The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 03/10/2016 SC1TY0Fm011111.1#1\11111.1111%. Pokiane 40010ValleT Spokane Valley Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 10, 2016 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 25, 2016 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Findings and Recommendations: CPA-2016-0001 Privately Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment located near Utah and Elizabeth b) Study Session: CTA-2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers— City Hall, February 25,2016 Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Christina Janssen, Planner Tim Kelley Karen Kendall, Planner Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the February 25, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the February 11, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended the Trader's Club meeting. The other Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing: CPA-2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation regarding the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA-2016-0001. The proposal is to change seven parcels owned by Avista located along Elizabeth Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Industrial (LI). Avista owns the parcel to the west of the request, on which they have a natural gas equipment yard. Avista proposes to expand their natural gas storage facility in this area. Ms. Kendall noted she had received one comment letter from Mark Zink, 2420 N. Elizabeth. Ms. Kendall said she had some answers to questions from the study session. She said one question was the width of the right-of-way (ROW) the width of Utah is approximately 30 feet wide, Elizabeth is approximately 40 feet wide with 30 feet of pavement. Ms. Kendall said another question was regarding approaches. The City's street standards would apply at the time of development, but each parcel could have a maximum of two approaches but would need to meet the standard. Ms. Kendall said the parcels may be small enough they could only have one approach. Only if access was taken off of Elizabeth would frontage improvements be necessary including curb, sidewalks and swales. Ms. Kendall contacted the Spokane Valley Fire Dept. regarding response times, they indicated when a call comes in they notify the closest truck for any emergency response call. This would be any emergency call which came into the department. The department does have a haz-mat response unit,but it for larger spills. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were no approaches installed along Elizabeth,then what kind of improvements would be required. Ms. Kendall responded she could not tell at this time, this would be something which would be determined at the time of future development and would depend on what was being proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Stoy asked if the parcels would have to be aggregated into one. Ms. Kendall stated it would not be required. 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Ron Staton, Avista Facilities Manager: Mr. Staton said Avista purchased the property which fronts Dollar Road in the mid 90's and began transitioning the natural gas storage to this facility because of over-crowding at the Mission location. In 2008 and 2009 Avista purchased the adjoining properties and built a fleet maintenance building. In 2014 and 2015 Avista sent letters to the property owners along Elizabeth to inquire if they were interested in selling. Seven of the lots were sold to Avista along Elizabeth Road, one property owner was not interesting in selling. Avista also purchased a triangle shaped piece in the middle of their property. Avista is proposing to change the zoning to Light Industrial. They are going to use the property for storage of natural gas pipe. Mr. Staton said this was a non-project related request, meaning Avista does not have a specific project coming up in which they need a place to store extra pipe. Avista is out of room in their Mission Avenue storage area and need more room to grow their operations. They need more room to be able to store all the pipe, allow for contractors to come and maneuver in the yard with room to grow for future growth. Mr. Staton said Avista was not opposed to all of the properties in the row, including the one they did not purchase being zoned the same. Mr. Staton said Avista works with the building and planning departments to be a good neighbor and make improvements which are required when developing a property. Mr. Staton commented on the improvements Avista had made on Utah. Mr. Staton said one of the properties had a dump site on it, which Avista spent $65,000 to clean up. Mr. Staton said Avista is a quiet neighbor, the crews come in and leave the yard around 7:30 in the morning, they return around 3:30 in the afternoon, and there are is nothing going on at the property at night. He said Avista has no desire to build along Elizabeth Road. All of the trucks exit the current facility out of Utah or Dollar and travel out of the neighborhood on those roads. Commissioner Anderson asked if there is no project what will happen to the property. Mr. Staton replied the purchases came about because the site was running out of room to store natural gas piping. Avista would like to install some asphalt and begin to store additional pipe on it. They are going to acquire the proper permits and do whatever is necessary to make this possible. Commissioner Johnson asked about the soil testing and lead levels. Mr. Staton responded Avista had removed 68 dump truck loads of old bike parts, washing machines, car parts and other old metal painted items, along with a lot of other debris. Mr. Staton felt the lead levels were from the old lead based paints from the old parts in the `neighborhood dump.' Commissioner Stoy asked if there was enough room on the site for Avista's needs. Mr. Staton said they felt this should be enough storage space for the next 20 years,there is no natural gas stored on the site, only pipe, meter assembly sets, meter repair, gas lines. Commissioner Stathos asked if they would continue to only store piping on the property. Mr. Staton replied Avista has an internal environmental department and it is very important to them to be in compliance with all the required standards. Commissioner Graham asked about a curvy property line between the fleet maintenance facility and the Elizabeth Road properties, and were there any other places where Avista was storing natural gas piping. Mr. Staton said the curvy line is a piece of property purchased from the railroad,there are nothing other natural gas pipe storage facilities except one in northern Idaho. Chair Graham then asked for testimony from the public. Mark Zink, 2420 N Elizabeth Road: Mr. Zink said he was concerned about what would happen along Elizabeth Road, but that Mr. Staton had answered most of his questions. He said he was aware of the improvements which had occurred on Utah and he was happy with that. He wondered what kind of a timeline there would be for the improvements. Mark Shollenberger, 2205 N Bradley Road: Mr. Shollenberger said the only access would be on to Utah and down Dollar Road. He said that is not true, that every morning and every night, the trucks are coming down Bradley. Dollar Road is backed up and so they use Bradley to get around the problem. Mr. Shollenberger said he had brought this up when the SCRAPS facility was being proposed. He said there used to be a sign which said no trucks allowed, however someone hit it and the county came out and instead of putting it back up, they just took it away. He says he has called code enforcement and they have done nothing about the many dead cats, dogs and squirrels caused by the trucks coming down the road. He is concerned that this will just increase the number of trucks coming from Avista, along with Mutual Materials and Standard Battery. 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Buddy Meagley, 2504 N Elizabeth Road: Mr. Meagley stated his daughter was buying the property which was the one piece Avista did not own. His was concerned the rezoning would make the property taxes go up. He also stated he would not be very happy if he had to look at the yellow pipe all the time. Ron Staton,Avista Facilities Manager: Mr. Staton said he would be calling the facility manager and have the drivers stop driving down Bradley. He would support the reposting of the 'no trucks' sign on Bradley as well. Mr. Staton said he will be happy to comply with whatever standards are necessary as they move forward. They do not have a large project moving forward, other than replacing old pipe which was put down in the 70's. He also said there is a brick house on the corner and there will be someone living in it until May. During the study session the sale on the corner property was not final, Mr. Staton said the sale was completed this day and all the cars had been removed from the property. Having no one else who wished to testify, Chair Graham closed the public testimony at 6:55 p.m. Commissioner Stoy moved to recommend approval of CPA-2016-0001. Commissioner Graham asked if the fleet maintenance property was bought and improved in 2009 why wasn't a fence put along the properties on Elizabeth. Planner Christina Janssen explained that at the time of the development,the `curvy' piece of property between the Elizabeth Road properties and the fleet maintenance property was owned by the rail road and so it was not required at that time. Commissioner Johnson said, if this were not approved for Light Industrial but was combined for residential, there could be 23 homes built upon the same ground and that would be worse than what Avista wanted to do to it. Commissioner Johnson said he felt that the recommendation should be to straight line the recommendation and not jog around the one parcel. Commissioner Phillips said, if the zoning was different on the one parcel, Avista would have to fence around it, if it was the same zoning,then they would not. Commissioner Stoy asked if the zoning was changed to be a straight line for all the lots, would the landscaping buffers and setback apply because it was a residential use on the property. Ms. Barlow said the code protects the zones, not the individual uses. Commissioner Phillips said he would ordinarily be in favor of including the extra lot in the request but in this case he would prefer to go around it to protect the buffers would apply. Commissioner Kelley said he would be in favor of including the other parcel in the request. Commissioner Graham said she was not in favor of blanket zoning, and would rather leave the other lot as R-2. She said she had concerns about the project but would support it if the other commissioners did. She said she was glad to hear Avista was willing to put up a fence, but knows they need a place to store the pipe. Commissioner Johnson said he would support the one lot remaining residential. Commissioner Kelley said he had changed his mind and he would support the one lot remaining residential. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passed. B. Study Session — CTA-2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission had discussed the changes to the state marijuana regulations in order to bring the medical marijuana businesses under regulation. The state has aligned the regulations for `medical' to be more in line with those of the recreational marijuana. Commissioner Anderson said he understood that there will be no `medical' marijuana, there will only be compliant and non-compliant marijuana. He offered the retail stores will require a special license, training, labeling and tracking for the compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham confirmed the five collectives currently selling `medical' marijuana can apply for a retail license or they must stop doing business as of July 1 this year. Mr. Lamb also confirmed with the current moratorium in place, the state did not issue the City any new retail opportunities. Based on the way the state was allocating new stores around the state, Mr. Lamb said he expected without the moratorium, the City would probably have been given three more retail stores to accommodate the 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 change in regulations for the compliant marijuana. People could apply for the new licenses, however priority would be given to those who have been miming a collective. The current recommendation from the Planning Commission was to not allow any additional retail stores or any more producers or processors and to ban any kind of club. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the Commission also wanted to expand the buffers to the maximum allowable between retail stores, should in the future the state say the cities cannot prohibit marijuana stores. There was discussion of the taxes collected from the marijuana; the City last year received $75,000 in excise taxes from marijuana, along with any sales taxes. These funds are not ear-marked for any specifically, except 10% at the state level is to be used for education. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was anything in the state being looked at like this related to home grown alcohol, Mr. Lamb was not aware of any. Commissioner Anderson said he would consider allowing additional compliant marijuana stores, but no more recreational marijuana stores. He also felt that the compliant marijuana should be required to be separated from the recreational by a physical barrier. Commissioner Johnson said Mr. Lamb explained there would be no legal basis for the City to require an operation to be compliant only or to require a retail store to separate their complaint and non-compliant operations with a physical barrier. Mr. Lamb said if the Commissioners wanted to allow additional `medical' or compliant stores they would need to allow more retail operations which allowed recreational as well. Commissioner Johnson said this would be a fine way to help with control of younger patients, but people of age were going to be able to go into a store and purchase whatever they would want to. He feels prescription drugs were a larger problem and there should be a clear perspective on what is trying to be accomplished. Commissioner Kelley commented the state of Massachusetts is trying to develop a prescription drug program. Commissioner Graham stated that as a school nurse she feels there is a transition from marijuana to other drugs. She feels there is a transition taking place now from marijuana to heroin. She feels the mistake being made is not providing enough education. She said she is seeing an upswing in children using e-cigarettes and underage drinking. Ms. Barlow stated there is an opportunity, if the Commissioners would like to take it, for the Commission to tour a producing/processing facility as well as a retail operation. If there is interest staff can set up a special meeting and make arrangements to facilitate this field trip. Thursday March 3, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. was agreed upon for the field trip. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Chair Graham Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Special Meeting Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers— City Hall, March 3,2016 Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Christina Janssen, Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission COMMISSION BUSINESS: The meeting was recessed while the Commission and several members of the public took a field tour of the following marijuana facilities: • Grow Op Farm located at 2611 N Woodruff. This facility was just a `windshield tour' of the site. It was commented this is the highest-producing facility in dollar value in Washington but very nondescript from the exterior • Toured Driftboat production/processing facility located at 18101 E Euclid Avenue. Manager Stan Fong and property owner Paul Bielec discussed the operations located at this facility. • Visited Locals Canna House retail facility located at 9616 E Sprague Avenue where we were immediately asked for our identification and spoke to shop owner Doug Pederson about his operations. • Commissioners and staff then returned to City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Chair Graham Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: March 10, 2016 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ®new business ❑public hearing ❑information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment—CPA-2016-0001 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On February 11, 2016 the Planning Commission held a study session followed by a Public Hearing on February 25, 2016. BACKGROUND: CPA-2016-0001 is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (I-1) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. If approved, the site will receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CPA at the February 25, 2016 meeting. Following a staff presentation and public comment on the amendment the Commission discussed the merits of the proposal. Discussion was focused on parcel 35121.5201, which is not included in the amendment, the future use of the seven parcels proposed to be amended, and the impact to surrounding properties. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, and the Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of the motion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 —Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2016-0001 I. of 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2016-0001 March 10,2016 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2"dto November 1St of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1st, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2016 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle,the City received one privately initiated request for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment,designated as CPA-2016-0001. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. As it is the lone proposed amendment,there are no other amendments to consider concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(H),the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2016-0001: 1. The amendment is comprised of seven parcels,all owned by Avista Corporation. 2. Avista owns and operates a Natural Gas Service Center including equipment and maintenance storage yard located west of the proposed amendment area. 3. On January 13,2016,the Spokane Regional Transportation Council was provided notice of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. On January 14,2016,the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 6. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 5, 2016. 7. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Title 21 have been fulfilled. 8. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment process,including public participation,notice and public hearing requirements. 9. On February 5,2016 and February 12,2016,notice for the proposed amendment was published in the Spokane Valley News Herald. 10. On February 8,2016 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject sites. 11. On February 10,2016 the subject sites were posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign and a description of the proposal. 12. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). There were no other proposed amendments requiring concurrent review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act). Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2016-0001 Page 1 of 3 13. On February 25,2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on CPA-2016- 0001. 14. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The change to Light Industrial(I-1)will provide opportunities for high technology and low-impact industrial uses as presently exist to the north,south and west of the amendment area which are designated I-1 under the Comprehensive Plan. The area is served by Spokane County Division of Utilities for sewer,and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District for water. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 provides emergency first responders. 15. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act(GMA)chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. b. Provides for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. c. Consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense uses. d. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 16. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. However, a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2014 from Low Density Residential(LDR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)occurred one and one half block south associated with the City's regional animal shelter. 17. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 18. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. C. Factors: 1. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non-project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements at the time of development and in accordance with requirements then in effect. 2. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. Additionally, previously contaminated soils have been removed by the new land owner,Avista, and homes removed. 3. The properties located west, north and south of the amendment have an I-1 land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning designation. The amendment is adjacent and contiguous to properties of the same or higher zoning classification. 4. The amendment does not introduce a new designation into the neighborhood,but reduces the immediate conflict between the light industrial and low density residential uses by utilizing a street right-of-way as a separation between the uses. 5. The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with a light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. 6. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (AO) (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Development may be limited based upon the AO standards related to use, noise and height. The proximity to Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2016-0001 Page 2 of 3 Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. 7. The City addresses the adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through SVMC Chapter 22.20 Concurrency. 8. The site is located at the intersection of two local access streets (Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road) and each lot is direct access to a public street. Transportation concurrency has been deferred by the City's Traffic Engineer until the time of development. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. The site is located within the Orchard Avenue Irrigation District service area. Based on the preceding,the proposal meets concurrency requirements. 9. Due to the size of the property,the proposed amendment would not significantly impact population density and does not require population analysis. Employment would not contribute to an increase in population density, and removing the site from a residential designation would have a marginal impact city wide. 10. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2—Land Use;Chapter 3 —Transportation; Chapter 7— Economic Development; and Chapter 10—Neighborhoods. C. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2016-0001. Proposed 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2016-0001 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve proposed 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2016-0001. Approved this 10th day of March,2016. Heather Graham, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2016-0001 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 10,2016 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2016-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session — Comprehensive Marijuana Regulations (continued from February 25, 2016) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) chapter 19.85, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A to add definitions regarding marijuana uses, prohibit all new marijuana uses, including production, processing, retail, cooperatives, and clubs from any zones within the City, and to provide additional regulations for production and processing of home-grown marijuana by qualified patients and designated providers for personal use in residential zones. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreational marijuana. On December 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB"). Planning Commission conducted study sessions on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2015, and February 25, 2016. Planning Commission visited a production/processing facility and retail facility on March 3,2016. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums as described in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission conducted study sessions on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015. At those study sessions, Planning Commission received information from staff regarding recent changes to State law, ongoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and Washington Department of Health, testimony from the public, information from Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire, and a range of various types of available options. Further, Planning Commission considered various options and ultimately gave a consensus for staff to draft proposed amendment language that would ban all new marijuana uses, allow home growing, require notice by renters to landlords for home growing, and ban home extraction. Planning Commission will now be considering draft amendments that would amend chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A by (1) adding definitions for medical marijuana endorsed retail stores, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, (2) prohibiting any new licensed marijuana production, processing, or retail stores from all zones, (3) prohibiting marijuana cooperatives from all zones, (4) prohibiting marijuana clubs or lounges from all zones, and (5) requiring any home-growing by qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential zones in permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights-of-way, and to clarify that renters may be required, as may be authorized by federal, state, and local laws, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a rental dwelling. A copy of proposed amendments were distributed at the February 25, 2016 meeting. Staff has updated those amendments for grammatical issues, consistency with the existing Spokane Valley Municipal Code, and to incorporate legislative proposals that are not moving forward this session (specifically, the "marijuana lounge"definition was deleted). The changes are highlighted in yellow. After consideration of the study session, Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 14, 2016. For informational purposes, all information provided as part of the packet for the February 25 study session has been included with this RCPA. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendments will be provided to the Spokane Valley News Herald in accordance with the requirements of Title 17 SVMC. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F) provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments on April 14, 2016. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen—Planner Jenny Nickerson— Senior Plans Examiner Erik Lamb—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report, including copies of Ordinance Nos. 14-021 and 15-017 B. Proposed updated amendments to chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVMC 19.120.050,and Appendix A B. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 C. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2015 meeting D. Copy of RPCA from December 10, 2015 meeting E. Copy of RPCA from February 25, 2016 meeting E. Copy of minutes from October 22, 2015,November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015 meetings F. Police crime tracking information requested at December 10, 2015 meeting COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .11°°1%elikk PLANNING DIVISION Spokane 41010.Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2016-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 2016,updated March 3, 2016 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: April 14, 2016, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend SVMC 19.85 and Appendix A to add definitions and modify the regulations to prohibit any additional state-licensed production, processing, and retail sales of marijuana, including regulations for licensed retail stores with medical marijuana endorsements, to prohibit marijuana cooperatives, and add general requirements for all home-growing by qualified patients in residential zones. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division makes no statement of recommendation regarding the proposed amendment other than that the proposal complies with City text amendment requirements pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F). STAFF PLANNER: Christina Janssen, Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Ordinance No. 14-021, adopting a moratorium on all marijuana uses other than recreational production,processing, and retail uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; Ordinance No. 15-023, adopting an extension on the unlicensed marijuana uses. Exhibit 2: Ordinance No. 15-017, adopting a moratorium on all marijuana uses required to be licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Exhibit 3: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.85, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A. A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Ordinance 14-002 passed, adopting interim definitions 2/11/14 and regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana Process Date Ordinance 14-004 passed, adopting amendments to the 4/22/14 interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana Ordinance 14-008 passed, adopting definitions and 7/22/14 regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana and repealing interim development regulations adopted pursuant to ordinances 14-002 and 14-004 Ordinance 14-021 passed, adopting a moratorium on the 12/9/14 establishment of all marijuana uses other than marijuana producers, marijuana processors, and marijuana retail sales as licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (previously the "Liquor and Control Board"). Ordinance No. 15-017 passed, adopting a moratorium on 10/6/15 all marijuana uses required to be licensed or registered with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Ordinance No. 15-023 passed, adopting a six-month 12/1/15 renewal of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021. SEPA Determination TBD Published Notice of Public Hearing TBD Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies TBD PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: Through the course of meetings on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015, Planning Commission heard multiple reports from staff, Spokane Valley Police, and Spokane Valley Fire, as well as receiving extensive public comment on the City's regulation of legal marijuana. Staff reports included discussion of existing City regulations, State law, ongoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB") related to all licensed marijuana types and the Washington Department of Health related to medical marijuana (although the Department of Health has since categorized medical marijuana as "compliant marijuana" due to ongoing questions about its beneficial medicinal qualities), and a range of options for Planning Commission to consider. The background of these discussions are included as part of the RPCA for the study session on this code text amendment. Planning Commission considered various options and ultimately gave a consensus for staff to draft proposed amendment language that would ban all new marijuana uses, allow home growing, require notice by renters to landlords for home growing, and ban home extraction. The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) chapter 19.85, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A by (1) adding definitions for medical marijuana endorsed retail stores, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, (2) prohibiting any new licensed marijuana production, processing, or retail stores from all zones, (3) prohibiting marijuana cooperatives from all zones, (4) prohibiting marijuana clubs or lounges from all zones, and (5) requiring any home-growing by qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential zones in permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights-of-way, and to clarify that renters may be required, as may be authorized by federal, state, and local laws, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a rental dwelling. Page 2 of 8 Recreational Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502) in November 2012. The State has worked over the last three years to develop extensive regulations for licensing and permitting of production (growing), processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the WSLCB. The WSLCB began accepting and processing applications in November 2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. As provided by law, the WSLCB developed rules to allocate a limited number of retail licenses within each jurisdiction. The City was allocated three recreational retail licenses and the WSLCB has issued all three licenses and all shops are open and operational. Under state law, there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed. State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between licensed marijuana facilities and several sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks, but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. The WSLCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16, 2014, a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that the Attorney General's opinion was that local jurisdictions were not preempted by I-502 from adopting local regulations and restrictions on state-licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers are in addition to the state- mandated buffers and are enforced by the City. All marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. However, the United State Department of Justice has released a policy to not prosecute licensed marijuana providers in states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and regulatory scheme. Medical Marijuana Background: In 1998, voters approved the medical use of marijuana by initiative, though approval was limited in scope. In 2011, the Washington State Legislature adopted amendments to the medical marijuana laws that would have created a state registry for patients and legalized dispensaries and collective gardens. The Governor vetoed all sections related to the state registry and dispensaries, creating a large amount of confusion and leaving collective gardens as the sole means for producing and procuring medical marijuana. The City did not adopt regulations at that time, but issued business registrations for collectives, provided they were located in a zone where retail sales were appropriate. With the passage of I-502 and legalization of recreational marijuana, there developed two very distinct and separate marijuana regulatory regimes — a licensed and regulated recreational market and an unregulated and unlicensed medical market. In 2015,the Washington State Legislature passed major changes to existing medical marijuana laws in an effort to reconcile the medical and recreational marijuana markets. There were two primary bills passed as part of the changes: Second Substitute Senate Bill 5052 (Cannabis Patient Protection Act) and Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2136. The major changes included the following: Reconcile Medical and Recreational Marijuana Markets - Establishes a "medical marijuana endorsement" for licensed marijuana retailers. This endorsement allows a licensed retailer to sell medicinal marijuana to qualifying patients and designated providers. • The medical marijuana endorsement does not prohibit the licensed retailer from also selling recreational marijuana. • Qualifying patients and designated providers may receive an exemption from the State's marijuana tax when purchasing medical marijuana from a licensed retailer with a medical marijuana endorsement. • Anyone over the age of 21 may purchase any of the marijuana sold at a retail store, regardless of whether it is "medical" (now referred to as "compliant" marijuana by the Washington Department of Health) or"recreational"). Page 3 of 8 - Creates a medical marijuana authorization database that qualifying patients and designated providers must be entered in to. • Patients and providers will obtain "recognition cards" that authorize them to purchase medical marijuana. • The database must be operational by July 1, 2016. - Collective gardens must cease operations as of July 1, 2016. Changes to Licensing - WSLCB must reconsider and increase number of retail outlets to accommodate medical marijuana needs. - WSLCB must develop merit based application process for new retail licenses. - WSLCB must increase canopy limits for producers to account for medical marijuana needs. - Restricts the use of butane or other gases for marijuana extraction to validly licensed marijuana processors (no home extraction with these types of gases and solvents). -Retailers may not sell through vending machines or by drive-up windows. -Establishes a transportation license for common carriers delivering between licensed facilities. -Establishes a research license. • Allows licensed researchers to research chemical potency, clinical investigations into marijuana-derived drug products, and efficacy and safety of administering marijuana as medical treatment, and to conduct genomic or agricultural research. - Requires signage at the premises of prospective producers, processors, and retailers providing notice to the public of the intent to license the facilities as a marijuana producer, processor, or retailer. Allow for "Cooperatives" (effective July 1, 2016) - Allows for the creation of medical marijuana "cooperatives"that may be formed by up to four qualifying patients or designated providers. • Cooperatives cannot be located within a mile of marijuana retailers or within 1,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, library, or applicable game arcades. • Cooperative locations must be registered with the WSLCB. • The location of a cooperative must be a domicile of one of the participants and only one cooperative may be located on a single property tax parcel. • Cooperatives may grow up to a maximum of 60 plants. • The WSLCB may adopt rules relating to security and traceability requirements for cooperatives. • Cooperatives are not considered businesses (since they only distribute to the four members), so no business licenses or taxes. • May not locate where prohibited by a city or county zoning provision. Qualified Patients and Designated Providers -Must receive authorization from health care professional. - Authorization and recognition card issued once entered into the database are necessary to receive arrest protection. - May keep amounts of marijuana listed on authorization card. - May grow up to 15 plants in house. • No more than 15 plants per housing unit regardless of how many patients reside in the housing unit(except for cooperatives,which may have 60 plants). Page 4 of 8 - No production or processing if any portion can be seen from unaided vision or smelled from a public place or private property of another housing unit. - State will adopt rules allowing non-combustible extraction by qualified patients and designated providers. -Minors may be patients,with parents serving as designated providers. Local Authority - Repeals RCW 69.51A.140,which granted cities and counties the authority to adopt and enforce requirements related to medical marijuana, including zoning. - Cities are authorized to adopt civil penalties for patients and designated providers growing/keeping plants outside the limits set by SB 5052. - Cities may adopt ordinances reducing the buffers between licensed facilities and recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, or game arcade which is not restricted to those over 21 from 1,000 feet to not less than 100 feet, provided such distance reduction will not negatively impact the jurisdiction's civil regulatory enforcement, criminal law enforcement interests,public safety, or public health. • Buffers to schools and playgrounds may not be reduced below the state required 1,000 feet. - Subject to any rules adopted by the WSLCB, cities and counties may adopt an ordinance prohibiting a marijuana producer or processor from operating or locating a business within areas zoned primarily for residential use or rural use with a minimum lot size of five acres or smaller. Ongoing Rulemaking: As part of the State law changes, the State must increase the number of retail stores to account for the medical marijuana market. Through emergency rulemaking,the WSLCB has set the increased total retail stores to 556. The WSLCB has left the allocated number of stores in the City at three based upon the ongoing moratorium. In the event the moratorium is lifted and the City allows additional retail stores,the allocated number is likely to double to six total stores. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency Rules #15-18, which among other things, provided for the WSLCB to begin accepting and processing marijuana retail license applications beginning on October 12, 2015. Further, the Washington Department of Health is in the rulemaking process, but has provided through emergency rulemaking that in lieu of"medical marijuana", certain types of marijuana will be "compliant" marijuana that will be subject to certain testing and which may contain higher CBD ratios or higher THC ratios. Other than one particular variety of high THC marijuana, anyone over the age of 21 may purchase any compliant marijuana. In discussions with the WSLCB,they have indicated they will not consider any differentiation of medical retail stores and recreational retail stores, but will instead simply considered licensed retail stores. Final rulemaking is anticipated to be complete by May, 2016. City Regulatory Background: In response to I-502, the City adopted permanent regulations on July 22, 2014. The regulations, as they now exist, are set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 (permitted use matrix) and SVMC 19.85 and provide as follows: - State licensed marijuana production is a permitted use in Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones, and indoor growing only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - State licensed marijuana processing is a permitted use in the Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones, and packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - Both production and processing uses may not be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant Page 5 of 8 library property, and vacant school property. Production and processing may be located within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail, provided that it is in the appropriate zone (there are few Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail). - State licensed marijuana sales are permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. -Licensed retail sales may not be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace,vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property,the Appleway Trail, and the Centennial Trail. Further, after the passage of I-502, the City saw an increase in the number of collectives (unregulated medical marijuana) seeking business registrations. The City passed a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (e.g., primarily medical marijuana) pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021 on December 9, 2014 to allow the City to determine what action the State would take to reconcile the medical and recreational marijuana markets and to develop its own regulations. In response to the WSLCB's Emergency Rules on September 23, 2015 (described above), the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-017, which established a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the WSLCB in order to allow the City to complete the consideration, development, and adoption of its regulations without allowing additional licenses to vest or create potentially inconsistent or incompatible uses. The moratorium did not impact existing marijuana uses which had already received a license from the WSLCB. However, it will prevent the City from processing any applications from collectives which wish to receive a retail license from the WSLCB. Further, the moratorium did not impact any home use or consumption. This proposal stems from a requirement originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021 and subsequently also Ordinance No. 15-017. Pursuant to both ordinances, the City established a work plan to work through and adopt permanent regulations for all marijuana uses. This proposal constitutes the permanent regulations required pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 14-021 and Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-017. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals by protecting residential areas, protecting commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Further, the proposed amendments maintain the character of residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cooperatives and limiting secondary impacts on surrounding properties for any medical growing within residential zones through compliance with land use and building codes. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: LUP-1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Page 6 of 8 LUP-1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Goal LUP-10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow existing state-licensed recreational and medical marijuana businesses to continue to operate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further the amendment will limit additional adverse impacts from new marijuana uses on other existing commercial and industrial uses. Finally,the proposed amendment will protect the residential character of residential neighborhoods. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing will be conducted for CTA-2015-0006 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. Page 7 of 8 D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, makes no recommendation as to the approval of the regulations related to production, processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational and medical marijuana, and land use and building code compliance for medical marijuana production and processing within residential zones, except that such proposed amendments are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and meet the criteria set forth in SVMC 17.80.150(F). Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL MARIJUANA USES OTHER THAN MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA PROCESSORS, AND MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES AS LICENSED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 69.50 RCW AND REGULATED BY CHAPTER 19.85 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.120.050,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich,545 U.S. 1, 14(2005),Controlled Substance Act, 84 Stat. 1242,2] U.S.C. 801 et seq;and WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on November 3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, created an affirmative defense for "qualifying patients"to the charge of possession of marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 2011,the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that, among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and processing facilities, (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes from designated providers, (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, (4) and clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production, processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.5IA RCW within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries,processing facilities,and production facilities,thereby making these activities illegal; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502 ("I-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50,46.04.46.20,46.21,and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"),which provisions, (l) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana;and(3)established a regulatory system licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the "LCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1,2013 for issuing licenses to produce,process,and sell marijuana; and WHEREAS, on August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of I-502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public Ordinance 14-021 Page 1 of 5 health,and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice;"and WHEREAS, the LCB has established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the licensing, operation, and enforcement of recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail sales shops under chapter 314-55 WAC; and WHEREAS, in 2014, the Washington State Legislature considered, but did not adopt E3SSB 5887 that would have reconciled the comprehensive state regulatory scheme for recreational marijuana under I-502 and the lack of regulatory oversight and controls over medical marijuana under chapter 69.51A RCW; and WHEREAS, the possession of medical marijuana, operation of collective gardens, and services provided by designated providers remain illegal under chapter 69.51A RCW and Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, 180 Wn. App. 455 (2014), cert. granted,with such activities only entitled to an affirmative defense;and WHEREAS, RCW 69.50.445 prohibits the opening of a package containing marijuana, useable marijuana, or a marijuana-infused product, or consumption of marijuana, useable marijuana, or a marijuana-infused product"within view of the general public,"but does not otherwise regulate operation of any "private" marijuana consumption facility, "vaping" of marijuana extracts or oils, or other unlicensed marijuana operations;and WHEREAS, unlike recreational licensed marijuana production, processing,and retail sales under chapter 69.50 RCW, all other marijuana uses, including medical marijuana and businesses offering "private"consumption or"vaping,"remain unlicensed marijuana uses that are largely unregulated and are not subject to review, licensing,or enforcement by the LCB; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature is likely to propose and consider legislation on medical marijuana in the upcoming 2015 Legislative session, but the City cannot determine what that legislation may provide or when or if it will be passed;and WHEREAS,the City of Spokane Valley Police have informally documented 45 marijuana-related crimes since November 13,2013, with at least 30 of those involving persons under the age of 21;and WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning,buffers,and other Iimitations on marijuana producers,processors,and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50 RCW,but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses;and WHEREAS, as of October 28, the City had at least 18 medical-marijuana related businesses registered within the City, all of which provide marijuana outside of the licensing, regulation, enforcement of the LCB, none of which are licensed marijuana producers, processors, or retail outlets under chapter 69.50 RCW,and none of which are subject to the City's regulations under SVMC 19.85 or SVMC 19.120.050;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a Ordinance 14-1121 Page 2 of 5 public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development;and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act;and WHEREAS, the lack of regulatory oversight at any level over unlicensed marijuana uses,such as medical marijuana collective gardens, designated providers, and "private" marijuana consumption businesses, (1) creates a market for marijuana that is inconsistent with the highly regulated market established by licensed producers, processors, and retail sales by the LCB, (2) allows increased access to marijuana by minors, and (3) creates a risk to the public health, safety and welfare because of the lack of regulatory oversight and potential for abuse; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted its 2015-2017 Legislative Agenda, which included an item wherein the City Council stated it would "support the reconciliation of the recreational and medical marijuana statutes," "support development of one system that would regulate medical and recreational marijuana, (including the elimination of medical marijuana), in Washington State,"and would"support State regulations which close gaps within current legislation: Vaping, edibles, oils, and `private' consumption/facilities;and under age possession and consumption;"and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to conduct appropriate research to analyze the allowance, siting, and necessary land-use regulations for unlicensed marijuana uses under existing state law, and to determine what, if any, regulations may be passed by the Washington State Legislature in the upcoming 2015 legislative session regarding unlicensed marijuana uses and the impact of such laws on unlicensed marijuana uses within the City; and WHEREAS, a moratorium will provide the City with additional time to review and amend its public health, safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to the establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses;and WHEREAS, Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium;and WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses as a necessary stop-gap measure: (1) to provide the City with an Ordinance 14-021 Page 3 of 5 opportunity to study the issues associated with allowing, siting,and regulating unlicensed marijuana uses, including determining what, if any, regulations are passed by the Washington State Legislature in the upcoming 2015 legislative session and the impacts of those laws upon unlicensed marijuana uses; (2) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley by avoiding and ameliorating negative impacts and unintended consequences of additional unlicensed marijuana; and (3) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make for its rules and regulations as a result of the City's study of this matter;and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council hereby declares and imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for unlicensed marijuana use. B. For purposes of this moratorium, "unlicensed marijuana use" means the production, growing, processing, manufacturing, extraction, infusion into edible solids, liquids or gummies, allowing consumption on the premises of, sale, distribution, or delivery of marijuana, marijuana-infused products, extracts, concentrates, oils, or any other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any business, association or other for-profit or not-for-profit establishment, including but not limited to collective gardens, designated providers, medical marijuana dispensaries, or private marijuana "vaping," smoking, or consumption clubs;provided, however, "unlicensed marijuana use" shall not include any marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer that has received and holds a valid marijuana producer, marijuana processor,or marijuana retailer license from the Washington Liquor Control Board pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC;provided, further, if a building permit for work within a business is necessary in order for a business to obtain a valid marijuana license from the Washington Liquor Control Board under chapter 69.50 RCW, the City may accept and process such permit prior to the applicant receiving its license from the Washington Liquor Control Board. C. "Unlicensed marijuana use"does not and shall not include any personal possession or use of marijuana, marijuana-infused products, marijuana extracts, marijuana concentrates, marijuana oils, or other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any person pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient pursuant to RCW 69.51A.040. D. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already- submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law. Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's regulation of,and the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, Ordinance l4-021 Pave 4 of 5 and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of unlicensed marijuana uses. B. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses, which regulations may provide provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390,the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on January 27,2015 at 6:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley,99206,City Council Chambers, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this. Ordinance, unless repealed,extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Severability. If any section,sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section S. Declaration of Emergency; Effective Date, This Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 9th day of December, 2014. ATTS :/ Dean Grafos .yor 7,44;14A / A4 ity Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as orm: Office he Ci ttorney Date of Publication: December 12,2014 Effective Date: December 9, 2014 Ordinance 14-021 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-017 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL NEW MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA PROCESSORS, MARIJUANA RETAILERS, MARIJUANA RESEARCHERS, MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY USES, AND MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES, LICENSED BY OR REGISTERED WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Ranch, 545 U.S. 1, 14(2005),Controlled Substance Act, 84 Stat. 1242,21 U.S.C. 801 et seq; and WHEREAS,Initiative Measure No.692,approved by the voters of Washington State on November 3, 1998,and now codified as chapter 69,5 IA RCW,created an affirmative defense fur"qualifying patients" to the charge of possession of marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that, among other things,(I)authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries,production facilities,and processing facilities,(2)permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes from designated providers, (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, and (4)clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production, processing, or dispensing of medical marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.5IA RCW within their respective jurisdictions;and WHEREAS,on April 29,2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries, processing facilities,and production facilities,thereby making these activities illegal;and WHEREAS,on November 6,2012,voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502 ("1-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"), which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia;(2)amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing producers,processors,and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board(now the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, and referred to herein as the"WSLCB")to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1,2013 for issuing licenses to produce,process,and sell marijuana;and WHEREAS,on August 29,2013,the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of 1-502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further,the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those state and local governments"implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will Ordinance 15-017 Page 1 of6 address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice;"and WHEREAS on July 22,2014,the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008,which established in chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning, buffers, and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50 RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses, including medical marijuana;and WHEREAS, the City's regulations were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect (chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three marijuana retail licenses within the City and provided a maximum limit on marijuana production space;and WHEREAS,on December 9,2014,the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021,adopting a moratorium on the establishment of new unlicensed marijuana uses in order to allow the City to consider any marijuana- related legislation adopted as part of the 2015 Washington State Legislative Session and to develop comprehensive marijuana regulations incorporating such changes;and WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by the City on December 9, 2014, did not impact existing licensed or unlicensed marijuana facilities and did not prohibit the City from processing applications related to licensed marijuana producers,processors,and retailers because the City had already adopted regulations for such uses that were premised, in part,upon the laws and regulations then in effect(chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three retail licenses within the City and provided a maximum limit on marijuana production space;and WHEREAS, to date, the City has 19 licensed marijuana producers, 2I licensed marijuana processors and three licensed marijuana retailers located within its boundaries. All three licensed marijuana retailers are operational and are selling marijuana at their locations within the City. The City processed five business registrations related to medical marijuana in 2013 and 10 business registrations in 2014 prior to the adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, in 2015,the Washington State Legislature adopted the"Cannabis Patient Protection Act," Laws of 2015,ch. 70,and additional comprehensive marijuana-related regulations pursuant to Laws of 2015, ch. 4 and other enacted legislation(collectively,the"2015 Marijuana Legislation"); and WHEREAS, as part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State (1) reconciled the medical and recreational marijuana markets by establishing a"medical marijuana endorsement"that retail licensees will be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers,while also making unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1,2016,(2)expanded the amount of marijuana production that may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with medical marijuana endorsements, (3) created "cooperatives"which must be registered by the WSLCB, and (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver and transport marijuana between licensed marijuana producers, processors,and retailers delivery/transportation and created a new marijuana research license for permitees to produce, process, and possess marijuana for certain limited research purposes;and WHEREAS,as part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation,the State required an increase in the number of marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the medical needs of qualifying patients and designated providers"and directed the WSLCB to promulgate rules and regulations for setting the number of increased retail licenses, accepting new retail license applications and accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements;and Ordinance 15-017 Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency Rules #15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Rules") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide that (1) the WSLCB will begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015 and it will not set a limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses until a later date, (2) the WSLCB will begin accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements,and(3)the state cap on maximum marijuana production space is removed and will be set at a later date;and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules #15-17, which will be subject to public comment, and pursuant to which the WSLCB has provided that it will not set a limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses or a state cap on marijuana production space until a later date;and WHEREAS,pursuant to Article 11,Section 11 of the Washington Constitution,the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws,"which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control,shall hold a public hearing our the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption,whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing,then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS,a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development;and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing;and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, the City is in the process of developing comprehensive medical and recreational marijuana regulations. However, the Planning Commission and City Council will not have an opportunity to fully consider and develop comprehensive marijuana policy decisions that give adequate consideration to 2015 Marijuana Legislation,or to adopt such City regulations, prior to October 12,2015 when the WSLCB will begin accepting and processing additional marijuana retail licenses;and WHEREAS, new proposals for additional marijuana retail licenses that may be submitted beginning October 12, 2015, pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety as they may create incompatible land uses subject to the City's existing regulations which were premised, in part,on a total of Ordinance 15-017 Page 3 of 6 three marijuana retail stores and a state cap on the maximum amount of marijuana production space,without allowing the City to fully consider the impacts of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation or the WSLCB Emergency Rules. Further, allowing an unknown number of marijuana retail licenses to vest or be located within the City prior to completion of the City's review and development of its marijuana zoning and land use regulations impairs the City's ability(1)to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space,(2)to develop a reasoned approach to the public health,safety,and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, and(3)to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules;and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary for Planning Commission and City Council (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, and (3)to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules;and WHEREAS,Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and operation of licensed or registered marijuana uses as a necessary stop-gap measure: (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (3)to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules, and (4) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make for its rules and regulations; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council hereby declares and imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for any new licensed or registered marijuana use. Ordinance 15-0 17 Page 4 of 6 B. For purposes of this moratorium, "licensed or registered marijuana use" means any marijuana producers, marijuana processors, marijuana retailers, including any licensed retailer seeking a medical marijuana endorsement, marijuana researcher, marijuana delivery or transportation by common carrier between licensed facilities,marijuana cooperative, or other use that is required pursuant to chapters 69.50 and 69.51A RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC to be licensed by or registered with the WSLCB. C. This moratorium shall not affect, and "licensed or registered marijuana use" shall not include any personal possession or use of marijuana, marijuana-infused products, marijuana extracts, marijuana concentrates,marijuana oils,or other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any person pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient or designated provider pursuant to chapter 69,51A RCW. D. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already- submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law, or any processing or consideration of any land-use or building permit for a marijuana producer, marijuana processor,or marijuana retailer that has,as of the date of this moratorium, already received its license from the WSLCB and which permit application is for a modification or renewal at the existing location listed on that license for that marijuana producer,processor,or retailer. Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's regulation of,and the establishment of licensed or registered marijuana uses: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements,testimony,positions,and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of licensed or registered marijuana uses. B. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received,to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to the establishment of licensed or registered marijuana uses, giving full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules, and which regulations may provide provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390,the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on October 27,2015 at 6:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, City Council Chambers, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section S. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect fora period of 365 days from the date of this Ordinance, unless repealed,extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s)and entry of appropriate findings of fact,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and.RCW 36.70A.390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Severability. if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance. Ordinance 15-017 page 5 of 6 Section 8. Declaration of Emergency: Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health,safety,and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 6th day of October,2015. Dean Grafos,Mayor /7 i ATTES ai /5„ii.,64/01 '--Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney"] Date of Publication: e.14 A /&P, J f- V Effective Date: October 6,2015 Ordinance 15-017 Page 6 of 6 Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS I. Definitions APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A.General Provisions. 1.For the purpose of this€Code,certain words and terms are herein defined.The word "shall"is always mandatory.The word"may"is permissive,subject to the judgment of the person administering the€Code. 2.Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3.The present tense includes the future,and the future the present. 4.The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. 5.Use of male designations shall also include female. B.Definitions. Manufacturing,petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving,roofing and coating and petroleum refining. See"Industrial,heavy use category." Marijuana club pr lounge: A club,association,or other business,for profit or otherwise,that conducts (Formatted:Highlight or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume marijuana on the premises,whether licensed by the Washington State (Formatted:Highlight Liquor and Cannabis Board or not,or such other similar use pursuant to RCW 69.50.465,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana cooperative: A marijuana cooperative formed pursuant to chapter 69.51A RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. A marijuana cooperative is comprised of up to four qualifying patients or designated providers and formed for the purposes of sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources, and producing and processing marijuana for the medical use of the members of the marijuana cooperative. f Marijuana lounge: A use,location,facility, or business that allows consumption of useable marijuana, (Formatted:Strikethrough,Highlight marijuana infused products, and marijuana concentrates on premises and which is licensed by the State Liquor and Cannabis Board and has been issued a marijuana lounge endorsement pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW,as now adopted or hereafter amended. (Formatted:Strikethrough Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates, packaging and labeling usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets,and sale of usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by_a marijuana processor licensed by theWashington State Formatted:Highlight Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Gchapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended.See"Industrial,light use category." Marijuana production:Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the Washington State Liquor Controland Cannabis Board and pursuant to Gchapter 69.50 RCW, as (Formatted:Highlight now adopted or hereafter amended.See"Agricultural and animals,use category." Marijuana sales: Selling usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by theWashington State Liquor Controland Cannabis Board, (Formatted:Highlight along with any applicable other use allowed as part of the marijuana sales pursuant to an endorsement associated with marijuana retail,including but not limited to marijuana sales with a medical endorsement, operation of a marijuana club pr lounge pursuant to an endorsement, or delivery of marijuana that may (Formatted:Highlight require an endorsement, all as provided and pursuant to Gchapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended.See"Retail sales,use category." Marijuana sales with a medical endorsement: Means marijuana sales and medical marijuana sales by a marijuana retailer licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board that has been issued a medical marijuana endorsement pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 69.51A RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Market,outdoor:A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including, but not limited to,pumpkins,Christmas trees and firewood,as well as crafts and other items,are offered for sale to the public.See"Retail sales,use category." Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) II. SVMC 19.120.050 19.120.050 Permitted use matrix. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R-R-R-R-MF-MF- I- I- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 Agriculture and Animal Kennel S S S S S P P See zoning districts for conditions Marijuana production a 4 g Chapter 19.85 SVMC Orchard,tree farming,commercial P P Food and Beverage Service Espresso establishment P P PPPPP A PP Marijuana club Chapter 19.85 SVMC Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R-R-R-R-MF-MF- I- I- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 Mobile food vendors S S S SS SS S S S SVMC 19.60.010(L),19.70.010(B)(2) Industrial,Light Manufacturing,light P P P Marijuana processing 4 4 4 4 Chapter 19.85 SVMC Plastic injection molding,thermoplastic P P P P P P Residential Dwelling,townhouse PPP P P P P Marijuana cooperative Chapter 19.85 SVMC Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R-R-R-R-MF-MF- I- I- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 Manufactured home park SSS S S SVMC 19.40.130 Retail Sales Manufactured home sales P P P Marijuana sales 4 4 4 4 Chapter 19.85 SVMC Market,outdoor P P PP P P A=Accessory use,C=Conditional use,P=Permitted use R=Regional siting,S=Permitted with supplemental conditions T=Temporary use Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) II. SVMC 19.85 19.85.010 Marijuana uses prohibited;nonconforming uses. A.Marijuana production,processing,sales,clubs,and any other commercial or non-commercial licensed (Formatted:Highlight or registered marijuana uses are prohibited within all zones of the City of Spokane Valley. B. Marijuana cooperatives are prohibited within all zones of the City of Spokane Valley. B. Marijuana production,processing,and sales uses that were in in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to the adoption of this SVMC 19.85.010 shall be deemed lawful nonconforming uses and shall be allowed to continue,subject to the regulations set forth in and pursuant to the provisions of SVMC 19.20.060,as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended. A.Marijuana production shall bo located or maintained at least 1,000 foot from the noarost property lino, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any ono or more of the following uses: 1.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts pursuant toas established in RCW Title 28A; 2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts pursuant toas established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3.Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under this section: a.Any stormwater facility or right of way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right of way in any document, plan or program adopted by the cCity cCouncil;and b.The Appleway Trail;or 1. a.Any facility, building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any similar term that identifies such facilities,buildings,campus,or collection of buildings as the city's b.ContorPlaco. B.Marijuana production in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall only bo permitted indoors.sor A.Marijuana processing shall bo located or maintained at least 1,000 foot from the noarost property lino, measured from the noarost property lino of the marijuana processing facility to the noarost property lino of any ono or more of the following uses: 1.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts pursuant to RCW Title 28A; Attachment B(Exhibit 3 to Staff Report) 2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts pursuant toas established in Chapter 27_12 RCW; 19.85.020 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. Washington State law authorizes qualified patients and designated providers to produce marijuana and to process marijuana in dwellings, residences, domiciles, and similar housing units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods. Subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws, any owner, lessor, or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit. In addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations, lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling, residence, domicile, or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally applicable land use,development,zoning,and building regulation requirements,including but not limited to all applicable requirements set forth in Titles 17, 18, 19,20,21,22 and 24 SVMC as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended,and the following regulations: A. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; B. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person as allowed by state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall be enclosed,blocked,or sight-screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties so that no portion may be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from such locations. Accessory structures shall be permanent structures enclosed by a roof and walls on all sides and connected to a permanent foundation. For purposes of SVMC 19.85.050, accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles or other similar types of structures. Accessory structures shall be completely opaque in addition to necessary site-screening; C. Home processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and rules, including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board;and U. Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory (Formatted:Highlight structure shall only be allowed in the R-1,R-2,R-3,and R-4 zones. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 22, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2015-0006 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Recreational and Medical Marijuana Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Providing an update and background on current recreational and medical marijuana laws, including recent 2015 State Legislative amendments and the City's current marijuana regulations. Discuss possible options for amendments to City regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreational marijuana and further adopted a moratorium on all new marijuana uses which are not licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board. BACKGROUND: In December of 2014,the Spokane Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14- 021 which established a moratorium on the establishment of all marijuana uses other than marijuana producers, marijuana processors and marijuana retail sales as licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). This included all medical marijuana establishments,which at the time were not regulated by the State or WSLCB. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021,the City established a work plan to work through and adopt permanent regulations for such medical marijuana uses. On October 6, 2015,the Spokane Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-017,which established a moratorium on all marijuana uses licensed by the WSLCB. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-017,the City established a work plan to work through and adopt permanent regulations for all marijuana uses licensed by the WSLCB. This study session will provide background material on the development of marijuana laws. Further, staff will outline three types of possible options in order to initiate Planning Commission discussions on City marijuana regulations. Once Planning Commission has given direction on what type of regulations, City staff will return at a later meeting with proposed amendment language for further Planning Commission discussion and a public hearing. Recreational Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502) in November 2012. The State has worked over the last three years to develop extensive regulations for licensing and permitting of production (growing),processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the WSLCB. The WSLCB began accepting and processing applications in November 2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. As provided by law,the WSLCB developed rules to allocate a limited number of retail licenses within each jurisdiction. The City was allocated three recreational retail licenses and the WSLCB has issued all three licenses and staff understands that all three retail shops are open and operational. Under state law,there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed, although there was originally a cap on the total amount of production space statewide. Currently,the City has 19 licensed production and 21 licensed processing facilities. State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between licensed marijuana facilities and several sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks,but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. The WSLCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16, 2014, a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that the Attorney General's opinion was that local jurisdictions were not preempted by I-502 from adopting local regulations and restrictions on state-licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers are in addition to the state- mandated buffers and are enforced by the City. All marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. However,the United State Department of Justice has released a policy to not prosecute licensed marijuana providers in states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and regulatory scheme. Medical Marijuana Background: In 1998,voters approved the medical use of marijuana by initiative,though approval was limited in scope. In 2011,the Washington State Legislature adopted amendments to the medical marijuana laws that would have created a state registry for patients and legalized dispensaries and collective gardens. Governor Gregoire vetoed all sections related to the state registry and dispensaries, creating a large amount of confusion and leaving collective gardens as the sole legal means for producing and procuring medical marijuana. The City did not adopt regulations at that time,but issued business registrations for collectives,provided they were located in a zone where retail sales were appropriate. With the passage of I-502 and legalization of recreational marijuana,there developed two very distinct and separate marijuana regulatory regimes—a licensed and regulated recreational market and an unregulated and unlicensed medical market. In 2015,the Washington State Legislature passed major changes to existing medical marijuana laws in an effort to reconcile the medical and recreational marijuana markets. There were two primary bills passed as part of the changes: Second Substitute Senate Bill 5052 (Cannabis Patient Protection Act) and Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2136. The major changes included the following: Reconcile Medical and Recreational Marijuana Markets - Establishes a "medical marijuana endorsement" for licensed marijuana retailers. This endorsement allows a licensed retailer to sell medicinal marijuana to qualifying patients and designated providers. • The medical marijuana endorsement does not prohibit the licensed retailer from also selling recreational marijuana. • Qualifying patients and designated providers may receive an exemption from the State's marijuana tax when purchasing medical marijuana from a licensed retailer with a medical marijuana endorsement. - Creates a medical marijuana authorization database that qualifying patients and designated providers must be entered in to. • Patients and providers will obtain "recognition cards" that authorize them to purchase medical marijuana. • The database must be operational by July 1, 2016. - Collective gardens must cease operations as of July 1, 2016. Changes to Licensing - WSLCB must reconsider and increase number of retail outlets to accommodate medical marijuana needs. - WSLCB must develop merit based application process for new retail licenses. - WSLCB must increase canopy limits for producers to account for medical marijuana needs. - Restricts the use of butane or other gases for marijuana extraction to validly licensed marijuana processors (no home extraction with these types of gases and solvents). -Retailers may not sell through vending machines or by drive-up windows. -Establishes a transportation license for common carriers delivering between licensed facilities. -Establishes a research license. • Allows licensed researchers to research chemical potency, clinical investigations into marijuana-derived drug products, and efficacy and safety of administering marijuana as medical treatment, and to conduct genomic or agricultural research. - Requires signage at the premises of prospective producers, processors, and retailers providing notice to the public of the intent to license the facilities as a marijuana producer, processor, or retailer. Allow for "Cooperatives" (effective July 1, 2016) - Allows for the creation of medical marijuana "cooperatives"that may be formed by up to four qualifying patients or designated providers. • Cooperatives cannot be located within a mile of marijuana retailers or within 1,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, library, or applicable game arcades. • Cooperative locations must be registered with the WSLCB. • The location of a cooperative must be a domicile of one of the participants and only one cooperative may be located on a single property tax parcel. • Cooperatives may grow up to a maximum of 60 plants. • The WSLCB may adopt rules relating to security and traceability requirements for cooperatives. • Cooperatives are not considered businesses (since they only distribute to the four members), so no business licenses or taxes. • May not locate where prohibited by a city or county zoning provision. Qualified Patients and Designated Providers -Must receive authorization from health care professional. - Authorization and recognition card issued once entered into the database are necessary to receive arrest protection. - May keep amounts of marijuana listed on authorization card. - May grow up to 15 plants in house. • No more than 15 plants per housing unit regardless of how many patients reside in the housing unit(except for cooperatives,which may have 60 plants). - No production or processing if any portion can be seen from unaided vision or smelled from a public place or private property of another housing unit. - State will adopt rules allowing non-combustible extraction by qualified patients and designated providers. -Minors may be patients,with parents serving as designated providers. Local Authority - Repeals RCW 69.51A.140,which granted cities and counties the authority to adopt and enforce requirements related to medical marijuana, including zoning. - Cities are authorized to adopt civil penalties for patients and designated providers growing/keeping plants outside the limits set by SB 5052. - Cities may adopt ordinances reducing the buffers between licensed facilities and recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, or game arcade which is not restricted to those over 21 from 1,000 feet to not less than 100 feet, provided such distance reduction will not negatively impact the jurisdiction's civil regulatory enforcement, criminal law enforcement interests,public safety, or public health. • Buffers to schools and playgrounds may not be reduced below the state required 1,000 feet. - Subject to any rules adopted by the WSLCB, cities and counties may adopt an ordinance prohibiting a marijuana producer or processor from operating or locating a business within areas zoned primarily for residential use or rural use with a minimum lot size of five acres or smaller. As part of the changes,the State must increase the number of retail stores to account for the medical marijuana market. The fiscal note indicated an estimate that approximately 400 new retail stores would be licensed,which would effectively double the number of allowable retail stores throughout the state. The WSLCB is currently in its rulemaking process as discussed in further detail below. City Regulatory Background: In response to I-502,the City adopted permanent regulations on July 22, 2014. The regulations, as they now exist,are set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 (permitted use matrix)and SVMC 19.85 and provide as follows: - State licensed marijuana production (outdoor and indoor growing) is a permitted use in Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones. Indoor growing only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - State licensed marijuana processing (labeling and packaging, and chemical or other extraction) is a permitted use in the Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones. Packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - Both production and processing uses may not be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. Production and processing may be located within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail, provided that the location is still in the appropriate zone (there are few Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail). - State licensed marijuana retail sales are permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial,and Community Commercial zones. -Licensed retail sales may not be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace,vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property,the Appleway Trail,and the Centennial Trail. Further,after the passage of I-502,the City saw an increase in the number of collectives (unregulated medical marijuana) seeking business registrations. The City passed a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (e.g.,primarily medical marijuana)pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021 on December 9, 2014 to allow the City to determine what action the State would take to reconcile the medical and recreational marijuana markets and to develop its own regulations. In response to the WSLCB's Emergency Rules on September 23, 2015 (described in detail below),the City adopted a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the WSLCB in order to allow the City to complete the consideration, development, and adoption of its regulations without allowing additional licenses to vest or create potentially inconsistent or incompatible uses. The moratorium did not impact existing marijuana uses which had already received a license from the WSLCB. However, it will prevent the City from processing any applications from collectives which wish to receive a retail license from the WSLCB. Further,the moratorium did not impact any home use or consumption. Thus, as it stands,the City has three existing licensed retail stores, 19 licensed producers, and 21 licensed processors,with two moratoriums that effectively prohibit any further licensed retailers,producers,or processors until the City adopts its regulations. WSLCB 2015 Rulemaking On September 23,2015,the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency Rules#15-18,which removed the cap on the number of marijuana retail stores,with the cap to be set at a later date, and provided for the WSLCB to begin accepting and processing marijuana retail license applications beginning on October 12, 2015. Further,the Emergency Rules specified procedures for marijuana retail licensees to apply for medical marijuana endorsements and removed the statewide cap on the total amount of marijuana production space,with the total amount to be set at a later date. Concurrently with the Emergency Rules,the WSLCB issued its proposed Rules#15-17. Those rules implement the new laws adopted in 2015. The rules include the following: - Specifies the priority to determine the order in which marijuana retailers are licensed. • First priority is to those applicants who (1) owned or were members of a marijuana collective garden prior to January 1, 2013, (2) applied for a retail license with the WSLCB, (3)have maintained state and local business license, and(4) are current in all required taxes. • Second priority is to those applicants who (1) owned or were members of a marijuana collective garden prior to January 1, 2013,(2)have maintained state and local business license, and(3)are current in all required taxes. • Third priority is to all other applicants. -Matches state laws and allows applicants to locate within 100 feet of sensitive uses (other than schools and playgrounds) if the local city has passed an ordinance allowing such buffer reduction. -Provides that outdoor grows cannot share a common fence or wall and must be located at least 20 feet from each other. - Sets maximum production space at an amount to be determined at a later date. Previously the maximum space was to be set by market requirements up to 8.5 million square feet. -Provides that a producer may add a processor license at that same production location. - Sets rules for applying for, receiving, and maintaining a medical marijuana endorsement. • At least 25%of the inventory must be medical marijuana to maintain the medical marijuana endorsement. - Specifies that the WSLCB will accept retail license applications during the time frames set forth on their website. Further, specifies that the maximum number of retail licenses per county will be set at a later date. -Expands requirements for certain types of processing extraction systems. -Allows two retail advertising signs (up from one). Each sign may be 1,600 square inches. - Sets rules for applying for, receiving, and maintaining a transportation license. • Transportation vehicles must be UTC permitted common carriers. - Sets rules for cooperatives, including registration requirements, 8-foot sight obscuring fence or wall for outdoor grow, and record-keeping. • No chemical solvent extraction. City Regulation Options Planning Commission may consider a range of options for the City. The options range from maintaining current regulations to adopting some further limitations (that would allow a limited increase in licensed marijuana uses)to adopting a ban on additional licensed marijuana uses. Staff presented potential concepts to City Council at its August 18, 2015,meeting. During that meeting, Council indicated a desire restrict marijuana uses to their current levels or to minimize increasing the number of stores. State law would likely preclude the City from expressly setting the number of stores to be allocated within the City, but the City may adopt reasonable land use regulations governing the siting and location of such stores. One option Council discussed was possibly including an additional buffer preventing retail stores from locating within 1,000 feet of any other licensed use. Option 1: Rely on existing regulations. This approach would leave the existing City regulations in place to deal with any additional retail,production, and processing licenses. Under this option, Planning Commission should consider whether there should be any additional regulations for cooperatives (which can only be located in residential zones). This would allow a potential increase in the number of retail, production, and processing stores within the existing zones and subject to the buffers. The limit would ultimately be set by the State. Under this option, staff would recommend minor changes to existing definitions to account for retail stores with medical marijuana endorsements. Under this option,there are 727 available parcels for retail stores. However,not all are available due to market constraints and other commercial operations that take up a significant number of those parcels. Option 2: Adopt additional limitations, such as buffers between licensed marijuana uses,prohibiting cooperatives, or further limiting the allowable zones where licensed uses may locate. For example, if Planning Commission wished to further limit stores,it could adopt a 1,000 foot buffer between licensed retail stores and all other licensed marijuana uses. This would limit the number of available parcels to 61. However,this does not take into account any existing commercial stores occupying those parcels or other market-factor limits on those parcels. Further, since there are licensed stores and due to potential nuisance-type impacts on neighborhoods, Planning Commission could consider prohibiting cooperatives (home grows of up to 60 plants). Licensed marijuana uses are currently allowed in four zones—CUP, MUC, RC, and C. This could be further restricted to limit the areas where additional licensed shops could locate by either reducing the available zones or adopting an overlay zone limiting where licensed marijuana may be located. Existing stores that might otherwise be impacted by any new regulations would become legal non-conforming uses and so would not be adversely impacted. Option 3: Adopt a prohibition on some or all types of licensed marijuana uses. Existing licensed uses would become legal non-conforming uses and so would not be required to stop operations. However,a prohibition would prevent any additional licensed uses. Note that while staff believes a prohibition is valid,there have been no appellate court decisions validating a city's authority to ban licensed marijuana uses, and so staff cannot definitively state what a court may do if the City were challenged on a prohibition. NOTICE: Notice of any proposed amendments will be provided in a timely manner to comply with applicable provisions of SVMC Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F)provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s)must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking Planning Commission development of and consensus on an option. Once an option is developed and approved in concept, staff will draft appropriate proposed amendments based upon that concept for further Planning Commission consideration. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen—Planner Jenny Nickerson— Senior Plans Examiner Erik Lamb—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Presentation B. Maps of existing stores and potential additional buffers CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: November 12, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2015-0006 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session— Comprehensive Marijuana Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Providing an update and background on current marijuana laws, including recent 2015 State Legislative amendments and the City's current marijuana regulations. Discuss possible options for amendments to City regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreational marijuana. On December 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board("WSLCB"). Planning Commission conducted a study session on October 22,2015. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums described below. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on October 22, 2015 and requested to take public comment and to hear from Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire before deliberating and developing such regulations. Planning Commission will take public comment on November 12, 2015. Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire will present information at Planning Commission's December 10, 2015 meeting. New Information from WSLCB. Since October 22, 2015, the WSLCB has released some additional information regarding its ongoing rulemaking process. First, it indicated that it has been working with a consultant to determine the appropriate number of additional retail stores, both statewide and jurisdiction- by-jurisdiction. The WSLCB anticipates having the numbers by mid-December to be incorporated into the proposed rules. Thus, while the proposed rules currently provide for an amount to be determined later, by adoption there will be either a set amount or methodology. Further, the City will know what number will be allocated by the State as was done in the first round of retail store licensing. Additionally, once the rules are adopted with the increased number of retail stores included, the WSLCB will only license that number of additional stores, regardless of the number that have applied. As of November 2, 2015, the WSLCB had received 700 license applications, compared with 2100 that applied during its initial round of licensing. Questions from Planning Commission at its October 22, 2015 meeting. During the October 22, 2015 meeting,there were several questions from Planning Commission regarding a variety of issues. Staff will answer those issues at the November 12, 2015 meeting. One issue that has been brought to staff's attention since the October 22, 2015 meeting was clarification on what the various medical marijuana terms mean - specifically "collective" versus "medical dispensary" versus "cooperative" versus the new medical marijuana stores. A collective garden is a term that was originally in chapter RCW 69.51A that referred to a group of 10 qualified patients who could grow and distribute marijuana amongst themselves. However, there were no restrictions on the how patients could enter or leave the collective, and so in many cases they developed into de facto dispensaries. A medical marijuana dispensary was contemplated in 2011 by the State, but ultimately vetoed by the Governor. Accordingly, a medical marijuana dispensary is not a legal use under chapter 69.51A. Though technically collectives were the means under chapter 69.51A RCW for patients to obtain medical marijuana (outside of growing it themselves), the terms "collective," "dispensary,"and"medical marijuana store,"are often used interchangeably to refer to the existing medical marijuana collectives in operation. Regardless of term, all such unlicensed medical marijuana uses must cease operations as of July 1, 2015. After that time, only (1) licensed retail stores and (2) registered cooperatives will be allowed to continue to operate. A new medical marijuana store is simply a licensed retail store that obtains its medical marijuana endorsement, where it may then sell medical marijuana to patients tax-exempt. A cooperative is a completely new term that refers to a group of up to four patients who come together to grow marijuana for themselves only. They cannot sell or distribute the marijuana they grow to anyone other than the four patients in the cooperative. They may only have a cooperative in a domicile and cannot be located within one mile of a licensed retail facility. For purposes of comparison, most likely retail stores with medical marijuana endorsements will be the most likely analog use to today's "collectives" or "dispensaries". Options City Regulation Options Planning Commission may consider a range of options for the City. The options range from maintaining current regulations to adopting some further limitations (that would allow a limited increase in licensed marijuana uses) to adopting a ban on additional licensed marijuana uses. Staff presented potential concepts to City Council at its August 18, 2015,meeting. During that meeting, Council indicated a desire restrict marijuana uses to their current levels or to minimize increasing the number of stores. State law would likely preclude the City from expressly setting the number of stores to be allocated within the City, but the City may adopt reasonable land use regulations governing the siting and location of such stores. One option Council discussed was possibly including an additional buffer preventing retail stores from locating within 1,000 feet of any other licensed use. Option 1: Rely on existing regulations. This approach would leave the existing City regulations in place to deal with any additional retail, production, and processing licenses. Under this option, Planning Commission should consider whether there should be any additional regulations for cooperatives (which can only be located in residential zones). This would allow a potential increase in the number of retail, production, and processing stores within the existing zones and subject to the buffers. The limit would ultimately be set by the State. Under this option, staff would recommend minor changes to existing definitions to account for retail stores with medical marijuana endorsements. Under this option,there are 727 available parcels for retail stores. However, not all are available due to market constraints and other commercial operations that take up a significant number of those parcels. Option 2: Adopt additional limitations, such as buffers between licensed marijuana uses, prohibiting cooperatives, or further limiting the allowable zones where licensed uses may locate. For example, if Planning Commission wished to further limit stores, it could adopt a 1,000 foot buffer between licensed retail stores and all other licensed marijuana uses. This would limit the number of available parcels to 61. However,this does not take into account any existing commercial stores occupying those parcels or other market-factor limits on those parcels. Further, since there are licensed stores and due to potential nuisance-type impacts on neighborhoods, Planning Commission could consider prohibiting cooperatives (home grows of up to 60 plants). Licensed marijuana uses are currently allowed in four zones — CUP, MUC, RC, and C. This could be further restricted to limit the areas where additional licensed shops could locate by either reducing the available zones or adopting an overlay zone limiting where licensed marijuana may be located. Existing stores that might otherwise be impacted by any new regulations would become legal non-conforming uses and so would not be adversely impacted. Option 3: Adopt a prohibition on some or all types of licensed marijuana uses. Existing licensed uses would become legal non-conforming uses and so would not be required to stop operations. However, a prohibition would prevent any additional licensed uses. Note that while staff believes a prohibition is valid,there have been no appellate court decisions validating a city's authority to ban licensed marijuana uses, and so staff cannot definitively state what a court may do if the City were challenged on a prohibition. Option 4 (provided at October 22 meeting): • Allow only minimum number required by law. • Medical marijuana must be sold only at recreational retail outlets, maintain the existing retail outlets but require them to obtain a medical endorsement. • Maintain the current buffers,but possibility restrict under age people from entering the stores. • Allow cooperatives under the same zoning rules as recreational growers and with the state cooperative requirement that one may only have a cooperative in a domicile. • Allow medical marijuana growing in private residence for personal use assuming approval is received from the property owner in the case of rented or leased facilities. • Do not allow any solvent extraction within any residence/domicile or property. • Require all infused product or concentrate to be purchased from medical/recreational retail outlet. A copy of the proposal is provided as part of this packet. General Background General information regarding the background actions by the City and state law requirements are provided in the RPCA from the October 22, 2015 meeting,which is attached. NOTICE: Notice of the opportunity for public comment was provided through a publication in the Valley News Herald, on the City's website, by media release, and by distribution through the Planning Commission email distribution list. Further, staff contacted known industry advocates and citizen groups directly regarding the opportunity to provide public comment. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F) provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking Planning Commission development of and consensus on an option. Once an option is developed and approved in concept, staff will draft appropriate proposed amendments based upon that concept for further Planning Commission consideration. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen—Planner Jenny Nickerson— Senior Plans Examiner Erik Lamb—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Presentation B. Proposal from Commissioner Anderson C. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 D. Map of existing licensed facilities CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: December 10, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2015-0006 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session— Comprehensive Marijuana Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Providing an update and background on current marijuana laws, including recent 2015 State Legislative amendments and the City's current marijuana regulations. Discuss possible options for amendments to City regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreational marijuana. On December 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB"). Planning Commission conducted a study session on October 22, 2015 and November 12, 2015. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums described below. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on October 22, 2015. On November 12, 2015, Planning Commission conducted a second study session and received public comment regarding development of City marijuana regulations. Planning Commission has also requested to hear from Spokane Valley Police, Spokane Valley Fire, and local school districts before discussing and developing such regulations. Planning Commission will hear from Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire on December 10, 2015. Staff has invited Central Valley School District, East Valley School District, and West Valley School District to participate or provide comments as well. Questions from Planning Commission at its November 12, 2015 meeting. During the November 12, 2015 meeting,there were several questions from Planning Commission regarding a variety of issues. Staff will answer those issues at the December 10, 2015 meeting. One issue that was discussed was whether the City could allow "medical-only" retail stores in lieu of combined recreational-medical retail stores. Please note that the State system is set up solely for licensing of retail stores. Those retail stores are given an option of then seeking and receiving a medical marijuana endorsement in order to sell marijuana to qualified patients at a tax-exempt rate. Accordingly,there is no distinction in State law between "medical stores" and recreational stores, as all stores are simply retail stores,with some being able to sell marijuana tax-exempt to certain qualified patients. Thus,the issue of"recreational vs. medical" is a licensing one at the State level much more so than can be parsed out from a land-use planning standpoint at the local level. Further legal and practical aspects of this issue will be discussed at the December 10, 2015 meeting. After hearing from Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire, staff will be looking for direction from Planning Commission on what the City's marijuana regulations should accomplish. After receiving that direction, staff will draft proposed amendments to match Planning Commissions direction and Planning Commission will conduct a further study session on the proposed amendments as well as a formal public hearing on the proposed amendments. As a reminder, there are numerous options that Planning Commission may consider as to what the City's marijuana regulations should accomplish. Staff has provided examples at prior meetings and the examples are included again below. Options City Regulation Options Planning Commission may consider a range of options for the City. The options range from maintaining current regulations to adopting some further limitations (that would allow a limited increase in licensed marijuana uses) to adopting a ban on additional licensed marijuana uses. Staff presented potential concepts to City Council at its August 18, 2015,meeting. During that meeting, Council indicated a desire restrict marijuana uses to their current levels or to minimize increasing the number of stores. State law would likely preclude the City from expressly setting the number of stores to be allocated within the City, but the City may adopt reasonable land use regulations governing the siting and location of such stores. One option Council discussed was possibly including an additional buffer preventing retail stores from locating within 1,000 feet of any other licensed use. Option 1: Rely on existing regulations. This approach would leave the existing City regulations in place to deal with any additional retail, production, and processing licenses. Under this option, Planning Commission should consider whether there should be any additional regulations for cooperatives (which can only be located in residential zones). This would allow a potential increase in the number of retail, production, and processing stores within the existing zones and subject to the buffers. The limit would ultimately be set by the State. Under this option, staff would recommend minor changes to existing definitions to account for retail stores with medical marijuana endorsements. Under this option,there are 727 parcels that would allow retail stores. However, not all are available due to market constraints and other commercial operations that take up a significant number of those parcels. Option 2: Adopt additional limitations, such as buffers between licensed marijuana uses, prohibiting cooperatives, or further limiting the allowable zones where licensed uses may locate. For example, if Planning Commission wished to further limit stores, it could adopt a 1,000 foot buffer between licensed retail stores and all other licensed marijuana uses. This would limit the number of allowable parcels to 61. However,this does not take into account any existing commercial stores occupying those parcels or other market-factor limits on those parcels. Further, since there are licensed stores and due to potential nuisance-type impacts on neighborhoods, Planning Commission could consider prohibiting cooperatives (home grows of up to 60 plants). Licensed marijuana uses are currently allowed in four zones — CUP, MUC, RC, and C. This could be further restricted to limit the areas where additional licensed shops could locate by either reducing the available zones or adopting an overlay zone limiting where licensed marijuana may be located. Existing stores that might otherwise be impacted by any new regulations would become legal non-conforming uses and so would not be adversely impacted. Option 3: Adopt a prohibition on some or all types of licensed marijuana uses. Existing licensed uses would become legal non-conforming uses and so would not be required to stop operations. However, a prohibition would prevent any additional licensed uses. Note that while staff believes a prohibition is valid,there have been no appellate court decisions validating a city's authority to ban licensed marijuana uses, and so staff cannot definitively state what a court may do if the City were challenged on a prohibition. Option 4 (provided at October 22 meeting): • Allow only minimum number required by law. • Medical marijuana must be sold only at recreational retail outlets, maintain the existing retail outlets but require them to obtain a medical endorsement. • Maintain the current buffers, but possibly restrict under age people from entering the stores. • Allow cooperatives under the same zoning rules as recreational producers and with the state cooperative requirement that one may only have a cooperative in a domicile. • Allow medical marijuana growing in private residence for personal use assuming approval is received from the property owner in the case of rented or leased facilities. • Do not allow any solvent extraction within any residence/domicile or property. • Require all infused product or concentrate to be purchased from medical/recreational retail outlet. A copy of the proposal is provided as part of this packet. General Background General information regarding the background actions by the City and state law requirements are provided in the RPCA from the October 22, 2015 meeting,which is attached. NOTICE: Staff contacted Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire to present information. Staff invited local school districts to participate or provide comments. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F) provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking Planning Commission development of and consensus on an option. Once an option is developed and approved in concept, staff will draft appropriate proposed amendments based upon that concept for further Planning Commission consideration. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen—Planner Jenny Nickerson— Senior Plans Examiner Erik Lamb—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposal from Commissioner Anderson B. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 C. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2015 meeting D. Copy of draft minutes from November 12, 2015 meeting (included in packet) E. Map of existing licensed marijuana facilities APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, October 22,2015 Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham. Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Mike Phillips,absent-excused Christina Janssen, Planner Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Phillips was excused from the October 22, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the October 22, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the September 24, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, motion passes. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended the Traders Club Meeting. Commissioner Wood reported he attended the City Council meeting on October 20, 2015. The other Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: No administrative report. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session: CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb began the evening explaining to the Commissioners the current status of marijuana in the City and the state changes in the law. • A moratorium on new medical marijuana uses (unlicensed marijuana uses) was established by the City Council on Dec,9,2014. • A moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board(WSLCB)was established by the City Council on Oct. 6,2015. • Both moratoriums require the City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to the 2015 State Legislative amendments. City zoning and buffer restrictions on recreational marijuana were adopted July 2014: • Production permitted in heavy and light industrial zones — indoor and outdoor, indoor growing permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial. • Processing permitted in heavy and light industrial zones — packaging and extraction; packaging and labeling only allowed in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial. • Local buffers for production and processing—cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace,vacant City property,vacant library property and vacant school property. • Retail sales permitted in Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial. 10-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 • Local buffers for retail sales — cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property,vacant library property and vacant school property,the Appleway Trail and the Centennial Trail. Prior to 2015 there were two different regulatory schemes for recreational marijuana and medical marijuana: • Recreational Marijuana(Initiative 502),codified primarily in chapter 69.50 RCW. o 1-502 passed in Nov. 2012. o Decriminalized possession and use. o Established a regulatory system for the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB)to license producers,processors and retailers of recreational marijuana. o August 29, 2013: US Dept of Justice issued its response to I-502, stating no prosecution in States with legalized marijuana if there are strong regulatory systems on paper and in practice. The federal government still considers marijuana a Schedule I controlled substance. o Possession and use of marijuana legal for people over 21 years of age. o WSLCB went through extensive rulemaking process in 2013 and began issuing licenses for production and processing in Spring of 2014, issued first retail license in July of 2014. o There are three types of marijuana licenses: Producer—indoor and outdoor growing. Processorputtingmarijuana into useable form,e.g.: packaging or making marijuana extract and using it in edibles or as a concentrate. Retailer — a person licensed by the WSLCB to sell useable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet. o WSLCB rules prohibit any state licensed marijuana facility from being within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility,child care center,public park(excluding trails),public transit center, library,or game arcade open to persons under the age of 21, this is administered solely by the state through the state licensing process. • Medical Marijuana—codified in chapter 69.51A RCW. o Originally approved by initiative in 1998. o Amendments in 2011 resulted in confusion, lack of regulation, and left collective gardens as means of producing and procuring medical marijuana. o City issued business registrations for collectives, provided the collective garden was located in zone where retail sales were appropriate. There were no medical marijuana specific regulations at that time. Reconciling Medical and Recreational Marijuana—2015 Legislation. • State Legislature passed bills to reconcile medical and recreational marijuana markets • Maintains same licensing system through WSLCB • Adds "medical marijuana endorsement" for licensed retail stores, allows licensed retailer to sell medicinal marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers: qualified patients and designated providers may receive an exemption from the State's marijuana tax. • Eliminates collective gardens effective July 1, 2016. • Establishes cooperatives, which consist of up to four patients. They must be in a domicile, cannot be located within one mile of licensed retailer, must be registered with the WSLCB, and may contain up to a maximum of 60 plants. • Specifically allows cities to prohibit cooperatives. • Cities may reduce the buffers to 100 feet,except around schools and playgrounds. • Establishes transportation license. 10-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 • Establishes research license. • Allows qualified patients to grow up to 15 plants per housing unit. • WSLCB must increase number of allocated retail locations to accommodate medical marijuana needs,fiscal note estimated 400 additional retail stores,but the number will be determined later. • WSLCB issued emergency rules effective Sept.23,2015: o Specified WSLCB would begin accepting retail license applications on Oct. 12, 2015 o Specified the total number of retail stores would be set at a later date o Specified maximum production space would be set at a later date • WSLCB concurrently issued draft rules at the same time as emergency rules, which will go through the public process and will be adopted in late 2015/early 2016: o Also specified the total number of retail stores and max. production space would be set at later date. o Specifies priority in which retail applicants will be licensed. o Set rules for applying for,receiving and maintaining medical marijuana endorsement. o Set rules for applying for,receiving and maintaining a transportation license. o Set rules for cooperatives,which must register with WSLCB. Mr. Lamb stated the moratoriums direct the City to develop regulations. Staff discussed possible options with the City Council on August 18,2015, at which time Council indicated a desire to limit further retail stores, possibility with a buffer between stores rather than outright prohibition. Council also discussed limiting cooperatives. Mr. Lamb explained staff would like to discuss with the Planning Commission what their thoughts are for possible options to changing the marijuana regulations before they brought forward any proposed changes. It was also suggested if the Commissioners would like to hear from the public before making any decisions it would be possible to have a public comment session where the Commissioners could talk to people regarding the subject before. The Commissioners agreed they would like to do that and have a presentation from the police department as well as the fire department. Commissioners asked Mr.Lamb several questions in regard to marijuana regulations,either in the City or state. Current retailers will be able to get a medical endorsement. The moratoriums did not affect any of the current businesses. Because of the way the medical dispensaries were brought into existence, it is difficult to say how many there are currently, however based on the new laws, if they cannot be converted to a retail shop with a medical endorsement they must stop operations by July 1,2016. Although the state has said it will later determine how many more additional retail shops it will allow, previously the original number was determined by a population allocation calculation by the Office of Financial Management. In the initial allocation Spokane County was allowed 18 retail stores, the City was allowed three. Mr. Lamb felt the state would probably turn to something similar to this to determine a limit in the future. The Commissioners discussed individual medical patients. How many marijuana patients are allowed to grow for themselves, up to 15 plants per person, they must not pose a nuisance for the neighbors (sight, height, smell). Were landlords allowed to restrict growing on their property, it would be up to the landlord to enforce the terms of a lease,which would be a civil matter between the two parties. In regard to processing the marijuana, chemical processing is not allowed in some of our less intense zones because of the processes used to extract the THC. Some processes can be dangerous which is why they are not allowed in the less intense zones. The extracted THC can then be used in edibles or in other concentrated forms. Commissioners asked if the Health Department inspected the processing of the food made with marijuana. The Department of Agriculture is the agency overseeing food preparation. There was a question if there was a limit on how many cooperatives there could be. There is not,but they do have some limitations. They can only consist of a maximum of four qualified patients, must be in a domicile, the patient must have the medical authorization from a doctor, and they must register with the WSLCB. 10-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 To generate further discussion, staff brought up three possible directions the regulations could take. Option 1) Maintain existing regulations • Add definitions regarding retail stores with medical endorsement • Allow cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Would allow 727 parcels for retail, though not all available due to market and existing other commercial uses Option 2)Additional regulations • Additional buffer, the possibilities could be 1,000 feet from retail store to any other licensed use,this results in 61 allowable parcels • Additional buffer could be 1,000 feet from a residential zone • Limit allowable zones • Overlay, limit areas where allowed, e.g.just along west Sprague area • Limit or prohibit cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows Option 3)Prohibition • All license types or just particular ones e.g. ban retail but allow production or processing • Cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for homc grows • Potential issues with challenges, ongoing appellate cases, with no decisions yet, so result is uncertain Under all options, existing licensed stores become legal nonconforming uses to the extent they may not comply with the new regulations. Commissioner Anderson stated he had come up with another option. He said he felt recreational use of marijuana was going to stay. He said he felt medical marijuana will not be allowed to be blocked by cities, his goal would be to have the minimum number of retail outlets as allowed by law, to control the co-ops, and eliminate processing other than growing in any residential facility but not eliminate the availability of the infused products for medical purposes. Mr.Anderson offered the following as possible options for marijuana regulations. • Medical marijuana must be sold only at recreational retail outlets, maintain the existing retail outlets but require them to obtain a medical endorsement. • Maintain the current buffers,but possibility restrict under age people from entering the stores. • Allow cooperatives under the same zoning rules as recreational growers and with the state cooperative requirement that one must be an owner of the property. • Allow medical marijuana growing in private residence for personal use assuming approval is received from the property owner in the case of rented or leased facilities. • Do not allow any solvent extraction within any residence/domicile or property. • Require all infused product or concentrate to be purchased from medical/recreational retail outlet. Commissioner Stoy suggested changing the allowable retail outlets to ten. There was a discussion regarding limiting the number of plants allowed in a residence to keep it below the number which would trigger a sprinkler system. It is possible that growing the plants could damage a home from the moisture required to grow them. The question came up as to how enforcement would work if you don't know who is growing. 10-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of The Commissioners came to a consensus they would like to take public input regarding this subject before making any suggestions about which way to go with the regulations. They would also like to have a presentation prior to the public input from the fire and police departments, as well as they would like to have input from the schools. Ms. Nickerson will also return with information about the restrictions for single family housing if people want to grow in their homes. GOOD OF THE ORDER:There was nothing for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. to —452 Ji- toy,Chairperson Date signed Dea a Horton, Secretary 10-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, November 12,2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Heath took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Sr.Plans Examiner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner Susan Scott Karen Kendall, Planner Joe Stoy, absent_.excused Sam Wood Elisha Heath, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stay was excused from the November 12, 2015 meeting.. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the amended November 12, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes. Commissioner Wood moved to accept the October 22, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Scott corrected the minutes on page five, line three to add the words and "school districts". Commissioner Graham moved to accept the corrected minutes from October 22, 2015. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, motion passes. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported that the City Council determined that they would be appointing the new Planning Commissioners at the first regular City Council meeting in January rather than the December meeting. As a result there will not be a PIanning Commission meeting January 14, 2016, and the January 28,2016 meeting will be a training meeting in order to bring the new Planning Commission members up to speed. Ms. Barlow stated that the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle was opened and one amendment request was received. The Docket has been presented to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission will likely begin its review cycle in February. She also gave an update on the population allocation PTAC process for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Steering Committee of Elected Officials met on November 4° and forwarded the Spokane County Planning Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendation was to use Office of Financial Management's medium range population forecast for the 20-year planning period. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments_ COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session: STV-2015-0041,street vacation of 314 Avenue Planner Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3r3 Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue just west of Skipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet.The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3" Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4th Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged.Ms.Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue(north/south)are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right of way connection 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of The Public Hearing date is set for December 10,2015. Commissioner Anderson asked if the process for changing the lot lines was already underway, and f they were not then, why the two processes, changing the lot lines and the street vacation, were not conducted simultaneously. Ms. Kendall explained that not knowing how the parcels are going to end up and that this application has six parcels, there is potential for a parcel to become land Iocked and we do not want that to happen. The property owner has presented how he would orient the parcels so that all of them would have direct access to a public street. Currently, the parcels are not proposed to be consolidated or adjusted. That will be proposed going forward at the time of the street vacation is being finalized.. Typically,the lot line adjustment is handled by the record of survey that finalizes the street vacation. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City can produce a viable road on a 12 foot easement. Ms. Kendall replied that it is an existing easement that does provide legal access to an existing home. That easement will not change. Commissioner Phillips stated that it did not make sense to get rid of a street and have one parcel be limited to a 12 foot easement. He asked what the property owner proposed to do with the property. Ms. Kendall stated that the property owner has not disclosed through the application the intended use of the property. In addition she clarified that the easement was established in the past and currently serves as access for a residence. The two parcels will be combined creating a larger parcel still utilizing the 12 foot easement for access. Commissioner Scott asked if the City charges when it vacates right of way. Ms. Kendall stated that the City Council would determine what they would like to do for compensation of the vacation of the street. Commissioner Anderson asked if ROW is not used by the City if ft reverts back to the properly owner. Mr. Lamb stated,there is a provision for plats,platted before 1905 if the right-of-way did not open then it does revert back to the owner. For all other rights—of-way, the right-of-way remains with the City regardless if it is open or not. Commissioner Graham asked about the access for the three parcels to the north. Ms. Kendall stated that the property owner has spoken with the Development Engineering, and the turnaround would need to be provided for vehicles traveling down Skipworth Road. It is a proposed cul-de-sac with right-of-way dedication for vehicles to turn around,and it would be public. Commissioner Graham asked how emergency vehicles would access the northern parcels if something was developed toward the back half. Ms. Kendall stated that the fire department does weigh in on the process through comment. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on the letter received from the fire department stating some sort of land action is required to maintain access for emergency response. Ms. Kendall clarified the fire department was concerned about creating land locked parcels without access for emergency vehicles.The comment letters fulfill a requirement for application and they will be asked for comments as the process continues. CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb began the evening explaining to the Commissioners the current status of marijuana in the City and the state changes in the law. • A moratorium on medical marijuana uses (unlicensed marijuana uses) was established by the City Council on Dec. 9,2014. • A moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board(WSLCB)was established by the City Council on Oct.6,20I5. • Both moratoriums require the City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to the 2015 State Legislative amendments. Commissioner Graham asked a claming question on the moratorium on new marijuana uses licenses that is to put a hold on those currently licenses recreational marijuana shops and currently licensed medical marijuana shops from applying for a medical marijuana endorsement. Mr. Lamb stated the 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 moratorium will prohibit any new licenses from someone who currently does not have a license. For the current three retail stores, the moratorium will not affect their seeking a medical marijuana endorsement. The WSLCB will not be issuing those endorsements until July of 2016. Mr. Lamb presented the questions posed at the October 22,2015 meeting: Could we require individual qualified patients to license or register with the City?The full legal review has not been completed, however there appears there are several problems presented with this: HIPPA requirements, which requires the City to keep that information confidential and private which goes against our mandate, under the public records act, to be a transparent government. Secondly, there could be some preemption issues given how the state has set out the law for patients to be qualified patients and receive their authorizations. Finally, there are concerns from a Fifth Amendment standpoint, in terms of requiring a patient to register for what is still illegal under federal law. Requiring patients to notify landlords. Again it raises similar issues with the Fifth Amendment. It also would be difficult from an enforcement standpoint. It really is a private issue and the landlord would be able to pursue that though their contract with the tenant. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on if a cooperative had to have a signed declaration from the landlord Mr. Lamb clarified that when using the term patients he is referring to individuals. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was an issue with landlords putting stipulations within their contracts to be notified if a tenant will be growing or modifying the residence for growing. Mr. Lamb stated that he is not aware of any, but the landlords are not his clients and he is not able to give them legal advice. Clarification regarding terms used for medical marijuana. Medical collective, medical dispensary,and medical shop all refer to an unlicensed medical facility, under prior RCW 69.5IA. A dispensary was originally slated to be a legal use back in 2011, however the state through the Governor's veto eliminated the "dispensary."Medical collectives, are a group of 10 patients coming together and growing the marijuana amongst those 10 patients for the same 10 patients. From a practical, standpoint, since there is no enforcement of those collectives, many shops may operate as de facto dispensaries. The City has not regulated them or looked at them and treats them as collectives. Those are the unlicensed medical shops that we had register prior to our moratorium, we do not know how many are in operation now,those are the ones who will be seeking the license from WSLCB to become a retail shop. A cooperative is a group of people taking the place of the collective. They are required to be in a domicile. A cooperative is up to four qualified patients coming together to grow marijuana themselves. Cooperatives are required to be registered with the WSLCB but they do not obtain a license and they are not a retail shop. Only allow medical marijuana? Preemption will prevent the City from breaking this up into medical and retail. The license that is obtained is a retail license, it is solely up to the owner if they wish to seek the medical endorsement. The question was raised can the City require a location only sell recreational or medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb stated that the challenge would be there is no requirement at the state level that a shop be just a medical shop or just a recreational shop. Commissioner Scott asked if the City can be stricter than the State. Mr. Lamb stated that the City can enact laws that are not in conflict with the state laws. From a Iand use standpoint the City can determine where land uses are appropriate, zoning and buffering requirements for marijuana.From a licensing standpoint and the products a shop is selling is a highly regulated State activity, Mr. Lamb presented that there are other types of uses that the City might want to regulate for example a marijuana club. Currently, there is one considered at 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marijuana but not purchase marijuana. Discussion returned to the collective and medial dispensary. Mr. Lamb explained that some operate under the definition of collective since they are taking a donation from a member. Others have expanded and operate as a business. Between 2013 and 2014 fifteen business licenses had listed services for medical marijuana. However, that does not include those who applied under alternative medicine. If they do not get their license by July 2016 it does become an illegal activity. WSLCB 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 stated in a webinar that they will not be in the enforcement business against those unlicensed collectives or dispensaries.It will be up to the local level for notification or policing. Commissioner Graham asked about the consultant required by the WSLCB to be present in a medical endorsed retail shops, that the regulations for them would not be available till July 1, 2016. Mr. Lamb stated that he would have to research that further and that the State is working with the Department of Health on those regulations. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City had banned recreational marijuana where would we be today on the subject of medical marijuana? Mr. Lamb stated that we would be in a similar place in terms of defining terminology, no one would be able to obtain a marijuana license, so there would be no marijuana. Discussion from the Commission turned to the City choosing to move ahead with issuing no new licensing, what issues the City would face with medical marijuana. The existing stores would be the only entities that would be able to apply for the medical endorsement. Under this option medical dispensaries would not be able to obtain a license within the City and would have to relocate to another city or county. Commissioner Graham clarified that the cooperatives would not have to leave, since they are for private patients in a domicile. Mr. Lamb stated that is a distinction that could be made, the cooperatives are called out in the State law in terms of a city zoning and up to prohibiting. Mr. Lamb presented information from the WSLCB on the process they are undertaking to determine the number of retail locations. One of the primary things the WSLCB indicated is they are working with a consultant to determine the appropriate number of retail stores. They felt it was important to get the licensing process going, which is why they opened up the October 12, 2015 deadline. However, similar to how they did before using population numbers they will come up with a hard number for retail stores for the statewide broken down by county and city in the final rules. Hopefully will be determined by December. Based on that number, we've had 19 new applications submitted, however,whatever number the WSLCB set that is the number they will license. Mr.Lamb continued with the presentation on the background on City regulations: • City zoning and buffer restrictions on recreational marijuana o Adopted in July 2014 o Applied to licensed retailers, producers,and processors o Have used for siting of 19 producers,21 processors,and 3 retailers o Note that previously State limited City to 3 retailers—now unknown number of retailers • Marijuana Production: Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (indoor and outdoor);permitted in limited manner(indoor growing only) in RC and C zones. • Marijuana Processing: Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (packaging and extraction); permitted in limited manner (packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only) in RC and C zones. • Local buffers for both marijuana production and processing: cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall,CenterPlace,vacant City property(other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. • Retail sales: permitted in the Mixed Use Center,Corridor Mixed Use,Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. • Local buffers for retail sales: cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterP lace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property,the Appleway Trail,and the Centennial Trail. Christina Janssen,Planner presented the options for moving forward with the regulations Option 1)Maintain existing regulations • Add definitions regarding retail stores with medical endorsement 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of • Allow cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Would allow 727 parcels for retail, though not all available due to market and existing other commercial uses Option 2)Additional regulations • Additional buffer, the possibilities could be 1,000 feet from retail store to any other licensed use,this results in 61 allowable parcels • Additional buffer could be 1,000 feet from a residential zone • Limit allowable zones • Overlay, limit areas where allowed,e.g.just along west Sprague area • Limit or prohibit cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows Option 3)Prohibition • All license types or just particular ones e.g. ban retail but allow production or processing • Cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Potential issues with challenges, ongoing appellate cases, with no decisions yet, so result is uncertain Option 4)Provided at the October 22,2015 meeting. • Allow minimum number required by law. • Medical sold at retail outlets—existing stores obtain medical endorsement • Maintain current buffers,possibly restrict under age • Allow cooperatives but only in same zones as producers • Allow qualified patients to home grow, assuming approval from the property owner if a rented or leased property • No solvent extraction within any residence/domicile • Require all infused product or concentrate to be purchased from a retail store Discussion on the tax benefits of having a retail store, processing facility and production facility in the City. Mr. Lamb stated that the City does not see much in tax revenue from the processing or production facilities since they are wholesale. The retail store the City receive the standard sales tax, the additional benefit is a portion of the thirty-seven percent tax imposed by the State. Public Comment: Marilyn Miller,2124 S.Harold Road: Ms.Miller stated she was new to Planning Commission meetings,and unless you want to work on this till the end of your lives which you would if you adopt option 1,2,or 3. I think prohibition is the best way to go. 1 do not believe you are going to be denying any patients the right or ability to get their medical marijuana.There is access in very close localities. I don't think Spokane Valley needs to indulge in this. Tara Harrison,5131 Y.Locust Road:Ms.Harrison stated that she is the interim admin for the Collation for Cannabis Standards and Ethics(CCSE). Her involvement with the CCSE began last year when she was working for an unregulated medical marijuana dispensary. She realized there was a lack of communication on this side of the State. Many business owners were unaware of the legislation that was going on. In efforts to close the communication and information gap she sought out the CCSE.One project that they are working on is the Washington Cannabis Commission through the Department of Agriculture.Ms.Harrison stated that while prohibition may sound great,but no amount of prohibition is going to keep drugs out of school. Ms.Harrison stated that she is a mother of a child in a Valley School District. Her child does witness drugs dealing at school each day.The programs that are being utilized in school are ineffective. She has taken the time as a parent to educate her child as to what is medicine and what is not and why. Her child is not interested in partaking,she sees it as a medicine.That is a parent's 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 responsibility and no one else's. Ms. Harrison stated you have to teach your children. When it comes to something like this,the reason Ms. Harrison is involved and why it is so important is the patients. The patients that she has meet in the last two years have touched her life in a way she could never have imagined. She stated that she did not seek out this career. If her father could have had this option she may not have lost him at nine.Tons of her family have died from cancer,she has witnessed people with that, their cancer is gone.There are medical studies that prove this,we know there is a very valid opportunity here. In order to best take care of public health,what is important to the City and how you want to reflect. You want to embrace the health of people.Not everyone has access to transportation,public transit is what they rely on. So having an option for medical here in the Valley is very important.That may be their only option.Luckily with the way legislation happens people do have options.They can choose not to register at all and pay extra taxes,they have the ability to get the products that the Department of Health will not be overlooking. Ms. Harrison stated that you can have a producer that grows medical and recreational in the future,the grower can state that he is only growing one strain,ones deemed medical and ones deemed recreational.The one that is deemed medical under goes more testing and regulations. Being able to have that is very,very important. People are seeking this out in droves,the people that come to us as patients eighty percent are fifty-five plus.That means a lot,this is growing. We need to embrace the fact that this is happening,this is a movement. In my opinion it will be rescheduled in ten years.If we don't look at what's happening in the future and where this is going we are going to be left with moratoriums trying to scramble to put in regulations to keep the dangers away.That's all we want to keep the dangers at bay. It's something that is new and fresh and people are scared.There is also very beautiful things being born out of this and to turn a blind eye on it that you don't want to have anything to do with it is really foolish. We need to take care of our city and our health and our wellbeing. We make guidelines, make sure that everything is pesticide tested. Did you know that right now our laws do not require medicine on the recreational shelves to be tested for pesticides?That is appalling to me. As a City you may be able to require that everything on the shelves within City limits is required to have those kinds of tests.Then you can boast about how healthy and viable your city is because you are taking care of and making sure that your City and the people are getting those medicines, and that it is guaranteed to be healthy medicine.The tax benefits,public education,only three schools,I believe, in Spokane County are receiving any kind of benefits for drug education and prevention.Three in the whole county-that's horrible.One of the tax benefits is to be able to give education and prevention to our youth. It is very important that we do that.On the moratorium, I understand why because of the unregulated businesses, there are a few businesses that have given the Valley a black eye. Ms.Harrison stated that she understood why the moratorium exists. It is important that everyone followed the rules and goes by the book.When an eighty year old woman walks in to get her medicine,she does not walk into something that she may get shot over. She doesn't need to walk in,not for her meds, she does not need to see someone hitting a bong or trimming their product on the table in front of everyone in the lobby. Certain things like that, I would never want my mother in a place like that. We need to have standards. You have recreational stores in the Valley that already have their medical endorsement So in July they can open their doors and be ready. So we do have options for medical here in the Valley. She stated that having more producers and processors is not going to hurt anything. People work behind the scenes,they bring in income and spending money within the Valley.They are buying their products here they have employees here paying taxes all of that is very viable for our City and our economy.There is a medical research license,allow someone to grow specifically for research purposes,All of their product goes through the same traceability system but its turned over to a school or university that is going to do specific medical tests. We should allow that. It does not hurt anyone or anything.This isn't something that interacts with the public what-so-ever. Blake Alverts, 1801 S.St.Charles: Mr.Alverts stated his problem is the amount of medical shops popping up.We seem to have more of those than we have espresso stands.He state that he did not believe they contribute to the taxes that we collect in Valley,the revenue that could come in. He was embarrassed when he read in the Spokesman Review that Millwood is measuring their revenue from recreational marijuana in the hundreds of thousands, where we are at tens of thousands. With our proximity to Idaho and Liberty Lake,we should be kicking Millwood's butt. Bring in much more revenue than this.Mr. Alvert suggested that decrease the number of purely medical,they should all be retail combined. He asked for a reasonable number of recreational shops,that three is not enough. 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 John Miller,2124 S.Herald: Mr.Miller stated that he is a child of the sixties,he grew up and went to school at Berkley, He knows a little bit about marijuana,not because he uses it but because he's seen it abused. The question came up about the amount of money that is coming into the City of Spokane Valley over and above the sales tax,he believed he read it was above$18,000 and he also read that,that money is used to enforce the laws concerning marijuana. So if we are bringing in money just to enforce the laws, not sure if that is a win-win for anyone.He stated that he did not vote for marijuana in this state, and feels it is a mistake. He asked that the Commission consider Option 3,adopt a policy of prohibition. Medical marijuana is a little different,he asked why if medical marijuana is considered to be a medicine why isn't a prescription written by a doctor,perhaps it is. But why is that prescription not taken to an established drug store?The marijuana delivered to those folks could be tested,certified,safe for the intended use and that would take care of that problem. He stated that recreational marijuana makes no sense to him what so ever. He would like the Commission to consider Option 3 at the least,maintain the moratorium and make it permanent. Commissioner Anderson asked the audience of anyone ran a medical marijuana dispensary. One member of the audience used to work at one.Another audience member stated that they run a recreational shop and would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Kelley asked if the retail owner saw challenges taking the medical endorsement and separating the recreational marijuana that is taxed from the medical marijuana which is untaxed. Doug Peterson, 16404 E.Rocky Top Lane: Mr. Peterson stated that he did not see a problem separating the taxed from the untaxed.He has met with the Department of Health which will be bringing on systems in the spring which his business will help beta test.His business is embracing it. One survey asked if the business would train its people in more of a consulting role for the medical, if they would pay far it.He would like everyone in his store to be trained medically through the state. Revenue questions,he stated that his business has only been open for three months, it's not going to show like some of the bigger stores open on Trent in Millwood.Part of the challenge is that the Valley has a tougher zoning laws.He worked with the City and with Christina Janssen.Originally there were three licenses for the Valley.The Appleway Trail and other trails made it tough to find a location. When the State revamped with 5052, it is challenging as a business owner who just opened, since he just got opened under the old laws. Mr. Peterson stated one of his concerns as a business owner,the restrictions were difficult and the new licenses may have less restrictions. He's heard that the zones are going to drop down to 500 feet from 1000 and that the licenses are not zone specific. You have"x"amount of licenses for the Valley but they can be from anywhere. The original licensing process was you were licensed in the Valley if you had a valid location. As a business owner he embraced the changes and will continue to meet the standards of the state. He invited the Commission to visit his shop,it is professional environment they take very seriously. It is a nice place,he stated that it is not like what you might think it is like. Mr.Peterson stated that he does not go to the medical shops,he understands that the regulation process need to take place. He addressed the earlier comment on pesticides, growers have a state issued list of pesticides that are approved;the marijuana that is going through recreational stores is tested pretty extensively just not specifically pesticide tested. There are labs that will test it. He is in talks with labs to pay growers more if their products that have been tested more. Commissioner Kelley compared business who sell to customers as well as whole sale, nontaxed as a comparison to medical marijuana and retail marijuana will there be any problems? Mr. Peterson stated that it's about building the process in the store and making it logistically make sense. Need to be very clear with patients and regular recreational uses.There would need to be logistics in place,he will work with the WSLCB to see what kind of process would need to be in place. Mr. Peterson stated as a store owner that process is important,the experience of the customer is important, regulation is important.As you know retail marijuana is one of the most regulated processes in the world.There is so much that a store has to do to be open,we gladly accept that challenge. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on the consultant part required by the medical endorsement. The reference to patients would imply that they are seeking out medical marijuana as a medication, the pharmacy is typically where you think of for where a medication is obtained What rules, 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 if you know is the Department of Health looking at that would limit the person acting as a consultant from offering medical advice? Mr. Peterson stated it is going to be very strict. He was in a meeting last week that was defining what a consultant means. A person is not going to be able to take a two week course on marijuana medical and become a physician.He believes there will be training on how and what you can tell a patient. It will not be a position of giving medical advice rather explaining the product and what potential the effects are of the product. Commissioners had questions about the concentration levels of medical verses recreation marijuana. Mr. Peterson confirmed that there is not a difference in concentration levels. Discussion continued on packaging and labeling differences for medical and recreation marijuana,It is the same product but regulated and taxed differently. Commissioner Anderson declared a 10 minute break. Commissioners continued with discussion. Commissioner Anderson suggested narrowing down the discussion to four subjects: who should get a retail license with a medical endorsement; should we make regulations beyond the state in regards to home grow;extraction and where it should be allowed; finally should we allow co-ops.Concerns about commercial rentals renting to marijuana retail affecting the surrounding businesses. Mr.Peterson addressed that it is very difficult to find a location as well as higher rates are being charge for this type of business. Additionally marijuana businesses are having issues with banks being willing to accept funds. Mr. Peterson also brought up the fact that since it is federally illegal that the businesses are not allowed to take any tax write-offs for operating their business. Discussion moved to the Options 2 of increasing buffers and the locations of co-ops. Interested in the 1000 foot buffer between stores and the residential zones and to look at how to allow cooperatives. Commissioners asked what happens to a business that becomes legal,nonconforming.Mr.Lamb stated that if a legal,nonconforming use abandons their use for a year they are done. If there is damage up to eighty percent they can continue that use.Ms.Janssen stated that the legal,nonconforming had to resume operations within twelve months.The question was raised as to whether a business may move locations and still be maintain that legal,nonconforming status.Mr. Lamb stated that the nonconforming use allows them to continue operating in that location with that use. If they moved they would be subject to the new rules. Commissioners asked about maintaining the status quo of current retail,producer,and processor would that be considered prohibition.Further they asked if it would be possible to allow the current retail shops the option of moving locations and maintaining license. Mr.Lamb stated he would need to think about this further.The issue was raised that maintaining the three retail locations and that only one of these shops is located on a bus line.This may cause transportation and accessibility for medical marijuana patients. The issue of capacity was raised.Mr.Lamb explained that there will be a three tier structure related to square footage and this will remain the same size,but allow more stores,he will confirm. Discussion turned to the possibility of regulating the concentration of marijuana as well as the packaging. Ms.Harrison returned to further discuss the different compounds within marijuana. Commissioners asked about controlling signage and promotion of the marijuana.Mr.Lamb stated that the State regulates the signage as it relates to the location.The City does not allow off site signage. Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner,presented an update on a proposal before the State Building Code Council to limit the number of plants to 15 in a buildings other than a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building. If any entity wanted to grow more than 15 plants it would have to be in a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building,a residential use would typically not be allowed in this zone without a fire sprinkler system. For the most part a large number of our existing buildings that house residential uses would not be appropriate for the growth of any more than 15 plants.The Commission asked why growing marijuana plants is considered to be a fire hard.Ms.Nickerson stated that it is not necessarily a fire hazard. However a limitation needed to be set to determine if it would be a factory occupancy or a standard garden. A co-op which is able to grow up to 60 plants would need to be an Fl occupancy. She further explained that the types of operation in a building and size of the building would determine when fire sprinkler systems would be required. If an extraction system is in place that include chemicals they can trigger a fire sprinkler system requirement at a much lower threshold. Mr. Lamb 1 I-12-I5 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 followed up with clarification that a co-op would be limited to 15 plants if located in a domicile, unless they were located in an industrial zone. Ms. Barlow reminded the commission that at the next meeting they will be hearing from the police and fire department. Commissioner Anderson asked what a marijuana specialty clinic is. Ms.Harrison explained that a specialty clinic is a rotating clinic that have doctors who do authorizations for medical marijuana. Physicians are allowed to write thirty authorizations a month after that they have to report the number to the State. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Kevin And- son,V e Chairperson Date signed Vii : Elisha Heath, Secretary 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, December 10,2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director Heather Graham Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Phillips Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Susan Scott Christina Janssen,Planner Joe Stay,absent-excused Karen Kendall, Planner Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Wood moved to excuse Joe Stay from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor,zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Graham moved to accept the December 10, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding a sentence in the November 12, 2015 minutes. She said on Page 3, second to last paragraph, the sentence reads "Mr. Lamb presented that there ore other types of uses that the City might want to regulate for example a marijuana club. Currently there is one considered, at 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marfuana but not purchase marijuana." It was determined the 'at' in front of'420' should be replaced with an 'a.' There were no other corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Wood moved to approve the November 12, 2015 minutes as amended. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelly reported he attended a meeting at CenterPlace regarding marijuana usage. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community Development Director John Hohman reported the deadline for Planning Commission openings is December 18, 2015. Mr. Hohman thanked the Planning Commissioners who would be leaving at the end of this year,Commissioners Anderson, Scott and Wood. Mr. Hohman also reported the first meeting of the Planning Commission in 2016 would be January 28, 2016. This will allow for the delayed process of choosing the next Planning Commissioners. The January 28 meeting will be training which is required each year for the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: STV-2015-0001,Street Vacation of portion of3rd Avenue Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3rd Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 4`h Avenue just west of Skipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet. The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3rd Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4h1 Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged. Ms. Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue(north/south)are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right-of-way connection,and 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. Commissioner Scott said the staff report mentioned the abutting property owners along 3rd were notified but was anyone on 4th Avenue notified. Ms. Kendall responded based on the City's noticing 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of9 requirements, only the property owners who were abutting 3`d Avenue were notified. Commissioner Scott mentioned the person with the easement was not notified. Commissioner Wood asked about the noticing on the property and Ms. Kendall explained the posting requirements for a street vacation and the location of the signs which had been posted on the property_ Mr. Wood mentioned the sign hanging on the fence was difficult to see. Commissioner Anderson asked why the southern lots were not combined into one parcel. Ms. Kendall asked for clarification. Mr. Anderson said the northern parcels were proposed to be combined into one parcel. The southern three parcels are being proposed as two parcels instead of one as is being done on the north side of the right-of-way (ROW). Mr. Anderson wanted a reason why the parcels were being configured as proposed. Ms. Kendall stated there are two single family residences on the land and in order for each residence to have its own parcel this is how the configuration was proposed. Mr. Anderson said he thought the goal was to develop the property into multifamily development. Ms. Kendall stated staff was not aware of any future development plans for the property. If in the future,the parcel configuration did not work for the property owner, then steps could be taken at the time of development to realign them. Commissioner Scott stated she was concerned about the size of the easements. One of them is a 12-foot driveway easement which was granted in 2002 to serve as a driveway for one of the homes on the applicant's property and an easement which will be granted to the City for a path to the Appleway Trail which is shown to be 15-feet wide. Ms. Kendall stated as part of the proposal, adjacent parcels with access are not looked at. Ms. Kendall said only during future development would access to the parcels need to be addressed. Ms. Scott was concerned the parcel to the west, with the driveway easement was not notified of the street vacation. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the noticing practices to the Commissioners. The noticing requirements for a proposed street vacation are in place to allow people who use the street to comment. Ms. Barlow said the property to which Ms. Scott is referring is not affected by the vacation of the street. Ms. Barlow said the noticing requirements have been met. Any discussion of the need for more access would be taken up if further development was proposed. Commissioner Anderson opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if he would like to speak, the applicant stated from the audience he did not really have anything to say. Commissioner Anderson asked him to step up to the podium to speak because he wanted to question him. Dan Hultquist, 14502 N. Freya: Mr. Hultquist stated he had no comment. Commissioner Anderson asked to clarify whether the driveway easement, which serves one of the houses on Mr. Hultquist's property, would be an easement as it is. Mr. Hultquist said it was just a driveway to the house on his property. Commissioner Anderson asked if he had to leave it as an easement. Mr. Hultquist stated he did not understand the question. Commissioner Anderson asked if he developed the property in the future, if the easement would change. Mr. Hultquist stated it would be hard to say, he didn't know what else it would be. He had been planning on developing the property for 20+ years now and it still looks the same. He said he could, not at this time, anticipate what would happen to the property. He would not want to give up the easement since it serves his rental property. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Hultquist if the easement was as it is, where it is and would not change. Mr. Hultquist again stated he was not sure what Mr. Anderson was asking, but it was an easement to the rental property. Ms. Barlow clarified that in this process the easement will remain as it is. Mr. Anderson stated he was trying to look out for the property owners not involved in this process. Having no one else who wanted to testify, Commissioner Anderson closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Commissioner Wood stated he had no issues with this proposal. Commissioner Kelly said he did not have a problem with it either. Commissioner Phillips was only concerned there would not be a landlocked parcel. Commissioner Anderson said he had no problem with the street vacation, but he was fixated on the easements. He was concerned the easements for the property would not be sufficient for future development. Commissioner Scott asked if the property had been investigated to be one which the ROW would go back to the property owner. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated, although he did not look up to see if this plat was dated previously to 1904, if it had been then the land would have reverted 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 back to the property owner. Ms. Scott wondered if the City would have to buy back the ROW if there was future development. Ms. Barlow stated if there was future development, the ROW would be dedicated to the City. Ms. Scott was concerned the increase in the amount of square footage of the properties would increase the density allowed in the area, if the property was developed. Commissioner Graham moved to approve STV-2015-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Planning Commission Findings: STV-2015-0001,Street Vacation of portion of P Avenue Ms. Kendall stated the City preferred process is to bring the findings back at later meeting after the public hearing. However because of the holidays and the Planning Commission's next available meeting for business would not be until February, staff is bringing the findings forward now. Ms. Barlow stated the proposed findings reflect the decision made at the public hearing. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for STY2015-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Commissioner Anderson asked the Commissioners if they wanted to proceed with the study session or to defer the discussion until new Commissioners are appointed in the New Year. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said this would be up to the Commissioners, but there were people in attendance who came to speak to the subject and there would be a written record of previous actions for the new members to review. There was consensus to continue with the study session and listen to the people who came to share information regarding marijuana in the City and related fire codes, Lt. Khris Thompson, Spokane Valley Police Department(SVPD): Lt. Thompson stated it had been a long process in changing the regulations regarding the legislation of marijuana. Senate Bill 5052 brings together how medical or compliant marijuana will be handled. The City's numbers since the passing of I-502, which is when the police department started tracking marijuana related driving under the influence (DUI). In the first period after the taw was enacted the police made 18 arrests, four of which were minors. In 2013, there were 43 arrests with 20 being minors. Lt. Thompson clarified the law reads a `minor' would be anyone 21 years of age or younger. Commissioner Kelley asked if these were just marijuana arrests, or all DUI arrests. Lt. Thompson stated these were all intoxicants, including alcohol, marijuana and other intoxicants. He continued in 2014 there were 62 total incidents, with 22 of them being under age. So far this year there have been 50 DUI arrests with 15 of them being under age. These were DUI, by drug, specifically marijuana. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a blood test associated with the DUI arrests. Lt. Thompson said there are many methods used to confirm the use of drugs. He said there are people trained specifically to determine if someone is using drugs at the time they are pulled over. In 2013/14, when the SVPD started tracking marijuana related calls there were 55 calls related to marijuana. These could be burglary, theft, property crimes and so on. In 2015 there had been 95 incidents so far. He stated about half of the arrests were minors and there was a trend of youth becoming involved in these crimes. Commissioner Graham asked if Lt. Thompson was aware of any increase in funding to support the police departments. Lt. Thompson said he was not aware, but this would be a question for administrative staff. Commissioner Kelley asked how the police department handles cases where plants were involved if the person owning the plants stated they were for medical use. Lt. Thompson stated there were different levels of enforcement between the different police departments and the Washington state Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). A medical patient is required to keep paperwork on site to show if there is ever an issue with plants being grown in a home. Lt. Thompson stated patients who wished to grow their own, would need to be licensed in order to avoid potential prosecution. Commissioners had questions regarding a cooperative grow. Lt. Thompson stated the rules for a cooperative grow have changed, from allowing 10 people to participate to four, it also reduced the number of plants which will be allowed. Registration would assist officers in knowing where authorized growing would happen, but it is voluntary for individuals. However the medical card received from the doctor would state how many plants the patient needs. Commissioner Kelley asked if the increase in crimes could be pinpointed to occurring around schools, siting the Commission has been tasked to consider new regulations including new possible buffers around certain facilities. Lt. Thompson stated he did not have that detail of information with him, but it might be possible to find the 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 information at a later time. Commissioner Scott asked about enforcement from the WSLCB. Lt. Thompson stated there are different levels of enforcement and the WSLCB enforces the licensing, the police enforce the criminal violations. She also asked if the information regarding an in-home grow was supposed to be posted on the door of the room containing the plants. Lt. Thompson stated the patient is required to have the information readily available, it should be posted but this is not always the case. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a portion of the City getting more criminal incidences than another. Lt. Thompson stated it was all over the City, not in any one place. Commissioner Scott also asked if, in his personal opinion, the officer could see the trend continuing. Lt. Thompson said he could see the trend continuing with the availability of the product. Greg Rogers, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Marshall: Mr. Rogers stated he did not have the numbers, like the police department does because they do not associate these things with their response with the chemical components which are used. They have seen an increase in call volume, mainly from older adults who are experimenting, based on people thinking they are having symptoms of larger issues such as a possible heart attack. Said he has seen the call volume increase in the last month, of unauthorized burn of harvested plants and feels this is in part due to fewer extraction processors in the county. In these incidents, the fire department is required to turn these incidents over to the Clean Air Agency, and they are responsible for the enforcement. Tracy Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Protection Engineer: Ms. Harvey stated she has become involved in the marijuana regulations through the building permit process. She has noted a need for regulations to make sure the growing and processing of the marijuana are done safely. She has been involved with the International Fire Code 2015 amendments. She stated there have been some emergency amendments to address some of the extraction processes. She said she would be participating in a Cannabis Technical Advisory Group for the State Building Code Council next year. She said the fire department is learning from the growers and processers how things work and how to regulate these businesses. Commissioner Graham asked about the extraction processes and the medical facilities which are licensed to do business, but are not licensed to operate as a medical business. Ms. Harvey explained as the new rules take effect and `medical' marijuana gets rolled into the recreational stores the requirements for the recreational will apply. A new permit, which has been adopted by the Fire Code, states any new extraction processes must be reviewed by the local fire department. There will be inspections of the processes, facilities and an annual review will be required. Commissioner Graham asked if the fire department had responded to any calls at one of the City's processor or producers. Mr. Rogers stated they had not. He said the processors and growers have invited the fire department to look at what they are doing so they are more aware of what is going on at the property in case of the need for response. Mr. Rogers said he was glad the medical would have to follow the same regulations as recreational, which means they will not be able to open business unless they have been through the fire department permitting process. Ms.Harvey explained currently there is not a processor in the City which is using a chemical extraction process. Some are using a CO, system, but not a chemical extraction. Commissioner Anderson asked if harvested plants can be taken to the "clean green" process at the transfer station. Ms. Harvey stated there is a process where the plants must be taken to the Waste-to- Energy Plant for destruction. Mr. Lamb offered there are also state regulations which require the addition of non-edible materials in with the plants so there is no useable material. Commissioner Wood asked if you have a cooperative grow of two to four people,and they can grow up to 60 plants, aren't they using halogen lights to grow the plants, which could be a fire hazard. Ms, Harvey stated many are using LED lights now. Commissioner Wood said he felt this type of operation could cause trouble for the fire department. Ms. Harvey stated a couple of years ago,there was a fire in a garage, which had a grow operation in it. The two minors running the operation had medical cards. But this was seldom. Commissioner Wood asked if using so much energy, changes to amperage systems, those kinds of things, wouldn't this be a concern to the fire department? Ms. Harvey stated a permit would be needed to make any changes to the home. Changes to the electrical systems are governed by Labor and Industries, which the City does not have a hand in. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was not a way to make suggestions requiring these types of changes and these types of growing operations have to meet a certain standard to be safe. Ms. Harvey stated the regulations already require a change of occupancy to an F-I occupancy, which would require a permit and City review. An F-1 occupancy is a factory/industrial moderate-hazard occupancy. In an F-1 occupancy there is a 12,000 square foot 12-10-I5 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 minimum at which the building is required to have sprinklers. Most cooperative grows would not trigger this requirement. Sprinklers are based on the size and square footage of a building, not on how many plants might be growing in a home. Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner: Ms. Nickerson responded to a question from Commissioners regarding the ability to require sprinklers in a cooperative. Ms. Nickerson pointed out some of the rules being discussed are proposed, and have not been adopted by the State Building Code Council, and are not currently requirements. She said in theory if an in-home grow had 17 plants, was classified as F-1 occupancy, there would be minimum life safety requirements in place. Sprinkler thresholds are generally at 12,000 square feet for an F-I occupancy. However an F-1 occupancy of any size is going to be subject to certain fire sensitivity, egress in an emergency situation, including address and posting measures which would allow the fire department to respond adequately in an emergency. Commissioner Kelley asked if a daycare with 7,000 square feet would not require a sprinkler system. Ms.Nickerson stated a daycare is a different occupancy and the requirement would be based on the age of the children, number of exits, and the number of children which would be accommodated in that building. Ms. Nickerson felt a 7,000 square foot daycare would probably be a sprinkled building. Commissioner Kelley asked if the Commission could suggest lowering the limits for a home grow operation. Ms.Nickerson said canopy space could be something which could be considered. She said it could be considered,tighter sprinkler thresholds for those types of uses. Commissioner Graham asked if a co-op has 17 plants, have registered with the state as a co-op, do they need to apply for a change of occupancy. Ms.Nickerson said, assuming the proposed regulations are adopted, which would trigger the F-1 occupancy requirement, a single family dwelling would not be considered an F-I occupancy classification. She said what had been discussed at the previous meeting was if a grow was housed in a building which has an F-1 occupancy and a person decided to live in the building, that would trigger the fire sprinkler requirement, no matter what the square footage was. Sprinklers are only going to be required if a person is living in the same building. A detached garage would need to maintain at least 20 feet of separation. Then came a question regarding a domicile, which is in the state code as a requirement for a co-op,.but Mr. Lamb stated it would not fit the City's regulations for residential zoning. Commissioner Wood stated he did not understand a cooperative very well. He offered a likely suggestion of a person with a medical card for marijuana. That person wanted to grow 15 marijuana plants in their home, a person could do that. Mr. Lamb stated unless that person wanted to modify their home in a way which would trigger a standard building permit, there would be no way anyone would know about the plants. Commissioner Wood confirmed no one in the City would know about the growing plants, if a patient decided to do so. A cooperative is up to four individuals who decide to grow plants together. Mr. Lamb said this would be legal under current local zoning codes. However,there are proposed changes to the building code; where once a person is growing over 15 plants there would be a requirement for a change in occupancy. Currently zoning does not allow for an `industrial' building in a residential zone. A co-op has to register with the state,however there is no mechanism which shares that information with the jurisdiction. Mr. Rogers stated once a permit is applied for a change of occupancy and is approved, then it would trigger annual inspections from the fire department. It would be considered part of a home business and allow for the inspections. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the power to require anyone who applies for a medical marijuana card to register with the City. Mr. Lamb stated he did not feel this would be possible based on the need to protect an individual's medical records according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and it could be a possible violation of an individual's rights. Commissioner Wood asked if the suggestion of not allowing cooperatives in the City would be a problem. Mr. Lamb stated it was in the new state law to allow the prohibition of cooperatives if a jurisdiction chose. Mr. Lamb stated the cooperative was allowed for more rural areas, where some patients might not be able to get to a store to purchase what they need. Mr. Lamb said he felt the City could site other stores in the areas in the county as well as a person could grow for themselves. Lt. Thompson added regarding medical authorization charges, patients do not need to enter into a registration, they can purchase marijuana at retail amounts, and pay the extra tax. If a patient does voluntarily register, then they are able to purchase a higher quantity than a regular retail customer and they will not have to pay the taxes. Lt. Thompson said he would try and get more information for the Commissioners regarding property crimes around within a quarter mile around a retail store. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Graham asked if there were regulations in place where if a person went into a retail location and they appeared to be `intoxicated' does the retail store have the right to refuse service to them, and Lt.Thompson said he did not know. Mr. Lamb then stated he would like to address some of the questions which were raised at the last meeting. • Question: How much money in taxes is the City getting from marijuana? The taxes being received are a 37% excise tax, but also general sales taxes. Producers and processors are considered wholesale and so they generate no taxes. Said we do see secondary benefits of employees who work for these operators who would live or shop in the City. Mr. Lamb said at least one producer/processor employees 108 people. The City's distribution in 2016 of the excise tax is $75,000, based on the 37% tax collected at the point of sale. The retail operations are generating a fairly good business and the sales tax for this year should be in the area of$58,000. The state must use a portion of the revenue generated for education and enforcement. The distribution to the City has not been tied to this. WSLCB reported for their fiscal year ending June 30,2015 in all of Spokane County, who were allowed 18 retail shops total, from producers was$816,000,$14,000,000 from processors and$37,000,000 in sales from retailers. • Question: Can the City restrict retail outlets to be medical only? Mr. Lamb said after looking at case law there could be significant legal questions from a preemption stand point, primarily based on the way the state has set the licensing of the retail stores. The City would not be looking at it from a land use basis, but how they do their business and that is governed by the licensing scheme. Based on this the City would be trying to step into the state's role. There were questions regarding the Health Department. The Health Department has acknowledged there could be some beneficial properties in marijuana. They can't make it a prescribed medicine so what people are commonly referring to as medical marijuana is not being recognized by the Department of Health as "medical" marijuana. The term used is "compliant" marijuana. There will be three different types of compliant marijuana. There will be "general compliant" marijuana which is safe handling and limits use of pesticides and contains Iess than 10 milligrams of THC, this will lead to patients having a cleaner product. The next is "high THC compliant" this cannot be in bud form, it must be in capsules or patches. The high THC compliant has a higher THC than is allowed for recreational,the THC will be between 10 and 50 milligrams per serving and is only available to qualified patients_ The third type is "high CBD compliant" which is similar to the high THC but the ratio of the CBDs is higher than the THC. This marijuana has more pain relieving affects, but is allowed for purchase by any buyer. Only the high THC compliant will require a medical card for purchase. The Health Department will not be regulating the marijuana more than this at this time. This would be why it would be difficult for the City to separate the two types of stores. Commissioner Wood asked if the City could regulate growing in homes. Mr. Lamb said it would have to come from a health/safety standpoint which would require talking about any gardener and what they want to grow. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the right to make a prohibition on medical marijuana home grows. Mr. Lamb corrected saying the City could limit the cooperatives, but the individual patient who wants to grow up to 15 plants, there would be a very difficult time in prohibiting them. If it was done there was a health/safety standpoint which would apply to all plants being grown. Commissioner Anderson said he felt the Health Department supported his theory of it being a public health/safety issue for having segregated facilities. Mr. Lamb said the Department of Health has made different classifications for compliant marijuana. Commissioner Anderson said the only thing common about the two types of stores is the word marijuana. He feels there would be different inventories, there should be a separate wall between the two facilities in order to keep the public safe from the sales of the wrong product to the wrong person. He offered that he would be willing to take the chance in a court room on his idea. Mr. Lamb said he did not know from an enforcement standpoint,how this could be done. Compliant marijuana can be sold to anyone. The only time a sale would need to have a check for a medical card would be if a person wanted to: 1) buy in higher than recreational amounts, 2) buy the high THC compliant marijuana or 3) didn't want to pay the sales tax. Mr. Anderson continued he still felt that medical and recreational should not be in the same building, then there could be more medical shops and we could get away from allowing more recreational shops. Mr. Lamb said the 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 challenge for the City would be trying to enforce the fact that a retail store would not be selling to recreational users as well as a medical store. Commissioner Graham asked Mr. Lamb to explain this. At a retail marijuana store any person can go in and buy any kind of marijuana they would like, EXCEPT for high THC compliant marijuana. Mr. Lamb said if the City were to only allow more medical marijuana stores, anyone over the age of 21 would be able to go in and buy any of the products, except the high THC compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham asked what would he the problem with this proposal. Mr. Lamb asked what the goal would be in trying to do this. Mr. Anderson asked if medical marijuana wouldn't be more expensive, have to have training, a consultant is required, tighter product regulations, tighter packaging regulations, in general a recreational user would want to go somewhere else and buy their product. Commissioner Kelley said many businesses sell retail/wholesale in the same place. Ms. Janssen asked the Commissioners to clarify why they would want to separate the two businesses. Commissioner Anderson said to keep the number of major retail stores from growing and medical has a legitimate point, and the state is saying we have to have more outlets. The Commissioners said they are frustrated the rules keep changing while we are trying to make the rules. Commissioner Graham said as of July 2016 all of the unlicensed dispensaries will have to be out of business or moved to a retail store. She asked if it was fair to these business owners. She asked if the City adopted something like Commissioner Anderson was proposing, couldn't those businesses apply to be one of those places. It would protect their business,they are used to providing medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb said they could and it would be up to the Commission, but before moving forward he would like to highlight, first although they are going to say they are going to be medical stores, they could sell to anyone who comes in at this time. Second he wanted the Commissioners to know this decision would be subject to a legal challenge. If someone wanted to sell recreationally and did not want to sell medical, it could be subject to challenge. There was a discussion about the current medical dispensaries and wanting to allow them an avenue to continue their business without allowing any more recreational shops in the City. Mr. Lamb stated the state is going to allocate to the City more retail stores based on the need of the community. He said there is no requirement for those to get a medical endorsement. The state created a retail system in which patients can get a tax break. The City is not mandated to have the allowed number of stores. Stores who sell compliant marijuana will need to be able to prove to the state they have the appropriate documentation in order to not be collecting the taxes owed. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a way to prohibit any more new stores in the City until the dust settles' and we have better defined rules regarding the selling of marijuana. Mr. Lamb said this would be one option. • If the City prohibited any more new stores could existing stores be termed legal nonconforming uses and be allowed to move around the City. There is a rule for that for billboards. There is no statutory rule which would prohibit it. Mr. Lamb cautioned there is no other business in the City which would be allowed to do that under our non-conforming use provisions. Commissioner Scott wondered if this would not be a problem because we do not allow other businesses to do this. She said these businesses have already said they know this is a high risk business and she did not feel obligated to allow special accommodations. Mr. Lamb said the City's current nonconforming regulations would take care of these concerns. • Signage restrictions: Mr. Lamb said he has concerns about the First Amendment and trying to regulate the content of signs. He said there was a question about comparing it to cigarette advertising. He said this law was written with extensive studies on how long a minor sees that advertisement can directly affect their likelihood of using that product. There was a strong factual basis for those laws. If the City were to develop a factual record, we might be able to develop a regulation along those lines. There was a recent court case (Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert) which has strengthened First Amendment protections and further restricted cities' authority for their sign codes. The state has significant restrictions on signs. The state does not allow more than two signs on site, and signs are limited to 1,600 square inches. The City sign code does not allow any off-site signage. The WSLCB also does not allow the signs to be appealing to children_ They have stated, hut it is not in the rules,they will not allow signs with cannabis leaves in them. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Wood said his opinion moving forward would be to allow the three existing retail stores to become licensed medical marijuana stores. He said he felt the three retail outlets were enough, the number of processors and producers was sufficient. He said we should allow a private individual patient the right to grow up to 15 plants, but not to allow cooperatives in the City. The City should maintain all of the current buffers around schools, parks and city land. Commissioner Scott said she agreed with Commissioner Wood and would make the three existing stores a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Phillips said he agreed with Commissioner Wood, he would like to reduce the ones we already have but did not feel that was possible. Commissioner Anderson said he did not see any reason why the City would change or expand its processing and producing regulations. He is in favor of eliminating cooperatives. He would like to require the home owner be aware when someone is growing plants on their property for medicinal purposes. He feels all the boundaries should remain the same. He did not feel the City should be allowing home extraction. He would allow more stores if they could be medical only, even though he feels it would work, but if not then he would not allow any more stores in the City. Commissioner Kelley said he agrees with the all the guidelines proposed, but he would increase the buffers. Commissioner Wood said some of the retail stores came in and said their landlords were not going to allow them to continue their leases, which would be no fault of their own, and he wanted to allow the nonconforming laws to move with the stores to allow them to continue on if they were a business in good standing. Then there was discussion regarding legal nonconforming uses and of the ultimate goal of the Commissioners. Do you have to make the three retail shops nonconforming? Commissioner Anderson said no more than the three outlets without making them legal nonconforming uses, which would prohibit any more marijuana uses. Because of the state licensing system,there isn't a way to just restrict three to our City,so we have to prohibit and use the nonconforming regulations. Mr. Lamb summarized the Commission's desired direction for the regulations to be drafted: • No more marijuana retailers, producers or processors • No clubs • No cooperatives • Allow home grows, but look al the possibility of requiring the grower be the home owner • No home extraction Commissioner Scott asked if it was possible to restrict chemical extraction in the City. Mr. Lamb said he would allow the fire department to speak to the subject, but to keep in mind there are other processes which uses chemicals which are not related to marijuana. Ms. Harvey said the permit has a reasonable amount allowable which would allow the process in most any room in order to keep control of the chemicals to avoid problems. Chemical extractions require many systems to monitor. Extractions at home are using rubbing alcohol which is not likely to be a problem, but there could be a problem with the propane or butane. Most are using a CO2 process. She said it was highly unlikely to see one of these systems in a home because they are cxpcnsivc systems. Commissioner Graham said she would like to see home grow be in an enclosure and that they can't be seen from a neighbor's yard. How could enforcement of this happen,only after they were reported? At this point it was agreed staff will begin to draft regulations based on the Commissioners agreeing this was the direction they wanted the regulations to move. Commissioner Graham asked about accommodating the current business owners through zoning, and Mr. Lamb stated an overlay could be created but that spot zoning would not be allowed. Commissioner Wood asked about renters who had permission to grow, and it was clarified this would be allowed. There was consensus not to come back with a zoning alternative to be able to allow the existing medical stores (dispensaries) in a zoning overlay. Commissioner Graham asked if a marijuana grow, or a federally illegal activity, was something which would have to be disclosed when selling a building. Commissioner Wood said he would say no, but he felt they were damp and would generate black mold which would be required to be disclosed. Commissioner Kelley wanted to know if the City could make it a requirement to inform of a home grow. Mr. Lamb said it would require some investigation. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was a discussion regarding Planning Commissioners notes. Do they to be turned in to staff at the end of the year. These were their own notes, but Commissioners need to be aware they were subject to a public records requests. They should probably be destroyed at the end of each subject. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. e - 2 I�I Key' n son, ice-Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary cOUTsrpy Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group 9 �a CAD Selected Incidents Within 1/2 Mile of Canna House(9616 E Sprague) fe-":% Opened 07/01/2015 t „' RIG Jul 1,2014- Jul 1,2015- Dec 21,2014- Jan 1,2015- Total Dec 20,2014 Dec 20,2015 Dec 31,2014 Jun 30,2015 911A 98 125 5 85 313 ALMC 30 19 2 15 66 ALMH 3 5 0 2 10 ALMR 2 5 0 3 10 ALMU 2 1 0 2 5 ARGUE 40 38 1 25 104 ASLT 13 9 1 23 46 BURGC 8 11 2 7 28 BURGG 0 3 0 3 6 BURGR 14 13 0 13 40 CC 33 52 2 27 114 CHKEV 10 14 0 20 44 DISORD 11 13 3 12 39 DOA 0 1 0 0 1 DOMST 6 4 0 5 15 DRUGS 6 15 0 7 28 DUI 20 17 1 21 59 DV 23 34 1 32 90 DVOPS 8 10 1 16 35 DVOPV 12 9 0 6 27 DVW 2 2 0 1 5 FIGHT 2 4 0 12 18 FRAUD 1 5 0 1 7 HARASS 1 2 0 2 5 MALMS 6 11 0 8 25 PEDVIO 2 13 0 3 18 PERBOT 11 35 0 24 70 Jul 1,2014- Jul 1,2015- Dec 21,2014- Jan 1,2015- Total Dec 20,2014 Dec 20,2015 Dec 31,2014 Jun 30,2015 PERF 4 2 0 0 6 PERW 2 6 0 4 12 PROWL 0 0 0 1 1 RAPE 1 1 0 0 2 RECKDR 31 49 2 50 132 ROB 1 0 0 2 3 SEXCRI 3 0 0 1 4 SHOOT 9 5 0 2 16 SHOPL 23 38 3 46 110 STAB 0 2 0 0 2 STALK 2 1 0 1 4 STPROP 1 1 0 2 4 SUICA 6 9 0 3 18 SUSCIR 26 40 2 40 108 SUSPER 73 80 6 87 246 SUSVEH 43 81 4 58 186 THEFT 9 18 0 18 45 THREAT 3 8 1 8 20 TRBLU 4 9 0 8 21 TRESP 20 24 0 18 62 TS 525 433 30 479 1,467 UGUEST 4 6 0 2 12 VEHPRO 5 6 0 9 20 VEHREC 10 11 0 15 36 VEHTFT 12 19 0 23 54 WARRNT 3 8 1 12 24 Total 1,184 1,327 68 1,264 3,843 Page 2 of 2 Report Created: 12/21/2015 ,COUNTY Spokane County Sheriff's Office s rr' -„ Regional Intelligence Group 9 �� ,. y CAD Selected Incidents Within 1/2 Mile of Cinder(1421 N Mullan) f "''-- Opened 10/01/2014 ; RIGS Oct 1,2013- Oct 1,2014- Oct 1,2015- Total Sep 30,2014 Sep 30,2015 Dec 20,2015 911A 103 127 25 255 ABDUC 1 0 0 1 ALMC 31 23 3 57 ALMH 3 4 1 8 ALMR 12 1 4 17 ALMU 1 0 0 1 ARGUE 48 61 11 120 ASLT 23 33 8 64 BURGC 6 6 0 12 BURGG 3 0 0 3 BURGR 17 18 7 42 CC 78 71 14 163 CHKEV 16 18 9 43 DISORD 25 34 8 67 DOA 3 1 3 7 DOMST 5 5 3 13 DRUGS 24 28 2 54 DUI 98 86 23 207 DV 52 43 14 109 DVOPS 7 14 0 21 DVOPV 10 6 1 17 DVW 1 1 1 3 FIGHT 8 7 0 15 FORGER 0 1 0 1 FRAUD 2 3 1 6 HARASS 1 0 0 1 MALMS 14 7 0 21 Oct 1,2013- Oct 1,2014- Oct 1,2015- Total Sep 30,2014 Sep 30,2015 Dec 20,2015 PEDVIO 1 8 2 11 PERBOT 11 19 8 38 PERF 1 0 1 2 PERW 8 7 0 15 PROST 2 0 0 2 PROWL 4 7 1 12 RAPE 3 2 1 6 RECKDR 300 350 75 725 ROB 6 4 0 10 ROBC 3 1 0 4 SEXCRI 2 2 1 5 SHOOT 2 6 0 8 SHOPL 18 19 4 41 STAB 1 0 0 1 STALK 0 1 0 1 STPROP 3 7 2 12 SU ICA 16 17 2 35 SUSCIR 58 58 6 122 SUSPER 83 121 19 223 SUSVEH 89 155 20 264 THEFT 65 47 6 118 THREAT 11 9 1 21 TRBLU 6 10 3 19 TRESP 13 27 8 48 TS 575 631 139 1,345 UGUEST 9 5 4 18 VEHPRO 11 7 0 18 VEHREC 17 7 5 29 VEHTFT 39 19 0 58 WARRNT 14 14 3 31 Total 1,963 2,158 449 4,570 Page 2 of 2 Report Created: 12/21/2015 COUNTY Spokane County Sheriff's Office s rr' ..p -,, Regional Intelligence Group 9id)ii, o CAD Selected Incidents Within 1/2 Mile of Treehouse(14421 E Trent) fen‘. Opened 12/01/2014 - RIG 9 Dec 1,2013- Dec 1,2014- Dec 1,2015- Total Nov 30,2014 Nov 30,2015 Dec 20,2015 911A 63 75 3 141 ALMC 6 3 0 9 ALMH 1 3 0 4 ALMR 1 6 0 7 ARGUE 26 11 1 38 ASLT 9 10 3 22 BURGC 4 6 1 11 BURGG 1 0 0 1 BURGR 10 6 0 16 CC 33 24 1 58 CHKEV 1 2 0 3 DISORD 5 8 0 13 DOA 1 2 0 3 DOMST 7 8 0 15 DRUGS 11 6 0 17 DUI 16 9 0 25 DV 46 33 1 80 DVOPS 5 9 0 14 DVOPV 7 6 0 13 DVW 3 2 0 5 FIGHT 3 0 0 3 FRAUD 1 1 0 2 HARASS 2 2 0 4 MALMS 9 1 0 10 PEDVIO 1 3 1 5 PERBOT 7 5 1 13 PERF 0 1 0 1 Dec 1,2013- Dec 1,2014- Dec 1,2015- Total Nov 30,2014 Nov 30,2015 Dec 20,2015 PERW 5 3 0 8 PROWL 2 0 0 2 RAPE 0 1 0 1 RECKDR 27 36 5 68 ROBC 0 1 1 2 SEXCRI 3 0 0 3 SHOOT 5 1 0 6 SHOPL 3 4 0 7 STAB 0 1 0 1 STALK 0 1 0 1 STPROP 2 2 0 4 SUICA 10 3 0 13 SUSCIR 31 23 3 57 SUSPER 41 33 1 75 SUSVEH 24 40 2 66 THEFT 32 22 2 56 THREAT 7 3 0 10 TRBLU 3 4 2 9 TRESP 14 2 0 16 TS 165 212 4 381 UGUEST 4 2 0 6 VEHPRO 3 2 0 5 VEHREC 4 4 0 8 VEHTFT 5 7 0 12 WARRNT 10 7 1 18 Total 679 656 33 1,368 Page 2 of 2 Report Created: 12/21/2015