Board of Commissioners Addendum Staff Report Ordinance No. 781€¦ · Board of Commissioners...

angelab

Oval

Board of Commissioners Addendum Staff Report Ordinance No. 781

April 21, 2014 of 2

Staff received questions regarding the ordinance from two Planning Commissioners prior to the public hearing. These questions and staff’s responses are included as Attachment B to this report. One comment letter was provided to the Planning Commission and is also included in Attachment B. Four citizens, including the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary that is ready to open pending receipt of state registration, provided oral testimony, all in opposition to moratorium adoption. Chief Deputy Bill Steele of the Sheriff’s Office offered testimony in support of the moratorium. The Planning Commissioners seemed concerned about impacts to existing business operators and their investments toward compliance with state registration requirements. A motion to recommend adoption of the moratorium with provision for an exemption for existing dispensaries under certain conditions failed. Absent clear answers regarding exceptions for existing dispensaries, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 3 to recommend rejection of the moratorium. Additional Public Comment The County Administrator’s Office has received numerous letters regarding the proposed ordinance. Copies of these letters have been provided to the Board by the County Administrator’s Office under separate cover. Long Range Planning staff has also received one letter regarding Ordinance No. 781 since the Planning Commission hearing. All of these letters are included in Attachment C to this report. Staff Report Attachments:

Attachment A: Draft April 16, 2014 Planning Commission Deliberations Attachment B: Planning Commission questions with staff responses and public comment letter

provided to Planning Commission Attachment C: Letters received after Planning Commission hearing (as of April 21, 2014) S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\Ord781_Moratorium\Staff_Reports\BCC\BCC Meeting ADDENDUM 042214\Ord 781_BCC_Addendum FINAL_42214.doc

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning

155 N First Avenue, Ste. 350 MS 14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-3519 · fax: (503) 846-4412 · TTY: (503) 846-4598 · www.co.washington.or.us

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2014

PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 781

DELIBERATIONS Planning Commission (PC) members present: A. Richard Vial, Jeff Petrillo, Ed Bartholemy, Liles Garcia, Mary Manseau, Jeff Petrillo, Matt Wellner, Anthony Mills, Tegan Enloe, and Eric Urstadt. Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Karen Savage, Suzanne Savin, Paul Schaefer, Dyami Valentine, Anne Kelly, Angela Brown, Susan Aguilar, and Connie McCracken, Long Range Planning; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 781: An Ordinance Prohibiting Any Business or Sale of Medical Marijuana Staff recommended that the Planning Commission:

Recommend that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 781; Refer Ordinance No. 781 to the Board without a recommendation; or Recommend rejection of Ordinance No. 781.

Documents submitted April 9, 2014 Staff Report Exhibit A – April 1, 2014 Letter from Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett in support of a one-year moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Power Point presentation – Ordinance No. 781 Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Testified in support of Ordinance No. 781

Chief Deputy Bill Steele on behalf of Sheriff Pat Garrett, Washington County Sheriff’s Office – 215 Adams Street, Hillsboro, OR

Testified in opposition of Ordinance No. 781

Theresa Lawler – 2374 SE 56th Place, Hillsboro, OR Joy Patterson – 7195 SW Lara Street, Portland, OR Claudia Lavander – 7242 SE Drake Street, Hillsboro, OR Betty Storey – 5520 NE Hidden Creek #101, Hillsboro, OR

Draft PC Deliberations Commissioner Urstadt asked if a moratorium was approved by the Board, could the Board then come back and quickly make an exception for current businesses.

Attachment A

Planning Commission Ordinance No. 781 Deliberations

April 16, 2014 Page 2 of 7

Mr. Back said it could be a possibility, but wanted County Counsel to weigh in. Ms. Saito-Moore said the language of the bill might be different from how it is done in practice. She said she thought the Board might have the leeway to look at pre-existing businesses and determine if they might decide as a policy matter to not enforce the moratorium. Commissioner Urstadt asked if they didn’t adopt the moratorium and there was a problem, couldn’t the Board come up with emergency measures to take care of it. Mr. Back said it was a possibility, but the State restrictions limit flexibility. The Board has directed staff, through the adopted 2014 Work Program, to develop land use rules and regulations during the moratorium (through May 1, 2015). So land use regulations could be in place later, but it is tricky as to how to apply to existing and new businesses. Ms. Saito-Moore stated that land use ordinances cannot be adopted as an emergency ordinance. Chair Vial said the issue appears to be about one facility, as no one else has come forward to discuss an existing or potential business. He said he supports the law enforcement official’s request for time to review and work through the issues, but is concerned about the facility that invested money in good faith in reliance upon the statute that was adopted. He said he thinks that this facility owner is attempting to comply in all respects with the law. He said he understands that staff and counsel have reservations, but he is inclined to recommend to the Board that the moratorium be put in place, except for any facility that made significant investments toward compliance at this time or on the date that the moratorium is put in place. Commissioner Garcia said he liked the idea of an exception, but it was his understanding that exceptions could not be made, and this made him uncomfortable. Chair Vial said he was just not convinced that an exception couldn’t be made. Commissioner Petrillo confirmed that the Board prioritized this ordinance to meet the deadline, and asked if there was there was any indication of the decision the Board might make on the matter. Mr. Back said the Board directed that the ordinance be filed and put before them, and that there was no “pre-determined” decision. Commissioner Petrillo asked about the status of moratorium adoption by the City of Hillsboro. Ms. Kelly said she thought they had opted for a short duration moratorium. She had heard six weeks, but this was not confirmed. Commissioner Wellner asked Mr. Back if there would be time if the PC wanted to recommend engrossment of the ordinance to the Board to allow exceptions. Mr. Back stated that if the issue was processed like other land use issues there would not be time for all the required notices and hearings prior to the May 1, 2014 deadline. Commissioner Wellner asked if there was a way to expedite the ordinance. Mr. Back said it comes back to the definition of Ordinance No. 781 as a land use ordinance. It was filed as a land use ordinance with the intent that that was the correct process to use. He said it was more a legal issue than a planning issue. If the PC makes its intention clear, this can be conveyed to the Board.

Attachment A



Commissioner Wellner asked if there was any other way to make an exception, and stated that would influence his vote one way or the other on the issue. Mr. Back said the Board could amend the ordinance at their meeting and adopt it. However, there is a procedural risk that the ordinance might be appealed because county had not followed its own charter. Commissioner Bartholemy asked if staff wanted the PC to get into issues like hours of operation. Mr. Back said he would not give guidance to the PC on what they should do with the issue. Chair Vial said a moratorium, if imposed, would give people time to work through such issues. Commissioner Manseau said she questions the value of a moratorium. She asked if the rules would be enforced by the Sheriff’s Office, or would they be land use rules that would need to be enforced by the “meager” Land Use & Transportation (LUT) compliance staff. Ms. Cherniak said that was something that would need to be worked out. The land use issues would be addressed by LUT, but non-land use questions would need to be addressed by the Oregon Heath Authority or by the Sheriff’s Office. Commissioner Manseau said she had heard that people who want strict rules and enforcement should move to the city, because the city was better at it. She said if the county isn’t even able to enforce or implement rules against roosters, how could they enforce rules on medical marijuana facilities. Chair Vial asked it there was a motion. Commissioner Petrillo moved that Ordinance No. 781 be recommended for Board adoption with the allowance that the Director of Land Use & Transportation can make exceptions for pre-existing facilities at their discretion; Commissioner Urstadt seconded. Chair Vial restated the motion for clarity: Commissioner Petrillo moved that the PC recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 781 to the Board with the additional provision that the director is authorized to make exceptions for existing facilities at their discretion. Commissioner Bartholemy said he thinks the PC should add additional protections for people who have already made application and have spent a lot of money to move forward. Commissioner Bartholemy noted it was his understanding that the application fees are $4000 and said he thinks that is a significant sum. Chair Vial confirmed that Commissioner Bartholemy was moving to amend Commissioner Petrillo’s motion to include the statement, “and significant investment in meeting the terms of an application.” Commissioner Bartholemy said yes; Commissioner Manseau seconded the request to amend Commissioner Petrillo’s motion. Chair Vial said they would address this motion before voting on the original motion. Commissioner Wellner said his concerns are in regard to the existing facilities and the fact that most of the cities in Washington County are implementing a moratorium. If Washington County is the only place that will allow facilities then many new facilities could pop up in the

Attachment A



unincorporated area, and the Sheriff’s Office has also conveyed this concern, although this happening is unlikely. He said his main concern is for the business people the PC heard from today who have invested $70,000 in their business. His concern is not for the people who have made application and would have to wait a year. He is concerned that if a moratorium is passed, the people who are currently in business and have invested heavily, may be forced out of business. Therefore, he said he would not support the amendment to Commissioner Petrillo’s motion. Chair Vial said he also felt it was appropriate to say something other than, “they have made application” but was not sure how “substantial investment” should be defined - $70,000 or? He said he thought stating “substantial investment” was probably adequate. Commissioner Bartholemy said he understood only four facilities have made the $4000 application. He asked staff for further information as to how many facilities within the county might have made application to the state and associated investments. Ms. Kelly responded that some fully-licensed locations and all seventy-three (73) provisionally licensed locations in Oregon remain unknown to the county due to confidentiality provisions of the law – so we don’t really know how many of those might be in Washington County. She noted, however, that dispensary locations are required to be disclosed to the state when an applicant applies for a license. This implies that an applicant would likely have made substantial investments into acquiring a lease or real estate. She explained that provisional licenses, all of which are confidential, become full licenses once an applicant installs an approved security system, and that because this allows an applicant to avoid spending on a security system unnecessarily, most applicants go this route. Chair Vial noted that it looks to him that there are really only a handful of applicants in that situation, just as Commissioner Bartholemy thought. Commissioner Bartholemy said that if someone has made application and has installed a security system that he could consider that “substantial.” He said he was concerned about leaving anything open to discretion and would like to have clear lines drawn as to the PC’s intentions. Chair Vial asked Commissioner Manseau if she was in agreement with Commissioner Bartholemy’s suggested amendment. Commissioner Manseau said she has concerns about the businesses that are up and running and operating in the gray area that are probably in the application process but may not yet have a security system in place. The up and running businesses in any stage of the application process remain a concern to her. Chair Vial said that the facility he visited today is not up and running, but has a security system in place and is waiting for final approval from the state. When the proprietors called for their final approval, this ordinance was filed and the state said they would hold the approval until the county made their decision. Commissioner Manseau said this is an example of the businesses she would be concerned about. Chair Vial concurred. Chair Vial summarized Commissioner Bartholemy’s amendment, noting that an objective standard that includes the application and some investment toward operation and approval be

Attachment A



incorporated into the PC’s recommendation to the Board, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Director of Land Use & Transportation to determine what is “substantial." Commissioner Manseau withdrew her second to Commissioner Bartholemy’s amendment. Commissioner Petrillo said that she could second the motion in order to further the discussion along, but could be in opposition at the time of the vote. Commissioner Manseau then said she would leave her second in place. Commissioner Bartholemy asked if the PC should discuss a variation in the duration as to the length of time for the moratorium as it seems other jurisdictions weren’t adopting the full year. Chair Vial cautioned that amending the motion any further may lose Commissioner Manseau’s second. Commissioner Garcia wondered how far the PC is from making a recommendation to the Board that they reject it. Chair Vial asked to proceed on a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Enloe requested that the amendment motion be restated. Chair Vial said the amendment was to change Commissioner Petrillo’s discretionary standard for existing operations to an objective standard of having filed an application and made some investment in the establishment of an operation. Commissioner Manseau said she needed to go back to Commissioner Petrillo’s motion and the discretion of the Director of LUT for existing businesses or for those with licenses. Commissioner Petrillo said his motion had included “pre-existing” establishments. Chair Vial said that “pre-existing” may not include the operation that the PC has been discussing today and this was of concern to him. Chair Vial asked for roll call: Garcia Aye Enloe Nay Manseau Nay Urstadt Aye Mills Nay Bartholemy Aye Wellner Aye Petrillo Aye Vial Aye

Vote: 6-3: motion for the amendment passed. Commissioner Mills stated he would vote against any moratorium because he didn’t think changes could be crafted the way the PC hopes it could be and still have a moratorium on other businesses that don’t exist. He said he had been in support of the moratorium, but changed his mind after fully considering the issues. He said both sides had spoken in good faith and he understood the policing aspect of it. If crimes are committed, those issues can be dealt with in the legal system. Legitimate business people who are following the law and are dispensing a pharmaceutical that has been approved by the state is appropriate. He said that if the product was derived from a rare dandelion it wouldn’t be an issue, but because marijuana has a tradition

Attachment A



in this country of being “bad” it is an issue. We don’t go over the application of every Walgreen’s with a pharmacy, and they are dispensing more dangerous drugs than a marijuana dispensary would be. Commissioner Garcia said he concurs with Commissioner Mills and is against the moratorium. He said he had confidence in the Sheriff’s Office that they could handle any problems that arise. Commissioner Manseau asked if the moratorium wasn’t approved, could there still be an issue paper written and then implement land use regulations in the future. Ms. Cherniak said she believed that would be the case, but there would be a time lapse and those land use regulations would not apply to anyone who is in the pipeline now. Commissioner Manseau noted that there may be businesses that would be able to grandfather under the existing rules. Ms. Cherniak said under the state rules, yes. There are minimum standards established by the state law that facilities need to meet to get a license. Commissioner Manseau asked if it was determined, for instance, that there couldn’t be any dispensaries located in commercial zones, and in the meantime some facilities located in commercial zones, they could be able to continue to operate in the commercial zone. Ms. Kelly said staff would need to further review that issue when the subsequent ordinance is developed and those standards would be defined. It appears there are reasonable regulations that the county could place on these facilities, but the county could not exclude dispensaries from zones in which the state has authorized them. The county may be able to regulate where the dispensaries could be within those zones, but it doesn’t appear that the county could preclude them from being in state-allowed land use designations. Commissioner Manseau asked if limiting hours of operation would retro-actively apply to pre-existing facilities. Ms. Kelly was not certain if it could. Commissioner Wellner said if this ordinance had made an exemption for existing uses he would have supported it. The fact that the PC is up against the clock to make engrossment suggestions concerns him, therefore he said he is inclined to reject the ordinance. Chair Vial said that given the circumstances and the uncertainty expressed by County Counsel, he is inclined to recommend rejection of this ordinance to the Board. Commissioner Petrillo said he still thought it odd that the issue is being discussed as a land use issue - in some jurisdictions it could be under public health area or professional services regulation. He agrees it is a gray area for land use, however, it was filed as land use ordinance, and the PC can proceed. He thanked those who testified about how medical marijuana has improved their quality of life. He said he does not dispute that and does not want his motion to seem an affront. He said Ms. Lavander’s proposed facility seems to be exemplary. He said that as the Sheriff pointed out, not all of them are operating in that fashion. He said if you walk down Venice Beach you can see what the perversion of medical marijuana can look like. He said for the record that he supports medical marijuana as a legal use. He said he is supportive of those uses and endorsed the medical marijuana measure. He noted that the issue at hand is not whether the use of medical marijuana should or should not continue, but whether there should be a “resting period” to determine the best way to implement rules and regulations at the county level after the state’s decision. He said that the Sheriff’s Office noted that regulatory employees at the state are understaffed at this time and there are many details to be worked out, which

Attachment A



merits a moratorium. He said if his motion on the floor fails, he would ask that the PC consider a motion to address the concerns. Chair Vial stated he was very concerned that at some point we’re going to see the medical marijuana issue morph into recreational marijuana and the issues that the Sheriff’s Office has clearly identified as it relates to school kids, etcetera, bothers him. He hopes the last thing the county sees is an epidemic like the crack epidemic of a few years ago. He does not think that is what we are talking about here, and feels comfortable with the Sheriff’s Office strong and thoughtful efforts to protect the county. He said he cannot support the motion at this point. Chair Vial restated Commissioner Petrillo’s motion to recommend to the Board the adoption of the moratorium as proposed in Ordinance No. 781 with the amendment that it not apply to facilities that have filed and undertaken some compliance effort toward licensing. Chair Vial asked for roll call: Garcia Nay Enloe Nay Manseau Nay Urstadt Aye Mills Nay Bartholemy Nay Wellner Nay Petrillo Aye Vial Nay

Vote: 7-2; motion failed. Chair Vial said he would entertain a new motion. Commissioner Garcia moved that the PC recommend rejection of Ordinance No. 781 to the Board; Commissioner Bartholemy seconded. Chair Vial asked for roll call: Garcia Aye Enloe Nay Manseau Aye Urstadt Nay Mills Aye Bartholemy Aye Wellner Aye Petrillo Nay Vial Aye

Vote: 6-3, motion passed Note: Although the tally was given as 5 - 4, after reviewing the audio, the vote was clearly 6-3. End of deliberations. S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\Ord781_Moratorium\Staff_Reports\BCC\PC_Delib_041614_Ord781_FINAL_DRAFT.doc

Attachment A

Staff responses to Commissioner Manseau’s questions regarding Ordinance No. 781 For Planning Commission

April 16, 2014 1. Will all existing medical marijuana facilities be required to obtain state licenses?

Staff Response: Oregon Administrative Rules for Medical Marijuana Facilities (OAR 333-008-1000) say, "A person may not establish, conduct, maintain, manage or operate a facility on or after March 1, 2014, unless the facility has been registered by the Authority...” Based on this, it looks like the answer is yes, that a facility must register with the state even to maintain an existing operation.

2. If an existing medical marijuana facility does not meet all of the current state rules, will it be required to relocate to become licensed? Or will it be allowed to operate as a non-conforming use without a state license?

Staff Response: This would be a question to put to the State Health Authority. Any existing or new facility must be registered by the Health Authority, as noted in the response to your first question. From what we can see, it doesn’t look like the state is allowing exemptions from its own rules. Information on the state’s Medical Marijuana Dispensary Program web page indicates that certain applications have been rejected for reasons that include being within 1,000 feet of a school or licensed dispensary. (Link: http://www.oregon.gov/oha/mmj/Pages/index.aspx) A facility must be registered with the state to “establish, conduct, maintain, manage or operate a facility…” And their registration is suspended if there is a moratorium.

3. What happens if a new school opens up within 1000 feet of a medical marijuana facility?

Staff Response: If the moratorium is adopted, this question should be considered during preparation of an ordinance to develop code standards for Medical Marijuana Facilities. Confidentiality law and lack of a required land use review for dispensaries that lease existing space may prevent us from knowing whether one exists near a proposed school site. Whether the state’s distance requirement could be reciprocally applied to schools that come in after dispensaries may be a legal question to research at that time.

4. With adoption of the moratorium:

(1) What happens with existing medical marijuana facilities without licenses? Will they be allowed to continue to operate during the moratorium?

Staff Response: Based on the answer to your first question, it doesn’t look like unlicensed facilities will be allowed by state law to operate anywhere in Oregon, even if outside a moratorium area.

Attachment B

http://www.oregon.gov/oha/mmj/Pages/index.aspx

Response to Commissioner’s Questions April 16, 2014

Page 2 of 3

(2) What happens with existing medical marijuana facilities with licenses? Will they be allowed to continue to operate during the moratorium?

Staff Response: Based on language below, indicating that the moratorium “suspends” operation of registered facilities, it appears that they won’t be allowed to. Oregon Administrative Rule 333-008-1400 says, “For purposes of this rule, "moratorium" means an ordinance, adopted by the governing body of a city or county by May 1, 2014, that specifically suspends the operation of registered medical marijuana facilities within the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, for a period of time that does not extend past May 1, 2015.”

5. In developing new Washington County code:

(1) Will existing medical marijuana facilities be allowed to operate as non-conforming business, if they do not meet the requirements of the newly adopted Washington County code?

(2) If the location of licensed medical marijuana facilities can be "confidential," how

will Washington County be able to monitor whether a medical marijuana facility is in compliance with Washington County Code? Can the location of a new medical marijuana facility in an existing structure be subject to a Washington County permitting process that requires opportunities for public participation?

(3) Can Washington County prohibit medical marijuana facilities in unincorporated

Washington County? Are medical marijuana facilities better suited to incorporated areas?

(4) If medical marijuana facilities are located in unincorporated Washington County

is there an opportunity to create an annual "user" fee, county license or a tax to help administration costs associated with code enforcement? Will monitoring medical marijuana facilities be an issue for LUT code enforcement or just for the Sheriff's office? If an issue for LUT, will additional code enforcement officers need to be hired? If an issue for Sheriff, does that mean our ESPD tax dollars will be stretched thinner?

Staff Response: As to questions under #5, above, we don't yet know the answers since we aren't yet working on an ordinance to develop county code standards for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. The current ordinance (No. 781) relates only to potential application of a moratorium. If the moratorium is adopted, we will address the above questions over the coming year (in consultation with the Sheriff’s Office, other counties and cities, and the Oregon health Authority) as part of the process for developing county code standards for dispensaries.

Attachment B

Response to Commissioner’s Questions April 16, 2014

Page 3 of 3

In response to these questions, the Sheriff has indicated the following: “1) State law authorizes county ordinance around time, place and manner of

operation which, in my opinion, will bring additional work to some degree around ensuring ordinance compliance; and

2) As I wrote in my earlier letter, a one year moratorium will be very important

to ensure such an ordinance is thoughtfully developed and well informed regarding these new businesses in the community.”

6. What is the ITE trip generation rate for a medical marijuana facility?

Staff Response: Transportation Planning staff indicates that a stand-alone dispensary would be classified as a drugstore (Category 880) which has about 90 ADT per 1000 sq ft. A dispensary could also potentially be located within a larger shopping center (Category 820) which has 43 ADT per 1000 sq ft.

Attachment B

From: Tegan Enloe Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:14 AM To: Anne Kelly Subject: Ordinance 780

Hi Anne, Thank you for getting back to me and sorry I missed your call! I have two questions before the meeting next week.

1. The staffing report says there are 29 existing medical marijuana facilities in Oregon. I'd like some information that allows me to assess how easy these are to access for Washington County residents. Location information is fine, or if that is protected information, distance outside of Washington County would be acceptable.

2. In the letter from the Sherrif, he mentioned that he felt that these facilities should not be located near transit stops. Can we get some clarification on why?

Thank you! Tegan Tegan Enloe 503.805.8115

Attachment B

On 4/10/2014 2:59 PM, Anne Kelly wrote: Hi, Tegan. I can answer your first question (somewhat), and will forward the second one on to the Sherriff's Office. The state began licensing Medical Marijuana facilities in March of this year. As of April 4, the state had fully licensed 32 dispensaries, but had also granted 51 provisional licenses. The state updates its licensing numbers every Monday, so we'll have one more update before the Planning Commission meeting. (This web site has good details: http://www.oregon.gov/oha/mmj/Pages/index.aspx). The provisional licenses become full valid licenses as soon as the dispensary installs and gets Oregon Health Authority approval for a qualifying security system. As I understand it, some facilities wanted to avoid the expense of the security system until finding out whether they would be able to get a license. Because the state allows names and locations of medical marijuana dispensaries to remain confidential, we don't know whether any of the 54 confidential licenses or provisional licenses involve Washington County sites. Of the 29 released locations, none appear to be in Washington County. That said, dispensaries have been operating in what I often see referred to as a "legal gray area" for many years, after approval of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act in the 1998 general election. The registration/licensing requirement of House Bill 3460 didn't come along until 2013. For that reason (and because of the confidentiality rules) we aren't sure how many dispensaries actually "exist," and how many of those have or will seek a license. We are aware of just a couple of potential businesses in Washington County:

One in a small shopping center at 20595 SW Tualatin Valley Hwy. (based on a sign);and One at 10022 SW Canyon Rd. (based on a web presence).

I hope this helps. Anne Kelly, Associate Planner Washington County Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning Section 503-846-3583

Attachment B

http://www.oregon.gov/oha/mmj/Pages/index.aspx

From: Anne Kelly Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:07 PM To: Pat Garrett Cc: Tegan Enloe, Rich Vial, Jeff Petrillo; Ed Bartholemy, Matt Wellner, Liles Garcia, Anthony Mills, Eric Urstadt, Paul Schaefer; Theresa Cherniak; Andy Back; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore; Connie McCracken Subject: Ordinance No. 781

Hello, Pat. Tegan Enloe, one of our planning commissioners, has asked a question that relates to your submitted letter regarding Moratorium Ord. No. 781. Please see question #2 at the bottom of this email chain, and if you're able to respond to all on the "cc" list, that would help to keep us all on the same page. Thanks so much.

Anne Kelly, Associate Planner

Washington County Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning Section

Attachment B

From: Pat Garrett Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:16 AM To: Anne Kelly Cc: Tegan Enloe, Rich Vial, Jeff Petrillo; Ed Bartholemy, Matt Wellner, Liles Garcia, Anthony Mills, Eric Urstadt, Paul Schaefer; Theresa Cherniak; Andy Back; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore; Connie McCracken; Bill Steele; Shawn Fischer; Gene Moss; Kathy Bose

Subject: RE: Ordinance No. 781

Hi Tegan, Anne, and everyone, Excellent question, and I appreciate that public transportation may be the only way some can travel. In my letter I wrote that I believe zoning restrictions near public transportation should be considered - I do not recommend a restriction outright. First, my suggestion is grounded in our experience in the past approximately five years. Whether we responded to neighborhood complaints or through our own initiative, in every single case where we investigated a Washington County medical marijuana dispensary we found it to be a cover for illegal sales that diverted significant marijuana for black market sales and generated huge profits. These are facts borne out in numerous criminal cases. Dispensary customers were able to turn right around and sell marijuana. Public transportation stops (particularly light rail) are convenient platforms and routes to conduct sales. Zoning restrictions could be a disincentive to marketing illegal marijuana on or around public transportation. Second, part of our consideration should include what safeguards dispensaries have to limit how much marijuana a single card-holder can purchase in a specific period. For example, can a card holder buy the maximum amount allowed by the OMMP multiple times in a single day from different dispensaries? How about in a week? I do not find the answer to those questions in the OHA rules. We know from our experience most will honor the program limits for their own use; however some to many will not. Buying up marijuana over the limits is an indicator of illegal sales. Third, our consideration should be part of a discussion around what kind of community relationship do we want with dispensaries. I believe that discussion will be informed largely around locally developed regulations around time, place and manner of operation. If those regulations, in addition to OHA rules, provide sufficient safeguards, then perhaps we are not concerned about their proximity to public transportation and its many customers. Thanks again for the question. Pat Patrick Garrett Sheriff Washington County Sheriff's Office 215 SW Adams Ave Hillsboro, OR 97123-3874 Office: 503.846.2505

Attachment B

From: Mary Manseau Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:19 PM To: Anne Kelly Cc: Tegan Enloe, Rich Vial, Jeff Petrillo; Ed Bartholemy, Matt Wellner, Liles Garcia, Anthony Mills, Eric Urstadt, Paul Schaefer; Theresa Cherniak; Andy Back; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore; Connie McCracken

Subject: Re: FW: Ordinance 781

Anne, Thanks for the information below and thank you Tegan for asking the questions. As usual, more information always leads to more questions:

1. Will all existing mm facilities be required to obtain state licenses? 2. If an existing mm facility does not meet all of the current state rules, will it be required to

relocate to become licensed? Or will it be allowed to operate as a non-conforming use without a state license?

3. What happens if a new school opens up within 1000 feet of a mm facility? 4. With adoption of the moratorium:

1. What happens with existing mm facilities without licenses? Will they be allowed to continue to operate during the moratorium?

2. What happens with existing mm facilities with licenses? Will they be allowed to continue to operate during the moratorium?

5. In developing new Washington County code: 1. Will existing mm facilities be allowed to operate as non-conforming business, if they do

not meet the requirements of the newly adopted Washington County code? 2. If the location of licensed mm facilities can be "confidential," how will Washington

County be able to monitor whether a mm facility is in compliance with Washington County Code? Can the location of a new mm facility in an existing structure be subject to a Washington County permitting process that requires opportunities for public participation?

3. Can Washington County prohibit mm facilities in unincorporated Washington County? Are mm facilities better suited to incorporated areas?

4. If mm facilities are located in unincorporated Washington County is there an opportunity to create an annual "user" fee, county license or a tax to help administration costs associated with code enforcement? Will monitoring mm facilities be an issue for LUT code enforcement or just for the Sheriff's office? If an issue for LUT, will additional code enforcement officers need to be hired? If an issue for Sheriff, does that mean our ESPD tax dollars will be stretched thinner?

Thanks, Mary

Attachment B

From: Mary Manseau Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:29 PM To: Anne Kelly; Tegan Enloe Cc: Rich Vial, Jeff Petrillo; Ed Bartholemy, Matt Wellner, Liles Garcia, Anthony Mills, Eric Urstadt, Paul Schaefer; Theresa Cherniak; Andy Back; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore; Connie McCracken

Subject: Re: FW: Ordinance 781

One more question: What is the ITE trip generation rate for a mm facility? Mary

Attachment B

From: Steve L Kelley Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:54 PM To: Anne Kelly Cc: Steven Szigethy Subject: RE: Ordinance 781 - question re: Medical Marijuana Dispensary Trip Gen

Hi Anne- In my opinion a stand alone dispensary would be classified as a drugstore (880) which has about 90 ADT per 1000 sq ft. A dispensary could also potentially be located within a larger shopping center (820) which has 43 ADT per 1000 sq ft. Hope that helps. -SK

Attachment B

Testimony regarding

Ordinance No. 781

from April 16, 2014

Planning Commission

Hearing

Attachment B

Attachment B

Public comments regarding

Ordinance No. 781

received as of 4 p.m.

on April 21, 2014

Attachment C

Comments in OPPOSITION of Ordinance 781

No moratorium on dispensaries

Attachment C

Attachment C

Attachment C

angelab

Oval

angelab

Text Box

Attachment C

Comments in SUPPORT of Ordinance 781

Adopting 1-Year Moratorium on

Marijuana Dispensaries

Attachment C

Attachment C

Attachment C

lindasc

Pencil

lindasc

Pencil

lindasc

Pencil

Attachment C

Comments with

NO POSITION

regarding

Ordinance 781

Attachment C

Attachment C

Board of Commissioners Addendum Staff Report Ordinance No. 781€¦ · Board of Commissioners...

Documents

Transcript of Board of Commissioners Addendum Staff Report Ordinance No. 781€¦ · Board of Commissioners...