publichearingpcmedicalmarijuananoticejune2012

7/31/2019 PublicHearingPCMedicalMarijuanaNoticeJune2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/publichearingpcmedicalmarijuananoticejune2012 1/6

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

A notice is hereby given that the City of Lacey Planning Commission will conduct a public

hearing on June 5, 2012 beginning at 5:35 PM at Lacey City Hall, 420 College St. S.E., inthe Council Chambers, for consideration of the following item:

I. Topic: An ordinance to regulate Medical CannabisCollective Gardens for patients qualified under statelaw.

II. Background: Washington voters approved initiative 692 in 1998 to provide an

opportunity for “authorized patients” to use medical marijuana as an alternative for certainchronic debilitating diseases. Currently, a “qualified patient” can grow up to 15 plants of medical marijuana for their own personal medical use; 69.51A.040 RCW; See link to statelaw: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full=true

In 2011, the legislature sent a bill (ESSSB 5073) to the Governor providing a detailed model for the state to set standards for the reviewing, licensing, production, and dispensing of medicalcannabis to “authorized patients”; see link to ESSSB 5073:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5073-S2.PL.pdf However, portions of the bill were vetoed by the Governor, based on concerns that state employees would necessarily be involved in anactivity still considered illegal under Federal law. As a result of the veto, only a portion of the bill

was ultimately adopted into law. One remaining portion was a section that provides for “collective gardens” (a collective of 10 or fewer authorized patients that are allowed tocollectively grow their own medical marijuana), codified as RCW 69.51A.085; See link to sectionon collective gardens: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full=true#69.51A.085

The burden is now on local jurisdictions to regulate these collective gardens without stateoversight or support. Conflicts between state and Federal law on medical cannabis make this adifficult and controversial topic.

To provide an opportunity for the city to study this topic the Lacey City Council adopted a

moratorium on establishment of any collective gardens until the Lacey Planning Commissioncould review the issues and prepare recommendations for the Council on what regulations needto be put in place to properly protect community interests and provide appropriate opportunitiesfor authorized patients to access medical cannabis. As part of the moratorium, the Counciladopted an interim ordinance to regulate collective gardens that has provided a basis for thePlanning Commission’s review.

III. Work-sessions and development of alternatives: To

date, the Lacey Planning Commission has held a series of work-sessions with interested citizens.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full=true

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5073-S2.PL.pdf


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full=true#69.51A.085



http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51a&full=true







The Planning Commission has undertaken a very broad review of this topic and has identified anumber of options for approaching regulation. Each of the alternatives has both positive andnegative implications. The Planning Commission has selected two options as the mostpreferred and is asking the public to comment on all of the options.

Based upon work-sessions and the public hearing, the Planning Commission will preparerecommendations for Council that identifies the various alternatives and the benefits andliabilities of each. Once the recommendations are prepared the Council will consider identifiedalternatives to determine the option that best serves the needs of the Lacey community.

The options for consideration at the hearing includebut are not limited to the following:

1. Access points for distribution of medical marijuana

to authorized patients through a Cooperative businessmodel with a “Rotating customer base”.

• What - Represents a network of collective gardens to provide increased patient accessand choice of products from multiple gardens at a centralized point.

• Positive aspect - Provides best access to patients in one downtown area.

• Negative aspect - Exploits a loophole in state law to attempt to maintain consistency withcollective garden requirements, but does not meet the intent of state law for what a

collective garden was intended to be. This results in an access point without state supportand makes regulation problematic for local jurisdictions.

• This is NOT a preferred option at this time.

2. Collective gardens limited to specific commercial andindustrial zones

• What – Collective garden with no rotating customer base.

• Positive aspect - Complies with state law.

• Negative aspect - Few patients if any are expected to be able to use this option because of

expense of commercial property and rental. This will require most all patients to find

medical marijuana through other means.

• This is a preferred option at this time.



3. Collective Gardens permitted in a patient’s home inLow Density 0-4 and 3-6 residential zones at a reducedscale and with conditions designed to mitigate impacts

• What – Collective gardens permitted in patient’s home under standards more restrictive

than state requirements to minimize impacts to adjacent land use.

• Positive aspect - Available to more patients because the collective garden becomes more

economically viable.

• Negative aspect – Personal urban agricultural activities can only serve a small percentage

of patients, standards that are more restrictive than state law further reduce opportunities,

this will require many patients to find medical marijuana through other means.

• This is a preferred option at this time.

4. Focus on personal grows• What – Rely on personal grows and organizations to help patients do this.

• Positive - No regulation necessary. This is currently happening now.

• Negative – Urban agricultural activities are not suited to all patients. This will require

many patients to find medical marijuana through other means.


5. Debra Fischer’s Model:

• What – legal collective gardens with a component to allow selling of overages at a

farmers market.

• Positive aspect – Good access for patients. • Negative aspect – Farmers market aspect is not consistent with either state or federal law.


Please see the City web site for further information with staff reports that discuss and compare the various alternatives, staff reports that review specific issues with the alternatives, and theminutes of the Planning Commission meetings.



IV. Provisions being considered by the PlanningCommission for inclusion or deletion from the existing

interim ordinance:

There are a number of important provisions being considered for addition or deletion from theordinance based upon discussion and consideration at work-session meetings. These include:

1. Distance requirements from schools:

The current interim ordinance has a distance requirement of 1000 feet from schools.The Planning Commission is considering dropping this distance requirement because a collectivegarden is a legal activity under the laws of the state of Washington and will be required to be

hidden from public view for security reasons.

2. Distance requirements from other gardens:

The current interim ordinance has a provision for a distance requirement from other collectivegardens.The Planning Commission is considering dropping this standard because land resources for thisuse will be limited. Allowing gardens to be consolidated would allow use of land resources mostappropriate for the use, such as a light industrial building complex, without forcing gardens intoareas less appropriate.

3. Residential standards:

A number of changes would be required to the current interim ordinance to provide standards if agarden is permitted in a patient’s home, including but not limited to:

• Reduced scale, limited to 4 or less patients and 18 or less plants

• The growing operation is confined within a single family detached residential structure.

• No outward indication is present outside the home, including anything visual or any smell

from the grow, to indicate a collective garden exists on site.

• The collective garden within a residence shall be considered a subordinate use to the

primary use of the home for a residence,

• Trip generation shall be limited to what is normal for a residential area.

• Recording surveillance equipment shall be installed for the garden.

• An alarm system shall monitor the collective garden.

• Dead bolts shall be installed to each entrance and exit to a collective garden.



• The operator shall obtain an electrical permit from the City for the installation or

alteration of the electrical system for the residential or accessory structure.

• A filter shall be used to eliminate smell from the grow operation.

4. General provision to have no indication of a gardento the public:

For security reasons the Planning Commission is considering a requirement that a collectivegarden must be hidden from public view with no indication, either visual or by smell, to the public that a garden exists at the site.

5. Single parcel ownership or condominium form of ownership required:

The current ordinance has a provision requiring that only one collective garden can be located onany single parcel. The Planning Commission is considering allowing a collective garden incommercial areas on individual condominium ownerships as well.

6. Regulatory involvement; Permit or no permitrequirement:

Patients state there are gardens currently operating now that are kept unknown to the public for security reasons. Requiring permits would not change this, and patients would likely continueoperation without permits to maintain privacy and to avoid providing public information on this

activity.

The Planning Commission is considering a non active regulation approach, to provide standardsfor citizens to meet, but not require a permit or inspect the activities unless a complaint isreceived. This would have the following advantages:

• Provide standards for citizens to follow when undertaking activity for a collective garden,much as urban agricultural activities are regulated.

• Not involving the city any more than necessary with activity in violation of federal law.• There would be no application, so patients would not be required to compromise their

privacy and garden locations could not be identified though a public information requestfor criminal intent.

V. Information Available:

The above summary is only an overview of the topic. For information on this item, interestedindividuals should contact the Community Development Department to discuss this topicwith David R. Burns, AICP, Principal Planner and lead staff to the Planning Commission.In addition, the city web site has all of the agendas, minutes and supporting staff reports providedto the Planning Commission during work on this topic.

The purpose of the public hearing is to give citizens an opportunity to testify to the PlanningCommission regarding the above topic. Any interested citizen may present testimony to the



Planning Commission. For pertinent information regarding this matter please contact the CityCommunity Development Department in person or by phoning 438-2637 or by email [email protected].

If you need special accommodations to participate in this meeting, please call us at(360) 491-5642 by 10:00 a.m. the day before the meeting.

Lacey Community Development DepartmentDavid R. Burns, AICP, Principal Planner

publichearingpcmedicalmarijuananoticejune2012

Documents