HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 - 1177 Ordinance Regulating Non-Medical Marijuana
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 4, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Amendments to Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal
Code Related to Non-Medical Marijuana Deliveries, Businesses and
Cultivation, and to Medical Marijuana Businesses
Prepared by: John D. Bakker, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act will be on the November
2016 ballot as Proposition 64 (“Prop. 64”). Prop. 64 would authorize a person 21 years
of age or older to possess and use marijuana and to cultivate up to six living marijuana
plants at a private residence. It allows cities and counties to prohibit marijuana
businesses and outdoor cultivation and to regulate (but not prohibit) indoor cultivation of
six or fewer plants.
In order to preserve the City Council's discretion to regulate non -medical marijuana to
the greatest extent possible, the proposed ordinance would, if Prop. 64 passes, prohibit
non-medical marijuana businesses and deliveries within the City of Dublin and would
prohibit the outdoor cultivation of non-medical marijuana. The proposed ordinance
would also regulate the indoor cultivation of up to six marijuana plant s inside a private
residence or accessory structure. The City would retain the authority to amend the
Municipal Code’s provisions regarding marijuana in the future as the industry develops.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and
adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal
Code relating to Non-Medical Marijuana Deliveries, Businesses and Cultivation and to
Medical Marijuana Businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
Page 2 of 4
DESCRIPTION:
California voters enacted the Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”) in 1996 to permit the
possession and cultivation of marijuana for limited medical treatment purposes. In
2004, the Legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) to provide
greater access to medical marijuana for qualified patients and caregivers by allowing
collective, cooperative cultivation projects known as “dispensaries.” In 2014, the
Legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Ac t (“MMRSA”),
which regulates commercial activities associated with medical marijuana and assigns
certain state agencies with regulatory tasks regarding commercial medical marijuana,
including product labeling and environmental regulation.
MMRSA, among other matters, authorizes certain state agencies to issue licenses for
commercial medical marijuana businesses but requires such businesses to obtain a
state license and any necessary permit, license, or authorization from the local
jurisdiction in which the business operates. State agencies have not begun issuing
licenses for medical marijuana businesses yet, but they anticipate doing so in 2017.
CUA, MMPA, and MMRSA allow a city to regulate or prohibit commercial medical
marijuana businesses pursuant to the police power granted to cities in Section 7 of
Article XI of the California Constitution.
In order to maintain local control over medical marijuana deliveries and cultivation,
MMRSA required a city to have explicit provisions in its municipal code. Ac cordingly, in
January 2016, the City Council amended the Municipal Code to prohibit medical
marijuana deliveries and to prohibit medical marijuana cultivation as part of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act will be on the November
2016 ballot as Proposition 64 (“Prop. 64”). Prop. 64, if adopted by the voters, would
legalize non-medical (recreational) marijuana use. Additionally, Prop. 64 would
authorize a person 21 years of age or older to plant, cultivate, harves t, dry, or process
no more than six living marijuana plants at a private residence. A city may enact and
enforce “reasonable regulations” related to such marijuana cultivation, but it may not
completely prohibit cultivation from occurring inside a private residence or accessory
structure. However, cities are authorized to completely prohibit outdoor cultivation.
Prop. 64 would also create a statewide regulatory scheme for the licensing of
businesses conducting non-medical marijuana related activities, such as cultivation,
manufacturing, testing, retail, and distribution. However, cities retain the authority to
adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate marijuana businesses, and they are
explicitly authorized to prohibit the establishment or operation of such businesses.
ANALYSIS:
In order to preserve the City’s authority to regulate non -medical marijuana activities in
the future, Staff is proposing certain amendments to Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the
Dublin Municipal Code. The proposed amendments will prohibit non-medical marijuana
businesses and deliveries within the City, and they will also prohibit the cultivation of
non-medical marijuana outdoors. Although Prop. 64 would prevent the City from
prohibiting the indoor cultivation of up to six marijuana plants in a private residence or
accessory structure, the proposed ordinance will adopt regulations for such cultivation.
Page 3 of 4
The sections of the ordinance regarding non-medical marijuana will only become
operative if Prop. 64 is adopted by the voters.
The proposed amendments would also rename the medical marijuana dispensary and
medical marijuana cultivation use types within the Zoning Ordinance, without changing
any substantive provisions related to such uses. The renaming will result in better
organization of the Zoning Ordinance.
In order to clarify that all medical marijuana businesses are prohibited in the City of
Dublin, Staff is proposing certain amendments to Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the
Dublin Municipal Code. The proposed amendments will prohibit commercial medical
marijuana businesses in every zone within the City. The proposed amendments are
intended to preserve the City’s authority to regulate such businesses in the future.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 5.58, Chapter 8.08 and Chapter 8.12 of the
Dublin Municipal Code prohibit medical marijuana businesses, non-medical marijuana
businesses, non-medical marijuana deliveries, and the outdoor cultivation of non -
medical marijuana in all zones in the City. As required by Prop. 64, the proposed
amendments would allow the cultivation of up to six marijuana plants inside a private
residence or accessory structure in any zone in the City where private residences are
allowed. The ordinance is necessary to ensure that the City retai ns maximum authority
and local control regarding marijuana related activities should California voters adopt
Prop. 64 at the November 2016 election. The proposed amendments do not alter the
City’s existing prohibitions on medical marijuana cultivation, medical marijuana
deliveries, or medical marijuana dispensaries.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
amendments on September 13, 2016. The Planning Commission discussed the
proposed Ordinance but was not able to reach a consensus on a recommendation
regarding the adoption of the proposed Ordinance as reflected in the Minutes
(Attachment 2). At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution with no recommendation regarding the City Council adoption of the
proposed amendments.
In compliance with State law, notice was posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in
at least three public places within City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and
City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the
CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from
CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) states that
CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect
on the environment. The adoption of the proposed amendments of the Municipal Code
does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, or authorize any
Page 4 of 4
activity. This Ordinance itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant
physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal
Code relating to Non-Medical Marijuana Deliveries, Businesses and Cultivation and to
Medical Marijuana Businesses
2. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2016
1
ORDINANCE NO. __ - 16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING CHAPTERS 5.58,
8.08 AND 8.12 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DELIVERIES, BUSINESSES
AND CULTIVATION AND TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 11362.5, the Compassionate Use Act of
1996 (“CUA”), adopted by the voters in the State of California, authorizes a limited
defense to criminal charges for the use, possession or cultivation of marijuana for
medical purposes when a qualified patient has a doctor's recommendation for the use of
marijuana; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq., the Medical Marijuana
Program Act (“MMPA”), was adopted by the state legislature and offers some
clarification on the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and section 11362.83
specifically authorizes cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and
regulations related to medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code section 19300 et seq., the Medical
Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (“MMRSA”), which was adopted by the Legislature
in 2015, regulates commercial activities associated with medical marijuana and assigns
certain state agencies with regulatory tasks regarding commercial medical marijuana,
including product labeling and environmental regulation.
WHEREAS, the CUA, MMPA, and MMRSA do not prevent a city from using its
constitutional authority to enact nuisance and land use regulations regarding medical
marijuana cultivation, dispensaries or commercial businesses, including the ability to
enact a prohibition on such activities.
WHEREAS, the MMRSA, among other matters, authorizes certain state agencies to
issue licenses for commercial medical marijuana businesses, and Business and
Professions Code section 19320 requires commercial medical marijuana businesses to
obtain a state license and any necessary permit, license, or authorization from the local
jurisdiction in which the business operates.
WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code section 19316 specifically recognizes that
a city may regulate commercial medical marijuana businesses pursuant to the police
power granted to cities in Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
2
WHEREAS, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act has qualified for
the November 8, 2016 ballot as Proposition 64; and
WHEREAS, if adopted by the voters, Proposition 64 will legalize the recreational use of
marijuana in California for individuals 21 years of age and older; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 64 would authorize the personal cultivation of up to six
marijuana plants in a private residence for non-medical purposes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proposition 64, the City can enact reasonable regulations for
the cultivation of non-medical marijuana that occurs inside a residence or accessory
structure, and may completely prohibit outdoor non-medical marijuana cultivation until
such time as the California Attorney General determines that the non-medical use of
marijuana is lawful in California under federal law; and
WHEREAS, the California Attorney General has not made a determination that non-
medical use of marijuana is lawful in California under Federal law; and
WHEREAS, if adopted by the voters, Proposition 64 would regulate the commercial
activity of non-medical marijuana and assign certain state agencies with regulatory
tasks regarding commercial non-medical marijuana, including product labeling and
environmental regulation; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 64 would authorize certain state agencies to issue licenses for
commercial non-medical marijuana businesses; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 64 would adopt Business and Professions Code section 26200,
which would specifically recognize that a city may regulate or completely prohibit the
establishment or operation of one or more types of non -medical marijuana businesses
licensed by the state within the city’s jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 64 would authorize certain licensed businesses to make
deliveries of non-medical marijuana, if such businesses are acting in compliance with
local law adopted pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 26200; and
WHEREAS, Sections 5.58.030 and 8.12.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code prohibit
medical marijuana cultivation in or upon any premises or property in the City; and
WHEREAS, Sections 5.58.020 and 8.12.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code prohibit
medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in or upon any premises or property in
the City; and
WHEREAS, Sections 5.58.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code prohibits medical
marijuana delivery in or upon any premises or property in the City; and
3
WHEREAS, the cultivation of medical marijuana in other cities has resulted in calls for
service to the police department, including calls for robberies and thefts, and it is
reasonable to assume that the cultivation of non-medical marijuana, the operation of
marijuana businesses of any kind, and the delivery of non-medical marijuana will have
similar impacts; and
WHEREAS, there is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the community if
marijuana businesses of any kind operate in the City or if non-medical marijuana
deliveries are made in the City or if non-medical marijuana is cultivated without
regulations in the City, and such activities may result in harmful effects to businesses,
property owners, and residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution provides a city may make
and enforce within its limits all local police, sanitary and other ordinances and
regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to exercise its authority under Article XI, Section 7
of the California Constitution and Business and Professions Code sections 9316 and
26200 to prohibit all commercial medical marijuana businesses and commercial non -
medical marijuana businesses from operating in the City of Dublin, and to also prohibit
the delivery of non-medical marijuana in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt regulations regarding the indoor
cultivation of non-medical marijuana in a private residence and to prohibit all other forms
of non-medical marijuana cultivation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to rename the medical marijuana dispensary
and medical marijuana cultivation use types, without changing any substantive
provisions related to such uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that those portions of this ordinance regarding
non-medical marijuana shall only take effect if Proposition 64 is approved by the voters
of California at the election occurring on November 8, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
proposed amendments on September 13, 2016, at which time all interested parties had
the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
amendments on October 4, 2016 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity
to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as
follows:
4
SECTION 1:
The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2:
Section 5.58.010, Definitions, of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to
include the following definition:
“Commercial medical marijuana business” means any activity licensed pursuant to the
Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, Business and Professions Code section
19300 et seq., including but not limited to medical marijuana cultivation, distribution,
manufacturing, transporting and testing.
SECTION 3:
Section 5.58.050, Operation of commercial medical marijuana businesses prohibited, is
hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows:
5.58.050 Operation of commercial medical marijuana businesses prohibited.
No person shall operate or permit to be operated a commercial medical marijuana
business in or upon any premises or property in the city.
SECTION 4:
Chapter 5.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(with text in strikeout format indicating deletion and underlined text indicating addition):
Chapter 5.58 Medical Marijuana Regulations Dispensaries and Cultivation
5.58.010 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the
following definitions shall apply:
A. “Commercial medical marijuana business” means any activity licensed pursuant
to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, Business and Professions Code
section 19300 et seq., including but not limited to medical marijuana cultivation,
distribution, manufacturing, transporting and testing
B. “Commercial non-medical marijuana business” means any activity licensed by
Business and Professions Code section 26000 et seq., including but not limited to non -
5
medical marijuana cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, retail, testing, and operation
of a microbusiness.
C. “Fully enclosed and secure structure means” a space within a building that
complies with the applicable building code, and has a complete roof enclosure
supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, a foundati on, slab
or equivalent base to which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, is
secure against unauthorized entry, and is accessible only through one or more lockable
doors. Walls and roof must be constructed of solid materials that cannot be easily
broken through, and must be constructed with non-transparent material.
D. “Indoors” means inside a fully enclosed and secure structure or within a private
residence.
EA. “Medical marijuana” is marijuana authorized in strict compliance with Health and
Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq.
FB. “Medical marijuana delivery” means the transfer of medical marijuana or medical
marijuana products from a medical marijuana dispensary to a qualified patient or
primary caregiver, as well as the use by a dispensary of any technology platform to
arrange for or facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products.
GC. “Medical marijuana dispensary” means any facility or location, whether fixed or
mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to, distributed by, or distributed to
two (2) or more of the following: a qualified patient, a person with an identification card,
or a primary caregiver qualified patients, persons with an identification card, or primary
caregivers, or combination thereof.
A medical marijuana dispensary shall not include the following uses, so long as such
uses comply with this code, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq., and other
applicable law:
1. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and
Safety Code.
3. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed
pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.
4. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division
2 of the Health and Safety Code.
5. A hospice or a home health agency, licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of
the Health and Safety Code.
HD. “Medical marijuana cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing,
harvesting, drying, curing, grading or trimming of medical marijuana.
Outdoors means any location within the city that is not within a fully enclosed and
secure structure or a private residence.
6
I. “Non-medical marijuana” means marijuana that is intended to be used for non-
medical purposes pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.1 et seq.
J. “Non-Medical Marijuana Cultivation” means the planting, growing, harvesting,
drying or processing of marijuana plants or any part thereof pursuant to Health and
Safety Code section 11362.1 et seq., as those sections may be amended from time to
time.
K. “Non-medical marijuana delivery” means the commercial transfer of non-medical
marijuana or non-medical marijuana products to a person, including any technology that
enables persons to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of non-medical
marijuana or non-medical marijuana products.
L. “Non-medical marijuana products” means non-medical marijuana that has
undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a
concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or tropical
product containing marijuana or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.
ME. “Person with an identification card” shall have the meaning given that term by
Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7.
N. “Person” means any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, association,
joint stock company, corporation, limited liability corporation, collective, cooperative, or
combination thereof in whatever form or character.
OF. “Primary caregiver” shall have the meaning given that term by Health and Safety
Code Section 11362.7.
P. “Private residence” means a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home or other
similar dwelling.
QG. “Qualified patient” shall have the meaning given that term by Health and Safe ty
Code Section 11362.7.
R. “Solid fence “means a fence constructed of substantial material, such as wood or
metal, that prevents viewing the contents from one side to the other side of the fence.
5.58.020 Operation of medical marijuana dispensaries prohibited.
No person shall operate or permit to be operated a medical marijuana dispensary in or
upon any premises or property in the city.
5.58.030 Medical marijuana cultivation prohibited.
7
No person shall engage in medical marijuana cultivation in or upon any premises or
property in the city.
5.58.040 Medical marijuana delivery prohibited.
No person shall engage in medical marijuana delivery in or upon any premises or
property in the city
5.58.050 Operation of commercial medical marijuana businesses prohibited.
No person shall operate or permit to be operated a commercial medical marijuana
business in or upon any premises or property in the city.
5.58.060 Non-medical marijuana delivery prohibited.
No person shall engage in non-medical marijuana delivery in or upon any premises or
property in the city.
5.58.070 Operation of commercial non-medical marijuana businesses prohibited.
No person shall operate or permit to be operated a commercial non-medical marijuana
business in or upon any premises or property in the city.
5.58.080 Outdoor non-medical marijuana cultivation.
No person shall engage in outdoor non-medical marijuana cultivation in or upon any
premises or property in the city.
5.58.090 Indoor non-medical marijuana cultivation.
No person shall engage in the indoor cultivation of non -medical marijuana in or upon
any premises or property in the city, except when such cultivation occurs on a premises
or property with an approved private residence. Such cultivation shall be i n
conformance with the following minimum standards:
A. The primary use of the property shall be for a residence. Non-medical marijuana
cultivation is prohibited as a home occupation.
B. All areas used for cultivation of non-medical marijuana shall comply with all
chapter of Title 7 (Public Works) of the Dublin Municipal Code, as well as
applicable law.
C. Indoor grow lights shall not exceed 1,000 watts per light, and shall comply with
the California Building, Electrical and Fire Codes as adopted by the city.
8
D. The use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas, etc.) or generators
for cultivation of non-medical marijuana is prohibited.
E. Any fully enclosed and secure structure or residential structure used for the
cultivation of non-medical marijuana must have a ventilation and filtration system
installed that shall prevent marijuana plant odors from exiting the interior of the
structure and that system shall comply with all chapters of Title 7 (Public Works)
of the Dublin Municipal Code.
F. A fully enclosed and secure structure used for the cultivation of non-medical
marijuana shall be located in the rear yard area of the parcel or premises, and
must maintain a minimum ten-foot setback from any property line and otherwise
comply with all chapters of Title 8 (Zoning Code). The yard where the fully
enclosed and secure structure is maintained must be enclosed by a solid fence
at least six feet in height. This provision shall not apply to cultivation occurring in
a garage.
G. Adequate mechanical locking or electronic security systems must be installed as
part of the fully enclosed and secure structure or the residential structure prior to
the commencement of cultivation.
H. Non-medical marijuana cultivation shall be limited to six marijuana plants per
private residence, regardless of whether the marijuana is cultivated inside the
residence or a fully enclosed and secure structure. The limit of six plants per
private residence shall apply regardless of how many individuals reside at the
private residence.
I. The residential structure shall remain at all times a residence, with legal and
functioning cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities with proper ingress and
egress. These rooms shall not be used for non-medical marijuana cultivation
where such cultivation will prevent their primary use for cooking of meals,
sleeping and bathing.
J. Cultivation of non-medical marijuana shall only take place on impervious
surfaces.
K. From a public right-of-way, there shall be no exterior evidence of non-medical
marijuana cultivation occurring on the parcel.
L. Non-medical marijuana cultivation area, whether in a fully enclosed and secure
structure or inside a residential structure, shall not be accessible to persons
under 21 years of age.
M. Written consent of the property owner to cultivate non -medical marijuana within
the residential structure shall be obtained and shall be kept on the premises, and
available for inspection by the chief of police or his/her designee.
9
N. A portable fire extinguisher, that complies with the regulations and standards
adopted by the state fire marshal and applicable law, shall be kept in the fully
enclosed and secure structure used for cultivation of non-medical marijuana. If
cultivation occurs in a residential structure, the portable fire extinguisher shall be
kept in the same room as where the cultivation occurs.
SECTION 5:
Section 8.08.020 (Definitions (A-Z)) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby
amended to add the following definitions:
Marijuana - Non-Medical Cultivation. See definition of “non-medical marijuana
cultivation” in Section 5.58.010. Marijuana - Non-Medical Cultivation must be in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.58.
Marijuana - Commercial Non-Medical Business. See definition of “commercial non-
medical marijuana business” in Section 5.58.010.
SECTION 6:
Section 8.08.020 (Definitions (A-Z)) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby
amended to add the following definitions:
Marijuana - Commercial Medical Business. See definition of “commercial medical
marijuana business” in Section 5.58.010.
SECTION 7:
The following definitions contained in Section 8.08.020 (Definitions (A-Z)) of Title 8 of the
Dublin Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows (with text in strikeout format
indicating deletion and underlined text indicating addition):
Marijuana - Medical Marijuana Cultivation. See definition of “medical marijuana
cultivation” in Section 5.58.010(D).
Marijuana - Medical Marijuana Dispensary. See definition of “medical marijuana
dispensary” in Section 5.58.010(C).
SECTION 8:
Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Non -Medical Marijuana Cultivation as an
Agricultural Use Type and to establish the zoning districts in which such use is allowed, to
read as follows:
10
AGRICULTURAL
USE TYPE
A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2
Marijuana –
Non-Medical
Cultivation (up to
6 plants)3
P P P P - - P P P P P
3 Non-medical marijuana cultivation must comply with all regulations contained in Chapter 5.58.
SECTION 9:
Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Commercial Medical Marijuana Businesses as a
Commercial Use Type and to prohibit the use in every zoning district, to read as follows:
COMMERCIAL
USE TYPE
A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2
Marijuana –
Commercial
Medical
Business
- - - - - - - - - - -
SECTION 10:
Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Commercial Non-Medical Marijuana Businesses
as a Commercial Use Type and to prohibit the use in every zoning district, to read as
follows:
COMMERCIAL
USE TYPE
A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2
Marijuana –
Commercial
Non-Medical
Business
- - - - - - - - - - -
SECTION 11:
Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is hereby amended to change the name of the “medical marijuana
cultivation” use contained in the Agricultural Use Types table and the name of the “medical
marijuana dispensary” use contained in the Commercial Use Types table, to read as
11
follows (with text in strikeout format indicating deletion and underlined text indicating
addition):
AGRICULTURAL
USE TYPE
A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2
Marijuana -
Medical
Marijuana
Cultivation
- - - - - - - - - - -
COMMERCIAL
USE TYPE
A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2
Marijuana-
Medical
Marijuana
Dispensary
- - - - - - - - - - -
SECTION 12: Severability.
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence,
word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person
or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not
affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or
parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
SECTION 13: CEQA.
This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) states that CEQA applies
only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because
the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code does not, in itself,
allow the construction of any building or structure or authorize any activity, but rather
prohibits the cultivation of medical marijuana within the City. This Ordinance , therefore,
has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly
or ultimately.
SECTION 14: Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption, except
that Sections 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of this Ordinance shall only become operative upon adoption
of Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, by the voters
of California at the election occurring on November 8, 2016. The City Clerk of the City of
12
Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City
of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of
Dublin on this day of , 2016, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
2702855.3
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 96 | Page
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE TO THE FLAG
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September
13, 2016, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Kohli called the
meeting to order at 7:12:51 PM. Chair Kohli called for a recess until a quorum could be present.
Once a quorum was present, Chair Kohli called the meeting back to order at 7:21:34 PM.
Present: Chair Kohli; Commissioners Bhuthimethee and Goel; Jeff Baker, Assistant
Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Alex Mog,
Assistant City Attorney; Robert Paley, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair,
Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Do; Vice Chair Mittan
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – NONE
3. CONSENT CALENDAR –
3.1 Minutes of the August 23, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. On a motion by
Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Goel, on a vote of 3-0-0, with Cm. Do and Vice
Chair Mittan being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the
August 23, 2016 meeting.
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – NONE
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS –
5.1 PLPA-2016-00040 Whole Foods Outdoor Display Conditional Use Permit for
Outdoor Display
Robert Paley, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Goel asked if the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be in effect year round or only at
certain times during the year.
Mr. Paley answered that the outdoor display will be used for seasonal items.
Cm. Goel felt it would be similar to a Safeway display.
Mr. Paley answered yes.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that the permit will allow
them to have displays year round.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 97 | Page
Cm. Goel asked if there is a trigger in place for reevaluation of the CUP.
Mr. Baker answered yes; Conditions of Approval #5 and #6 provides for annual review and
revocation for cause.
Cm. Goel asked if there is a time period for the CUP before revisiting the permit.
Mr. Baker answered that the CUP will be in effect unless there is problem.
Chair Kohli opened the public hearing and having no speakers, closed the public hearing.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Whole Foods Markets always have tasteful displays.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Do
and Vice Chair Mittan being absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 16 - 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR “RETAIL – OUTDOOR STORAGE” AT
AN EXISTING RETAIL STORE AT 5200 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
(WHOLE FOODS MARKET)
5.2 PLPA 2016-00054 Amendments to Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the Dublin
Municipal Code related to non-medical marijuana deliveries, businesses and
cultivation, and to medical marijuana businesses
Alex Mog, Assistant City Attorney, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Kohli asked if “local” means “city” or “county.”
Mr. Mog answered that it means City.
Chair Kohli stated that the City previously passed regulations prohibiting medical marijuana
facilities. He asked, if Prop 64 passes, would this ordinance allow non -medical marijuana
dispensaries and related entities, but would keep the ban on medical marijuana in place.
Mr. Mog answered yes; there are different state licenses. If the City wanted to create different
rules for medical and non-medical marijuana, they would have the authority to do so . He added
that the proposed ordinance does not create different rules, but prohibits both types of
marijuana businesses.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the City had already prohibited medical marijuana businesses in
December 2015.
Mr. Mog responded that the previous Ordinance prohibited deliveries and cultivation of medical
marijuana.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 98 | Page
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the Ordinance also prohibited any commercial business.
Mr. Mog answered no.
Chair Kohli reminded the Planning Commission of their discussion regarding prohibiting
deliveries and how that would affect home-bound individuals.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the language in the proposed ordinance was taken from neighboring
jurisdictions’ ordinances.
Mr. Mog answered if there was any particular language that she was concerned with.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the proposed ordinance speaks to cities being able to create
“reasonable regulations” for growing plants indoors and asked where the definition of
“reasonable” came from.
Mr. Mog responded that the initiative states that cities can adopt “reasonable regulations” and
the proposed regulations are similar to what other cities have adopted. He stated that each city
may have slightly different regulations, but typically follow the building/electric codes, and
generally prohibit anyone from using gasses in their cultivation or using large light bulbs that
could create fire danger. He felt that the proposed ordinance has fairly standard regulations.
Chair Kohli asked, if Dublin allowed non-medical marijuana businesses, would the City also
have control as to how the businesses are taxed and regulated. For example, if the City
decides to allow non-medical marijuana businesses, can the City set the conditions/regulations
and also create a City tax.
Mr. Mog responded that a special tax on medical or non-medical marijuana businesses would
need to be approved by the voters. But, the City could create the requirements that the
businesses would have to comply with.
Cm. Goel asked how the adjacent cities are handling this issue.
Mr. Mog stated that he was unsure how adjacent cities were handling Prop 64, but in response
to last year’s Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) he understood that cities
were creating similar ordinances regarding medical marijuana businesses. He stated that cities
such as Berkeley, San Leandro and Oakland were being more lenient. He stated that many
cities haven’t adopted an ordinance yet.
Cm. Goel felt that Mr. Mog was speaking about prohibiting medical marijuana business, but they
had addressed the delivery at a meeting last December.
Mr. Mog responded that the delivery of medical marijuana is prohibited , which means that any
businesses, located elsewhere, are not allowed to make deliveries in the City.
Cm. Goel asked if it would that be illegal to make deliveries in Dublin now.
Mr. Mog answered yes; a business can travel through Dublin but it is currently illegal for them to
stop and make a delivery.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 99 | Page
Cm. Goel stated that his internet search found different information regarding these types of
businesses.
Mr. Mog stated that it is possible that there are businesses that are continuing to deliver.
Cm. Goel asked if the previous ordinance also addressed outdoor cultivation of medical
marijuana.
Mr. Mog answered that the previous ordinance addressed all medical marijuana growth by
completely prohibiting it. The proposed ordinance differentiates between cultivation of non-
medical marijuana and medical marijuana because Prop 64 does. He stated that the City can
ban cultivation of medical marijuana but must allow some level of non-medical marijuana
cultivation.
Cm. Goel stated that, although the Planning Commission is dealing with the Municipal Code
changes now, he felt that the City could change the ordinance in the future.
Mr. Mog answered that the proposed ordinance will prohibit and regulate to the maximum extent
possible. But the city could, in the future, allow some type of marijuana business or allow
outdoor cultivation and the proposed ordinance preserves the city’s power to do so. He stated
that it is easier to change the ordinance in the future to allow these types of businesses rather
than trying to enact a ban.
Chair Kohli opened the public hearing and with no speakers, closed the public hearing.
Chair Kohli asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to break up the ordinance and vote
on each part separately. He felt that the City may not want to prohibit non -medical marijuana
businesses but would want to prohibit outdoor cultivation.
Cm. Mog answered yes; the Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council only
prohibit certain parts of the marijuana issue.
Chair Kohli felt that the ordinance was putting all parts of the issue together and wanted to ask
the other Planning Commissioners if they had any thoughts about breaking up the ordinance for
a vote.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that her views have not changed since December but understood the
reason for that ordinance. She stated that, at that time, the Planning Commission had
reservations about certain parts of the ordinance. The Planning Commission felt that it was a
blanket statement and too strict. She wanted to leave the door open for someone who was not
able to leave their home, for medical reasons, and felt that they should be able to get what they
need. She felt that medical marijuana deliveries should be allowed.
Chair Kohli stated that his views have not changed as well regarding the medical marijuana
deliveries. He asked if the other Planning Commissioners felt strongly about different sections
of the ordinance.
Cm. Goel asked Chair Kohli what his thoughts were on breaking up the ordinance.
Chair Kohli responded that he has a different view regarding enacting a strict ordinance and
then going back and making the ordinance looser. He felt that the City should not jump into an
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 100 | Page
ordinance because of time constraints. He stated that he has been to cities that have both non-
medical and medical marijuana dispensaries and spoken to residents and has not seen a nything
more detrimental than a liquor store. He was concerned about outdoor cultivation and what that
means. He asked if residents could grow plants on their front lawn or is outdoor cultivation
different.
Mr. Mog responded that outdoor cultivation is considered any part of a private residence that is
not inside, which could be a front yard. He stated that the proposed ordinance does restrict
outdoor cultivation of non-medical marijuana, but the City could adopt regulations for outdoor
cultivation and only allow it in the backyard, for example.
Chair Kohli asked if there are regulations restricting certain plants from being planted in the front
yard of a private residence because they may be deemed poisonous.
Mr. Mog felt that individual cities may have those types of restrictions.
Mr. Baker responded that the City of Dublin does not have any regulations of that type.
Chair Kohli felt that, if the City bans certain things from being planted on the private residence
because of their nature, that could open the door for more restrictions of private property.
Mr. Baker stated that, if the Planning Commission wanted to recommend allowing outdoor
cultivation in the back yard, but prohibit the cultivation in the front yard, that could be put into the
ordinance.
Chair Kohli agreed but wanted to ensure that there was a regulation restricting outdoor
cultivation, such as to only in allow it in an enclosed environment that was not easily accessible
to children or others. He stated that he would be open t o changing that part of the ordinance if
the other Planning Commissioners were also in favor of changing that part.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Chair Kohli but was not ready to suggest any regulations for or
against. She felt that the Planning Commission did not have enough information and that she
has not heard from any members of the public, either for or against the issue.
Chair Kohli felt that he was not ready to recommend the ordinance to the City Council and did
not feel that the City should be prohibiting anything at this time. He stated that, at this time, he
is leaning towards voting against the recommendation.
Cm. Goel felt that Chair Kohli does not like the regulations being placed on non-medical
marijuana but the Municipal Code currently has regulations regarding medical marijuana. He
asked if Chair Kohli felt that the ordinance should be more lenient.
Chair Kohli stated that he would like the restrictions to be looser on everything. He stated that, if
you look at the December vote, regarding the medical marijuana delivery, he voted against
prohibiting that, as well as Cm. Bhuthimethee. He stated that he is against prohibiting anything
at this time. He felt that, whether Prop 64 passes or not, he would rather give Dublin residents
the option to do more research and offer different ways to bring this opportunity to the City
rather than prohibiting everything and then having to go back a nd change it. He felt that, from an
economic standpoint, if adjacent cities allow non-medical and medical marijuana businesses
and, because Dublin hasn’t allowed the marijuana business, the City may lose additional
revenue opportunities.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 101 | Page
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that Dublin does not need to be in the forefront of the marijuana
ordinances. She felt that Dublin is a more conservative community. She stated that she voted
against the ordinance in December, because she wanted to show that there was opposition.
Cm. Goel felt that, if the Planning Commission recommends this ordinance to the City Council
and the City Council votes on it, the public could come forward and ask the City Council to bring
the item back for more discussion. He asked if the Planning Commission should act
conservatively and then let the public dictate how to proceed or should they be more lenient and
then have to change the ordinance. He stated that he understood Chair Kohli’s comment
regarding revenue for the City and being creative , but was unsure if this issue is the way to
accomplish that goal.
Chair Kohli felt that it comes down to an individual view on the issue. He stated that there are
numerous liquor stores and a store that sells firearms, and people have views for and against
what is good for the City and what is not. He felt that the City can tightly regulate the issue while
keeping the door open by limiting the number of businesses and the area where they will be
allowed, etc. without shutting the door at the beginning of the discussion. He also felt that there
could be residents that would come to the City Council and support the ban of non-medical
marijuana businesses. He felt that it depends on individual views on whether this would be a
good thing for the City or harmful in the long run. He stated that there were no residents at the
meeting to speak regarding the issue, either for or against, and felt that there needs to be a
better understanding of the issue. He agreed that approaching the issue conservatively, but if
the door is shut at the beginning, there are obstacles to try to open the door. He felt that the
City should wait to see if Prop 64 passes and not create an all -out ban on non-medical
marijuana businesses before that time.
Cm. Goel asked, if the Planning Commission does not recommend adopting the ordinance and
the City Council does not adopt the ordinance but waits for the vote on the proposition, can the
City Council take action after the vote.
Mr. Mog answered that there is the risk that, if the City has no regulation in place before the
vote, and then Prop 64 passes, someone could plant their six plants the next day, before the
City Council acts on the ordinance. They could then argue that they should be grandfathered in
and be able to continue.
Chair Kohli asked, since the federal regulations still do not recognize outdoor cultivation, could
the City call the FBI and put a stop to it. He felt that the City is protected under the federal law.
Mr. Mog answered that the Department of Justice has issued a guidance that states their priority
for enforcement will be marijuana cultivation and delivery businesses that are not in compliance
with state law.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that there may be individuals that would not want to come out publicly
and let their views be known on this issue and felt that most people would be more on the
conservative side.
Chair Kohli felt that this is a substance that could cause harm, depending on how it is used and
how it affects the user. He was concerned about imposing a prohibition without complete
understanding of the issue.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 102 | Page
Cm. Goel asked if Chair Kohli felt that if they were lenient on the issue that the various “grow
houses” that have been found in Dublin would go away.
Chair Kohli felt that the City could avoid some of the illegal activities by regulating the
businesses and mentioned the Prohibition era. He felt that the ordinance was too much of a
blanket prohibition and stated that he would vote no on recommending this ordinance to the City
Council.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that, out of necessity, the Planning Commission needs to recommend the
ordinance to the City Council because she was not ready to propose anything different at this
time. She commended Staff for bringing this issue to the Planning Co mmission’s attention so
that the City can be prepared before the November vote. She felt that, from the polling that she
has seen, Prop 64 has a good chance of passing and the City should be ready with an
ordinance.
Cm. Bhuthimethee made a motion to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance amending Chapters 5.58, 8.08 and 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
Having no second to the motion, the motion failed, and there was a discussion regarding how to
proceed.
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission could let the motion
die for failure to have a second.
Chair Kohli asked if the motion dies, can the Planning Commission continue their discussion.
Ms. Faubion stated that an affirmative recommendation, whatever it is, requires three votes and
the other recommendation could move forward on a lesser vote; perhaps this motion didn’t have
the second but felt that there could be another motion that might garner the three votes for an
affirmative recommendation.
There was a discussion regarding how to vote on the ordinance and if the Planning Commission
wanted to not recommend the ordinance to the City Council but recommend a study of adjacent
cities with the pros and cons of having this type of business in their community, as well as
economic considerations. They also discussed continuing the item in order to gather more
information and to have a discussion with the full Planning Commission before making a
recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Baker stated that one of the roles of the Planning Commission is to make recommendations
to the City Council in order to help them make a decision. He felt that the Planning Commission
has raised some valid and thoughtful issues. He mentioned that the Planning Commission
could continue the item for further study, and the other option would be to express their
reservations about the item and recommend that the City Council study the issue before making
a decision. This would allow the City Council, as the decision makers, to decide whether they
think it is important to have an ordinance in place before the law becomes effective ; or the City
Council could direct Staff to complete additional studies . The City Council could then direct
those studies to be done and remand the item back to the Planning Commission, that way the
City Council can decide if they want to hold the item for more study or they want to have an
ordinance in place and do the study later.
Cm. Goel mentioned an item that was continued previously and the outcome was a better
project.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 103 | Page
Chair Kohli felt that Mr. Baker made some good points but the strongest recommendation is an
official vote. He felt that it would be better to bring the item back to the Planning Commission in
order to have a full discussion of the issue.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the item that was continued previously was a project brought
forward by a developer who was footing the bill for staff’s time. She added that this is the City’s
item which means the City foots the bill for a continuation.
Mr. Baker answered yes; this is a City of Dublin ordinance.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the ordinance was sufficient to recommend adoption to the City Council.
There was a continued discussion regarding how to move forward with the ordinance.
The Planning Commission’s issues regarding recommending this Ordinance to the City Council
are as follows:
Chair Kohli felt that the Ordinance was too restrictive and could cause the City to lose out on
needed revenue. He also wanted to have more information regarding adjacent cities and
how they are dealing with Prop 64.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was in favor of the Ordinance but would also like more information
regarding adjacent cities and how they are dealing with Prop 64.
Cm. Goel was in favor of more public input and a study of adjacent cities’ ordinances before
acting on the ordinance.
Mr. Baker stated that, if there is a desire by the City Council to have an Ordinance in place by
the time Prop 64 either passes or not, the vote must take place this evening in order for the
Ordinance to take effect before the election. He felt that the Planning Commission has
concerns about how the Ordinance is written. He stated that, one way to let the City Council
know their issues would be to have a “no recommendation” which is an affirmative
recommendation but a stance taken and then list the reasons why. The City Council would then
have that information when they make their decision.
Cm. Goel asked why it took Staff so long to bring this item to the Planning Commission if Staff
knew about it earlier, thus creating an urgency to move on the item.
Mr. Baker answered that Prop 64 has not passed yet ; therefore, we do not know if the law will
become effective. He stated that the City is moving forward proactively in making some
recommendations. He stated that the Ordinance is written as a restrictive Ordinance to secure
the City’s rights to regulate. If Prop 64 passes, the City Council could direct Staff to do a
thoughtful analysis which would include community outreach, studies and all the things the
Planning Commission was concerned with which are all part of creating an ordinance that
affects a lot of people. He felt that there is not enough time for that to happen before the
election. He stated that this Ordinance would secure the right that nothing happens until a
thoughtful analysis has been completed.
Cm. Goel asked if one of the recommendations could be an approval pending the results of
further study within a certain amount of time after the passing of Prop 64.
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 104 | Page
Mr. Baker stated yes.
Cm. Goel stated that he would like the three commissioners present to vote in the affirmative ,
understanding that the issue will be revisited based on the Planning Commission’s
recommendation. He felt that the City Council could say that they accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation and take action, but not bring it back to the Planning
Commission until they deem it necessary. He felt that would m ake it clear that the Planning
Commission is not comfortable taking action, but doing so out of respect to move forward with
the Ordinance.
Chair Kohli did not agree and felt that the City does not need to put these measures in place at
this time. He felt that the Planning Commission should not be rushed to a decision and that the
City does not need to put the Ordinance in place before Prop 64 is voted in. He felt that the City
has time to understand how the issue will evolve, but by passing the Ordinance as is, the
Planning Commission is basically “rubber stamping” this Ordinance and telling the City Council
to put the “prohibition” in place.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that, if Prop 64 passes, the next day some people might
plant their six plants and then, if the City decides to change the ordinance to make it more
lenient, then there is a problem. She felt that it would be difficult for the City to deal with that
issue. Basically saying that these people are allowed to keep their six plants but everyone else
missed their window and are not allowed.
Chair Kohli agreed but felt that the City is being a bit paranoid about the issue and did not feel
that there will be a lot of people planting their six plants the day after Prop 64 passes. He felt
that if the voters of California are going to pass Prop 64, and if it passes with an overwhelming
majority, why should Dublin ignore the majority and prohibit non -medical marijuana businesses
from our City.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the Ordinance allows the six plants to be grown inside a
residence.
Chair Kohli responded that if the City passes this Ordinance they will not be allowed to plant
outdoors.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if he was referring to commercial cultivation, because people could
plant their six plants indoors.
Chair Kohli responded that, if the Ordinance passes, no one will be allowed to cultivate
outdoors. He felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that if Prop 64 passes people will begin
to plant the next day and the City Council could control that by adopting this Ordinance.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Chair Kohli wanted to allow outdoor cultivation.
Chair Kohli stated that he was concerned about outdoor cultivation and the safety of having it
growing in front yards. He felt that, fundamentally, the City should not prohibit non-medical
marijuana businesses yet. He felt that there could be ways to regulate outdoor cultivation in the
future, rather than prohibiting it now and then having to repeal the prohibition. He felt that the
City should wait to see what happens with Prop 64. He felt that they were viewing the issue
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 105 | Page
from both sides and each have sound arguments but felt that the issue will not be resolved
tonight.
Mr. Baker felt that the Planning Commission does not have a consensus on a recommendation
and that should be relayed to the City Council through the minutes and through a resolution
which would state that this is a complicated issue and the Planning Commission is not able to
recommend adoption without more information.
Chair Kohli stated that he is in favor of continuing the item.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is comfortable with a vote to show where the Planning
Commission stands which would be “no recommendation.”
Ms. Faubion stated that the Planning Commission requires three votes for an affirmative vote on
the Ordinance. If the Planning Commission wants to send a “no recommendation” with a list of
the issues, that would move forward with a 2-1 vote.
Cm. Goel stated that he would be in favor of ma king a recommendation to the City Council of
“no recommendation.” He felt that he needed more information in order to make an affirmative
recommendation.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 2-1-2, with Cm. Do
and Cm. Mittan being absent, to make a recommendation to the City Council of “no
recommendation,” due to the lack of a consensus among the Planning Commission, with
reference to the minutes to summarize the important issues related to the Ordinance, the
Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION 16-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING “NO RECOMMENDATION” TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 5.58, 8.08 AND 8.12 OF THE
DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DELIVERIES, BUSINESSES
AND CULTIVATION AND TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE
7. NEW BUSINESS - NONE
8. OTHER BUSINESS –
8.1 Mr. Baker mentioned that the current appointments to the Planning Commission of
Cm. Do, Chair Kohli and Cm. Goel will expire at the end of this year. He stated
that the City Clerk will be sending out information soon and, if they are interested
in being on the Planning Commission again, they will need to apply. The
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission September 13, 2016
Regular Meeting 106 | Page
application period is October 24th through November 18th and the Mayor will then
make recommendations at the December 20th City Council meeting.
8.2 Mr. Baker stated that the next Planning Commission meeting will be October 11th
9. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 8:42:40 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:\MINUTES\2016\PLANNING COMMISSION\09.13.16 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx