Authority to adopt code.
A. The City of Auburn comprehensive zoning ordinance is adopted by
City of Auburn ordinance, pursuant to Article XI, Section 11 of the Washington
State Constitution, the State Growth Management Act, RCW Title 35A, Optional
Municipal Code, and Chapter 36.70B RCW. In accordance with ACC 1.04.060_.;
R4
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 6 of 9
Page 42 of 62
B. notwithstanding Notwithstanding any provisions otherwise, this title
does not permit or allow any action, use or conduct which is in violation of or
prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any action, use or
conduct which is prohibited by state or federal law is prohibited hereby. It is
provided, however, that the provisions of this Subsection B do not apply to any
person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful license issued by the State of
Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana, marijuana concentrates,
usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products and is acting in full
conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related to such
license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 —
540 WAC. In such instances, the State of Washington, not the city, is the
permitting and licensing entity. It is provided, however, that this provision does
not preclude the city from taking enforcement action in instances where conduct
or activity that is licensed or permitted under Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW,
and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC occurs within the City of Auburn but is not
in compliance with or violates the requirements of such state licensing or
permitting. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of Sections
69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted
by reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6416 § 4, 2012; Ord. 6245 § 2,
2009.)
18.07.010 Intent.
A. General. This section describes the intent for each of the city's
residential zones. These intent statements may be used to guide the
interpretation of the regulations associated with each zone.
B. (RC) Residential Conservancy Zone — One Dwelling Unit per Four
Acres. The RC residential conservancy zone is intended primarily to provide for
low- intensity single - family residential uses with characteristics of an agricultural
environment; provided, that the agricultural uses are secondary to the single -
family uses. These areas allow for a lifestyle similar to that of rural areas that
includes allowance of farm animals and streets without sidewalks. This zone is
intended to protect areas with significant environmental constraints or values
from impacts typically associated with urban levels of development while allowing
low- intensity development designed to minimize impacts on the natural
environmental features designated for conservation.
Public improvements required within the R -C zone will be less than is
normally required for the higher intensity residential zones within the city.
This zone shall only be applied in areas designated as residential
conservancy on the comprehensive plan. This zone shall allow one dwelling unit
per four acres minimum lot area.
C. R -1 Residential Zone — One Dwelling Unit per Acre. The intent of
the R -1 residential zone is to provide areas for estate -type residential
development on large lots. This zone would normally be located in the areas
particularly suited for such development.
Appropriate development standards required of other urban areas shall be
required to serve this zone.
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 7 of 9
Page 43 of 62
D. R -5 Residential Zone — Five Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -5
single - family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of
optimum standards for single - family dwellings. It is further intended to achieve
development densities of four to five dwelling units per net acre. This zone will
provide for the development of single - family detached dwellings and for such
accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the single - family
residential environment.
E. R -7 Residential Zone — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre.
The R -7 single - family residential zones are intended to create a living
environment of optimum standards for single - family dwellings. It is further
intended to achieve development densities of five to seven dwelling units per net
acre. This zone will provide for the development of single - family detached
dwellings and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not
detrimental to the residential environment.
F. R -10 Residential Zone — 10 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -10
residential zones are intended to permit some increase in population density in
those areas to which this classification applies by permitting single - family
dwellings and duplexes on a minimum size lot while at the same time, by means
of the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter, maintaining a
desirable family living environment by establishing minimum lot areas, yards and
open spaces. A related consideration is to provide a transition between single -
family areas and other intensive designations or activities which reduce the
suitability for single - family uses.
G. R -16 Residential Zone — 16 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -16
zone is intended to provide for medium density multiple - family residential
development as designated in the comprehensive plan, and is further intended
as a residential zone of single, duplex and multiple - family residences, except as
specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter.
H. R -20 Residential Zone — 20 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -20
zone is intended to provide for multiple - family residential development and is
further intended as a residential zone primarily of multiple - family residences,
except as specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter. A related consideration
is to make it possible to more efficiently and economically design and install all
physical public service facilities in terms of size and capacity to adequately and
permanently meet needs resulting from a defined intensity of land use.
Except as specifically provided in the city code, no business or
commercial use shall be allowed in a residential district of the city that does not
have a city of Auburn business license. (Ord. 6245 § 5, 2009.)
and
19. Such amendment is in the best interests of residents of the City of Auburn
and will promote the general health, safety and welfare.
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 8 of 9
Page 44 of 62
20. The Moratorium implemented pursuant to City of Auburn Resolution No.
4992, passed on September 16, 2013, and extended by Resolution No. , passed
on , 2014, should terminate upon the date this Ordinance amending
the above code sections is effective.
Planning Commission Findings
July 24, 2014
DI.A Page 9 of 9
Page 45 of 62
CITY OF *
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice - Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
CC: Nancy Backus, Mayor
Jeff Tate, Assistant Director, Community Development Services
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager
David L. Jones, AICP, Senior Planner
FROM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
DATE: August 1, 2014
RE: Marijuana — Public Hearing — Record Documents
A. Introduction.
On the 6th day of August, 2014, the Auburn Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a
public hearing to consider amendments to the Auburn City Code (ACC). Two draft proposals
have been prepared - Option 1, a prohibition of State licensed marijuana uses (amending ACC
9.22.010) and Option 2, a proposal that would not have the City as the permitting agency of any
marijuana activities but would put the City in the position of enforcing [prosecuting violations of]
State licensed marijuana requirements (amending ACC 1.04.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010, 18.02.020
and 18.07.010).
B. Procedural Background.
On September 16, 2013, the City Council passed its Resolution No. 4992 imposing an initial
one -year moratorium on the acceptance of applications for, and issuance of licenses and
permits for marijuana related activities, including, marijuana production, processing and retailing
within the City of Auburn
C. Proposed Amendment to Auburn City Code.
In response to the direction of the City Council, staff, working with the Planning
Commission, prepared two alternate proposed ordinances, as follows:, as follows:
Option 1, involving the Prohibition of Marijuana within the City, proposing to amend Section
9.22.010, as follows:
Page 1
DI.A Page 46 of 62
9.22.010 Marijuana prohibited.
A. Except as authorized under United States Code (USC) Title 21:
Controlled Substances Ac by the Revised Code of Washington, it is unlawful for any
person or persons to grow, manufacture, process, deliver, grow, or possess sell
marijuana.
B. Except as authorized by the Revised Code of Washington, it is unlawful
for any person to possess marijuana.
C. "Marijuana," also known as "marihuana" means all parts of the plant owe
genus cannabis Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resins extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the such plant, its seeds or resin, and includes all
marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, and marijuana- infused products. Such
term does not include the mature stalks of he -such plant, fiber produced from t#e -such
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the such plant, any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the such mature stalks (except
the resins extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of The -such plant
which is incapable of germination.
D. Violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more
than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one
thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine. For the purposes of this
Section only, the provisions of Sections 69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55-
515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted by reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6300
§ 1, 2010; Ord. 5682 § 1, 2002.)
Option 2, authorizing the City to take enforcement action to assure that there is compliance with
the state regulations involving Initiative 502, whereby the City would be an enforcing entity but
not the permitting or licensing agent for marijuana related business. This Option proposes to
amend Sections 1.04.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010, 18.02.020 and 18.07.010 [Intent of Residential
Zone] of the Auburn City Code, as follows:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
A. All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein, shall not
be in conflict with all other regulations and /or requirements of state and federal law,
insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use or conduct which is in violation of or
prohibited by any state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any such provisions that
cannot be implemented or enforced because of provisions of state or federal law, or that
cannot be reconciled with any state or federal law, shall be deemed to be in conflict
therewith. Any provisions of city ordinances or of the city code deemed by the city
council to be in conflict with state or federal law shall be null and void. This The
provisions of this Section does do not allow any action, use or conduct which is in
violation of any local, state or federal laws, regulations, codes and /or ordinances, and
the city is not authorized to permit, or license such action, use or conduct.
B. Any action, use or conduct which is not permitted or allowed is prohibited.
It is provided, however, that the provisions of this Subsection B do not apply to any
person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful license issued by the State of
Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana, marijuana concentrates, usable
marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products and is acting in full conformity with the
requirements of the state of Washington related to such license pursuant to Sections
69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC. In such instances, the
Page 2
DI.A Page 47 of 62
State of Washington, not the city, is the permitting and licensing entity. It is provided,
however, that this provision does not preclude the city from taking enforcement action in
instances where conduct or activity that is licensed or permitted under Sections
69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC occurs within the City of
Auburn but is not in compliance with or violates the requirements of such state licensing
or permitting. For the purposes of this Section only, the provisions of Sections 69.50.325
— 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC are hereby adopted by reference and
Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6416 § 3, 2012.)
5.10.040 General business license required - Exception.
A. Any person desiring to establish or conduct any business enterprise or
undertaking as defined in ACC 5.10.020 within the corporate limits of the city, shall first
apply to the business license clerk, as designated by the mayor, for a license to conduct
such business and obtain such license as approved by the city. The application shall be
upon a form furnished by the business license clerk on which the applicant shall state
the business name, address, and telephone number; the nature of the business activity
or activities in which the applicant desires to engage; the place where the business will
be conducted; the number of employees, and the name of the contact person along with
an address and telephone number, and the business identification number issued by the
state of Washington; and the IRS letter testifying to nonprofit status or the copy of the
application to the IRS.
B. It is unlawful for any person to operate or physically conduct any business
within the city without having first obtained a general business license for the current
business year or portion thereof. The applicant for a business license required under this
title shall be over the age of 18 years. If any person required to pay a license fee, by the
terms and provisions of this chapter, for any period fails or refuses to do so, they shall
not be granted a license for the current period until such delinquent license fee, together
with penalties, has been paid in full.
C. Specific businesses identified in Chapters 3.80, 3.84, 3.88, 5.20, 5.30, 5.84
ACC or elsewhere in this title or other titles of the Auburn City Code will be required to
obtain an individual business license as otherwise indicated.
D. Any business within the city jurisdiction on any project requiring a permit must
have a business license.
E. Exception to city business licensing requirement. A business license is not
required by the city of any person or persons who has /have a valid, lawful license issued
by the state of Washington to produce, process or sell marijuana, marijuana
concentrates, usable marijuana and /or marijuana- infused products in conformity with the
requirements of the state of Washington related to such license pursuant to Sections
69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC. (Ord. 5897 § 3, 2005;
Ord. 5814 § 2, 2004; Ord. 5754 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4012 § 2, 1984.)
9.22.010 Marijuana prohibited.
A. Except as authorized under United States Code (USC) Title 21:
Controlled Substances Ac by the Revised Code of Washington, it is unlawful for any
person or persons to grow, manufacture, process, deliver, grow, or possess sell
marijuana.
B. Except as authorized by the Revised Code of Washington, it is unlawful
for any person to possess marijuana.
C. "Marijuana," also known as "marihuana" means all parts of the plant ewe
genus cannabis Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resins extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt,
Page 3
DI.A Page 48 of 62
DI.A
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the such plant, its seeds or resin, and includes all
mariivana concentrates, useable mariivana, and mariivana-infused products. Such
term does not include the mature stalks of the such plant, fiber produced from the such
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the such plant, any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the -such mature stalks (except
the resins extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the -such plant
which is incapable of germination.
D. It is unlawful for any person or persons who has /have a license issued by
the state of Washington to produce, process or sell mariivana, mariivana concentrates,
usable mariivana and /or mariivana-infused products to fail to comply with or violate any
of the requirements of the state of Washington related to such license issued by the
state of Washington, including, but not limited to the requirements of Sections 69.50.325
— 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC. For the purposes of this Section
only, the provisions of Sections 69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535
WAC are hereby adopted by reference and Incorporated herein.
E. Violation of the provisions of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in fail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more
than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one
thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine. (Ord. 6300 § 1, 2010; Ord.
5682 § 1, 2002.)
18.02.020 Authority to adopt code.
A. The City of Auburn comprehensive zoning ordinance is adopted by City of
Auburn ordinance, pursuant to Article XI, Section 11 of the Washington State
Constitution, the State Growth Management Act, RCW Title 35A, Optional Municipal
Code, and Chapter 36.70B RCW. In accordance with ACC 1.04.060„ and
B. notwithstanding Notwithstanding any provisions otherwise, this title does
not permit or allow any action, use or conduct which is in violation of or prohibited by any
state or federal laws, regulations or codes. Any action, use or conduct which is
prohibited by state or federal law is prohibited hereby. It is provided, however, that the
provisions of this Subsection B do not apply to any person or persons who has /have a
valid, lawful license issued by the State of Washington to produce, process or sell
mariivana, mariivana concentrates, usable mariivana and /or mariivana-infused products
and is acting in full conformity with the requirements of the state of Washington related
to such license pursuant to Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 —
540 WAC. In such instances, the State of Washington, not the city, is the permitting and
licensing entity. It is provided, however, that this provision does not preclude the city
from taking enforcement action in instances where conduct or activity that is licensed or
permitted under Sections 69.50.301 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -005 — 540 WAC
occurs within the City of Auburn but is not in compliance with or violates the
requirements of such state licensing or permitting. For the purposes of this Section only,
the provisions of Sections 69.50.325 — 369 RCW, and Sections 314 -55 -515 — 535 WAC
are hereby adopted by reference and Incorporated herein. (Ord. 6416 § 4, 2012; Ord.
6245 § 2, 2009.)
18.07.010 Intent.
A. General. This section describes the intent for each of the city's
residential zones. These intent statements may be used to guide the
interpretation of the regulations associated with each zone.
Page 4
Page 49 of 62
B. (RC) Residential Conservancy Zone — One Dwelling Unit per Four
Acres. The RC residential conservancy zone is intended primarily to provide for
low- intensity single - family residential uses with characteristics of an agricultural
environment; provided, that the agricultural uses are secondary to the single -
family uses. These areas allow for a lifestyle similar to that of rural areas that
includes allowance of farm animals and streets without sidewalks. This zone is
intended to protect areas with significant environmental constraints or values
from impacts typically associated with urban levels of development while allowing
low- intensity development designed to minimize impacts on the natural
environmental features designated for conservation.
Public improvements required within the R -C zone will be less than is
normally required for the higher intensity residential zones within the city.
This zone shall only be applied in areas designated as residential
conservancy on the comprehensive plan. This zone shall allow one dwelling unit
per four acres minimum lot area.
C. R -1 Residential Zone — One Dwelling Unit per Acre. The intent of
the R -1 residential zone is to provide areas for estate -type residential
development on large lots. This zone would normally be located in the areas
particularly suited for such development.
Appropriate development standards required of other urban areas shall be
required to serve this zone.
D. R -5 Residential Zone — Five Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -5
single - family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of
optimum standards for single - family dwellings. It is further intended to achieve
development densities of four to five dwelling units per net acre. This zone will
provide for the development of single - family detached dwellings and for such
accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the single - family
residential environment.
E. R -7 Residential Zone — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre.
The R -7 single - family residential zones are intended to create a living
environment of optimum standards for single - family dwellings. It is further
intended to achieve development densities of five to seven dwelling units per net
acre. This zone will provide for the development of single - family detached
dwellings and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not
detrimental to the residential environment.
F. R -10 Residential Zone — 10 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -10
residential zones are intended to permit some increase in population density in
those areas to which this classification applies by permitting single - family
dwellings and duplexes on a minimum size lot while at the same time, by means
of the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter, maintaining a
desirable family living environment by establishing minimum lot areas, yards and
open spaces. A related consideration is to provide a transition between single -
family areas and other intensive designations or activities which reduce the
suitability for single - family uses.
G. R -16 Residential Zone — 16 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -16
zone is intended to provide for medium density multiple - family residential
Page 5
DI.A Page 50 of 62
development as designated in the comprehensive plan, and is further intended
as a residential zone of single, duplex and multiple - family residences, except as
specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter.
H. R -20 Residential Zone — 20 Dwelling Units per Acre. The R -20
zone is intended to provide for multiple - family residential development and is
further intended as a residential zone primarily of multiple - family residences,
except as specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter. A related consideration
is to make it possible to more efficiently and economically design and install all
physical public service facilities in terms of size and capacity to adequately and
permanently meet needs resulting from a defined intensity of land use.
Except as specifically provided in the city code, no business or
commercial use shall be allowed in a residential district of the city that does not
have a city of Auburn business license. (Ord. 6245 § 5, 2009)1
Initially, three alternatives were identified, with the third alternative - Option 3 - being one
involving the city of Auburn actually becoming the licensing and permitting agency, rather than
just relying upon state regulations. In this instance, the city of Auburn would likely depart from
the state regulations in some fashion or another, perhaps making the regulations more stringent
or identifying more particularly zoning limitations. However, as noted below, there are
disadvantages with the City being the licensing and permitting agency.
D. Reasons for Options.
The option of the City becoming the permitting agency was discarded by the planning
commission and not recommended by city staff because it included liability exposures stemming
from the fact that marijuana is (still) illegal under federal law, and even though state law may
decriminalize marijuana related activities, city involvement in permitting or licensing marijuana
related businesses could pose jeopardy for those city employees who would, in essence, be
violating federal law.
The two options avoided city licensing and permitting activities of marijuana businesses, with
Option 1 providing for a prohibition of marijuana activities within the city, though that does not
mean that the city would be enforcing possession of marijuana consistent with what used to be
the case prior to the passage of Initiative 502; and Option 2 allowing the city to take
enforcement action to assure compliance with the state regulations for marijuana related
businesses, though, still, keeping the city out of the actual permitting and licensing role. The
rationale can be summarized as follows:
NOTE: The inclusion of ACC Section 18.07.010 among the code sections being amended is to address the issue of
placement of marijuana related businesses in residential zones, something that is not precluded or prohibited by
state regulations. By prohibiting any business (except as specifically provided) from being located in a residential
zone that does not have a City of Auburn business license, marijuana businesses would be precluded from being
located in residential zones as they would not have a city of Auburn business license. Again, this is because neither
the initiative nor the RCW or WAC provisions preclude placement of marijuana related businesses in residential
zones. Ironically, the initiative and the state regulations do expressly prohibit locating a marijuana business in a
residence (and occupied residence), but that is the only prohibition related to residential properties.
Page 6
DI.A Page 51 of 62
(1) Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The memorandum issued by the U.S.
Attorney General's office on August 29, 2013 did not change the law, but only announced the
decision of the U.S. Attorney's Office to exercise prosecutorial discretion with regard to
enforcement of the federal law within the States of Colorado and Washington. The U.S.
Attorney" Office reserved the power to prosecute in any instance where it felt the efforts of the
states fell short of "robust regulation," where a threat exists for the illegal distribution to minors,
or where a threat of interstate distribution of marijuana was encountered.
(2) The City of Auburn has been granted constitutional authority to enact legislation
regulating land uses within its jurisdiction so long as such local legislation is consistent with [not
in conflict with] the general laws (Constitution Article 11, Section 11). Essentially,
notwithstanding voter approval of initiative 502, action by the city in developing and
promulgating regulations relating to marijuana related businesses would have the city taking
action in conflict with the general laws, in this case federal law.
(3) Some have argued that city do not have the right to take action inconsistent with state
law, even voter approved initiative state law, however, the law dictates when state law preempts
local action, and that does not apply in this instance. Nothing in Initiative Measure No. 502
( "Initiative 502 ") decriminalizing possession, use and delivery of specified amounts of
marijuana and authorizing the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) to develop and
implement regulations for the licensing of marijuana production, processing and retailing
expressly or impliedly preempts the City of Auburn, or any city in the state, from exercising its
land use regulatory authority, including the ban of marijuana production, processing and
retailing within city limits. This is not only consistent with the language of the initiative, but it is
the conclusion reached by the state attorney general in AGO 2014 No. 2.
(4) The prohibition of marijuana production, processing and retailing within the City of
Auburn does not contravene the purposes of Initiative 502, and does not alter the provisions of
Initiative 502 that authorize the WSLCB to designate the maximum number of marijuana retail
outlets in each county. If a local ban is enacted by the City of Auburn, the number of retail
outlets allocated by the WSLCB to the City of Auburn become "at large" retail locations.
At large retail outlets can be located in the unincorporated county or any other city not allocated
a number of retail outlets, all in accordance with the provisions of Initiative 502.
(5) While Initiative 502 contains restrictions prohibiting location of marijuana production,
processing and retail outlets within 1,000 feet of public schools, public parks, public libraries and
other protected uses, it does not contain restrictions prohibiting location of marijuana licensed
facilities within residential districts, community recreational trails, or private parks, facilities and
areas that serve the public.
(6) Studies reporting secondary effects associated with analogous medical marijuana
dispensaries in other cities and counties include reports of murders, robberies, burglaries, drug
dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy foot and vehicle traffic, increased noise, odors, health
hazards such as proliferation of molds; See, "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries,"
California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries (April 22, 2009)
was issued ( "CAPCA White Paper "); City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and
Welfare Center, 56 Ca1.4th 729, 756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013).
Page 7
DI.A Page 52 of 62
(7) Initiative 502 does not require that any city allow the location of any marijuana
production, processing or retailing facility within its jurisdiction. Regulations adopted by the
WSLCB implementing Initiative 502 specifically state that any license issued by the WSLCB
does not constitute approval of the location of the licensed facility within any city. Such uses are
subject to the land use regulations of the city.
(8) If the City of Auburn opted not to actually prohibit marijuana businesses within the city, it
could rely upon the state regulations to address the concerns it has, and could, actually,
preserved for itself the authority to enforce those regulations without it being the permitting and
licensing agency. As an illustration, this is not that much different than the fact that local police
officers and city prosecutors can prosecute violators who drive without a license even though
the city does not issue driver's licenses. The state regulations do impose restrictions on
marijuana businesses, including setbacks from certain sensitive uses, requirements of security
and signage, among others. So long as the city can live with those restrictions, the city does not
need to be the licensing and permitting agency, and that keeps the city out of the dilemma of
fighting its employees essentially violating federal law in support of businesses licensed under
the authority of state law.
E. Referenced Documents.
The following documents, many of which have been previously provided to the Planning
Commission, or have been referenced in the materials or are the basis of opinions and positions
taken in connection with and in preparation of the draft proposals for Options 1 and 2
[descriptions of which are provided for ease of reference]:
(1) Initiative Measure No. 502. [This is the voter approved initiative that such to
decriminalize /legalize certain marijuana activities, providing for licensing and permitting under a
state law scheme for producers, processors and retailers of marijuana. This initiative did not
relate to medical marijuana, but to marijuana generally or as is often referred to, recreationally.]
(2) Sections 69.50.301 - 369 RCW. [These statutory provisions are the codification of
Initiative Measure No. 502.]
(3) Chapter 314 -55 WAC, regulations adopted by the Washington State Liquor Control
Board implementing Initiative 502. [Consistent with the language of Initiative Measure No. 502,
the Washington State Liquor Control Board was charged with developing regulations for the
marijuana activities - production, processing and retailing - to be licensed and permitted in
accordance with the initiative. These WAC provisions were the product of the Liquor Control
Board's regulatory efforts.]
(4) City of Auburn Resolution No. 4992, enacting initial moratorium. [This Resolution was
the initial resolution imposing a moratorium on marijuana related activities within the city of
Auburn, initially for one year with a work plan, which moratorium is consistent with the
authorization available to cities under RCW 35A.63.220.]
(5) Memorandum dated August 29, 2013 from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, regarding marijuana enforcement in states of Colorado and
Washington. [This memorandum identifies the proposition that even though the federal
Page 8
DI.A Page 53 of 62
government is willing to hold off on prosecution of marijuana violations related to marijuana
activities licensed and permitted under state law, marijuana is still illegal under federal law and
the federal government does not give up its right to pursue prosecution of marijuana cases as it
deems fit.]
(6) Washington State Attorney General Opinion AGO 2014 No. 2. [This AGO gives the
opinion of the state Attorney General that cities do have the authority to determine whether or
not to permit marijuana activities within their jurisdictions notwithstanding state law - per the
initiative - that makes marijuana activities legal.]
(7) "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries," submitted by California Police Chiefs
Association Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries (April 22, 2009).[Even though this white
paper actually deals with medical marijuana - not an issue in connection with Initiative 502, this
white paper does identify societal concerns regarding the use of marijuana.]
(8) Letter of April 29, 2011, from Governor Christine Gregoire to the Washington State
Senate regarding partial veto of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. [This letter
explains the concern that Gov. Gregoire had, prompting her to veto portions of the medical
marijuana legislation approved by the legislature because she did not want to expose state
employees to possible prosecution for violation of federal law, since marijuana is still illegal
under federal law.]
(9) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 LEd. 2d 1 (2005). [This case is a
United States Supreme Court case that upheld the authority of the federal government to
regulate marijuana as an illegal substance.]
(10) City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Welfare Center, 56 Cal. 4th 729,
756, 300 P.3d 494 (2013). [This case, White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries, identifies
societal concerns regarding the use of marijuana.]
(11) Controlled Substances Act (part) - 21 USC § 812. [This is the federal law that provides
that marijuana is illegal, and, further, finds that it has a potential for abuse, has no current
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and that there is a lack of accepted
safety for use of it under medical supervision.]
(12) Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, 322 P.3d 1246 (2014). [This is a recent State
Court of Appeals case in which the Court held that (1) amendments to the Medical Use of
Cannabis Act did not legalize medical marijuana or collective gardens; (2) the Governor's veto
message was the sole source of relevant legislative history to be considered in interpreting the
amendments that were enacted following her sectional veto; (3) cities were authorized to enact
zoning requirements to regulate or exclude collective gardens; and (4) Kent's ordinance did not
conflict with state law.]
If any of the commissioners wish to have copies or review any of these documents, please let
us know and the documents will be provided for access will be arranged.
Page 9
DI.A Page 54 of 62
Note: As an aside, it should be recognized that even though it provided for significant tax
revenue to be collected (25% each) from producers, processors and retailers, Initiative 502 did
not provide any tax revenue to local governments, cities and counties, those entities that will be
responsible for contending with the problems of marijuana abuse either in the business setting
or in the potential for increased traffic impacts /impaired drivers.
F. Attachments
The following documents are attached hereto.
(1) (Proposed Draft) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City
Council - Option 1: Prohibition of State Licensed Marijuana Uses. These are subject to the
Planning Commission's review and revision.
(2) (Proposed Draft) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City
Council — Option 2: Allowing for City Enforcement of State Licensed Marijuana Requirements
but without the City being the Permitting agency for Marijuana Uses. These are subject to the
Planning Commission's review and revision.
(3) (Proposed) Ordinance No. 6525, amending ACC 9.22.010 prohibiting marijuana
production, processing and retailing — Option 1.
(4) (Proposed) Ordinance No. 6525, amending ACC 1.04.060, 5.10.040, 9.22.010,
18.02.020, and 18.07.010 allowing the City to enforce compliance with state licensing of
marijuana activities (production, processing and retailing) but without the City being the
permitting agency — Option 2.
(5) Affidavit of Publication for Notice of Public Hearing, and Notice of Public Hearing Posted
on the City of Auburn Website
(6) Preliminary 1 -502 Zoning Map
Page 10
DI.A Page 55 of 62
Potential State Licensed Locations for Cannabis Uses 1AUB
WASHINGTON
(After 1,000 foot Buffer Requirement)
S 272ND Sr -
S�
S 277tH ST .337t81 i
-ref , "
SE 272ND ST SE 272ND 55
SE 274TH ST
1
r"3
�w
€+6o4snsT
Dal
mrkv 1 11
~• 'in
1.• EMAIN -ST a
Milli • 1111
- ==
-ST_S
\--)L2
KING
COUNTY
''Qb10NDp SE
:'TN y.
•
ELLINGSON RD SW
SWWART RD SW
8TH ST E
a
8
WITH ST E
6TH ST E
rN STE
P IERCE
COU NTY
12TH ST E
-r, City of Auburn
C1 Light Commercial District
DI.A
C3 Heavy Commercial District Mi Light Industrial District
CN Neighborhood Shopping District + M2 Heavy Industrial District
Page 56 of 62
Printed On: 3/20/2014
Map IP: 4313
Information shown 6 for general reference purposes
only and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
DI.0
AuBuRN ITY CAF �
\VASHENG`Or,
Agenda Subject:
Auto Thefts
Department:
Police
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Attachments:
APD Auto Theft Report
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Date:
August 20, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember: Peloza Staff: Lee
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 Item Number: DI.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 57 of 62
AUBURN
WASHINGTON
AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT
340 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002
AUTO THEFTS
DI.0 Page 58 of 62
Aok -f0 AU B 1IR U
Pc CE DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON 340 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002
Auburn Auto Thefts 2005 -2014
The total number of auto thefts in Auburn between 2005 and 2014 are noted below.
1/1/2014-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 7/31/2014
Auto
Theft
869
642
673
640
369
570
600
586
678
*405
* As of the end of July, the average number of auto thefts occurring each month is 58. If this continues
the total number for 2014 would be approximately 696. Auto theft monthly totals can fluctuate
significantly due to police enforcement actions, prolific offender incarceration statuses, and many other
factors.
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Auto Theft
673
b40
369
570
600
586
*696
678
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 *2014
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
0 *2014
*696 Auto Thefts in 2014 is an estimate and is based off of the current average of 58 Auto Thefts per
month.
DI.0 Page 59 of 62
AuBTO AU B 1IR U
Pc CE DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON 340 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002
Auto Thefts in South King County
Between 2004 and 2013, Auburn average 643 Auto Thefts. The graph below depicts other agencies in
south King County with populations currently over 70,000.
Types of Vehicles Stolen
Over the past two years the type of car most frequently stolen from Auburn are 1990s model Honda
Accords. The top ten most frequently stolen vehicles are listed below.
#1 Honda Accord
#2 Honda Civic
#3 Acura Integra
#4 Toyota Camry
#5 Ford F- series trucks
#6 Subaru Legacy
#7 Honda Prelude
#8 Saturn SL
#9 Nissan Altima
#10 Nissan Sentra
DI.0 Page 60 of 62
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
AVG
Kent
1,329
1,474
1,563
1,008
835
611
781
789
864
586
9,840
984
Federal Way
1,118
1,573
1,199
939
816
561
741
669
811
778
9,205
921
Renton
985
961
983
676
N/A
481
594
565
631
689
6,565
729
Auburn
802
869
642
673
640
369
570
600
586
678
6,429
643
Types of Vehicles Stolen
Over the past two years the type of car most frequently stolen from Auburn are 1990s model Honda
Accords. The top ten most frequently stolen vehicles are listed below.
#1 Honda Accord
#2 Honda Civic
#3 Acura Integra
#4 Toyota Camry
#5 Ford F- series trucks
#6 Subaru Legacy
#7 Honda Prelude
#8 Saturn SL
#9 Nissan Altima
#10 Nissan Sentra
DI.0 Page 60 of 62
DI.D
AuBuRN ITY Cdr •
\VASH E NGTo
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
Project Matrix August 20, 2014
Department: Attachments: Budget Impact:
Police Project Matrix $0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember: Peloza Staff:
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014 Item Number: DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 61 of 62
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE PROJECT - GOAL MATRIX
NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD COST REVIEW DATE EST. COMPL. STATUS
DATE
Suspended until further notice.
Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prey Oct -Dec); Apr (Prey Jan -
Mar); Jul (Prey Apr- June); Oct (Prey July -Sept) 1st
meeting of the month.
provided monthly to the committee for tracking
purposes of License sales for measuring the removal
of the rabies requirement.
The Council Operations Committee /MIT met on
3/18/14. MIT confirmed same fireworks policies as
2013. MIT will pre- announce vendor demonstrations.
Review for 2015 rates in November 2014.
Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prey Oct -Dec); Apr (Prey Jan-1
Mar); Jul (Prey Apr- June); Oct (Prey July -Sept) 2nd
Quarterly update to review Marketing Plan. 2nd
meeting of the month.
NO. ITEM OF INTEREST
Review City Code (ACC 8.18) regarding Shopping
Carts.
Annual review of taxation basis to determine if any
changes need to be made - dependent upon status
of economy. Ordinance No. 6398 was enacted
2/21/12.
Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prey Oct -Dec); Apr (Prey Jan-
Mar); Jul (Prey Apr- June); Oct (Prey July -Sept) 2nd
Review street sweeping program in 6 months.
Review auto theft statistics every 6 months.
Last Revision Date: 8/12/14 E:\ AGENDA\ MunicipalServicesPaperlessPacket \2014 \16 - August 25 \Resources \Matrix 08- 12- 14.xls
0)
c
0
c
O
0)
c
0
c
O
0)
c
0
c
0
0
m
v
o
co
O
v
0
CN
N
O
Lo
o
CN
--7,
u7
11/24/2014
0
m
10/27/2014
8/25/2014
Lo
o
o
_
C N
10/27/2014
v
0
CN
co
O
8/25/2014
Bob Lee
Bob Lee
Shelley Coleman
Bob Lee
Shelley Coleman
Daryl Faber
Daryl Faber
Randy Bailey
7
C
2
c
0
0
Shelley Coleman
Randy Bailey
Bob Lee
Red Light Photo Enforcement
Animal Control and Rescue
AVHS Board Review and Animal
Control Licensing Program
Fireworks Update
Solid Waste Rate Review
Golf Course & Restaurant Review
Cemetery Update
Shopping Cart Update
Ordinance No. 6398 - Pull Tabs
SCORE Jail Stats
Street Sweeping Schedule
Auto Thefts
O
O
N
N
op
N
N
M
Page 62 of 62
0
0