Loading...
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