AgdaPkt 2011-10-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 12 3. Allow the existing moratorium to expire and take no further action. This alternative will likely result in significant difficulty in the administration of applications for establishing medical marijuana distribution facilities. 4. Do not enact the proposed ban, but instead direct staff to prepare an ordinance to allow a limited number of inedical marijuana distribution facilities establishing distancing requirements between facilities and sensitive uses; limiting facilities to specific zoning districts and/or land use designations; and incorporating specific public safety and enforcement criteria as well as an appropriate administrative review process. FISCAL IMPACT A permitting program would be the most costly to implement and maintain and would consume significant staff resources from the Planning Division and the Police Department. The City may enact permit fees to recover the costs of staff time to implement a permitting program; however, fees must be reasonably related to the costs incurred by the City in performing these services, and it could be difficult initially to estimate the staff resources necessary to license and monitor these businesses. It is possible that the City could institute a local tax on medical marijuana distribution facilities. Such a tax could be administered similarly to a Business License annual fee, for example. To establish a tax would require 2/3 voter approval of a ballot measure. A ban on medical marijuana distribution facilities would not be costly unless the ban is challenged in court. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061 (b)(3), this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. .�� JILL EKAS, PLANNING MANAGER G�'�� WILLIAM EKERN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �� ROBERT B. BELL, CITY MANAGER