Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2024 0117 CCSA REG ITEM 11B SUPPLEMENTAL MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Carlene Saxton, Community Development Director BY: Doug Spondello, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director DATE: 01/17/2024 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance No. 521 Approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2023-03 to Comply with Business and Professions Code Section 26320 et seq (Senate Bill 1186 (2022)), Including Adding Chapter 8.65 (Commercial Cannabis Activity Prohibited), Modifying Chapters 17.08 (Definitions), Table 17.20.050(D), Table 17.20.060(A), and 17.20.070(A) and (D) of the Moorpark Municipal Code to Clarify the Prohibition of Commercial Cannabis Activity Throughout the City, Except to Allow Licensed Nonstorefront Retail (Delivery Only) Medicinal Cannabis Businesses as a Conditionally Permitted Use Within the M-1 Zone Subject to Location Criteria and Make a Determination of Exemption Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in Connection Therewith CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Following the publication of the staff report, the attached correspondence was received regarding this item. This memo provides some clarification and additional information regarding site-specific security and design elements that will be enabled by the medicinal cannabis delivery ordinance. The ordinance allows the City to address safety and security as conditions of approval associated with the individual Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Requiring these elements as conditions of approval will aid the Planning Commission in evaluating the findings associated with each CUP. Rather than being printed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, coordination with the Moorpark Police Department will be required as part of the CUP review of each project. Site security plans should be designed with the specific context of each site and its vicinity in mind, which makes the use of conditions of approval more favorable to general standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. A one-size-fits-all approach limits the City’s ability to adapt to unique site conditions or changes in technology. This approach is consistent with how the Moorpark Municipal Code Item: 11.B. SUPPLEMENTAL 1 Honorable City Council 1/17/2024 Regular Meeting Page 2 addresses alcohol and tobacco uses as well. Individual security requirements are evaluated as part of the CUP rather than printed in the zoning ordinance. The CUP also provides notice of the public hearing to all property owners within 1,000 of the subject parcel. The Community Development Department regularly coordinates review of sensitive uses directly with Moorpark Police Department staff trained in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). The same coordination and teamwork that the City has utilized when permitting banks, alcohol outlets and tobacco retailers will serve when reviewing potential medicinal cannabis delivery businesses. It is also worth noting that there are numerous security regulations that are imposed on these businesses by the State Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). Several of the DCC security requirements were referenced in the January 3, 2024 staff report for this item, along with the associated reference to the Government Code (beginning on Page 6 of the Agenda Item). An example of a security condition that the City could impose is included below for context: Attachments: Email dated January 16, 2024 (1) Emails dated January 17, 2024 (4) Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed use, Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a security plan by the Police Chief. The security plan shall include information regarding all proposed lighting, security cameras, access points and locking systems, and associated relevant security measures. The Police Department may direct revisions to this plan necessary to mitigate all potential security concerns associated with the proposed operation. 2 From:Scott Mosier To:City Council & City Manager Subject:Cannabis Distribution Sites Date:Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:28:09 PM Dear Moorpark City Council, As I will not be able to attend the public meeting, I wanted to share my perspective on the current regulation. While I appreciate the position that the state law puts the city in, it does seem like we have some additional options. Other cities like Thousand Oaks and Carlsbad have found ways to comply with state law while ensuring that any business within the city meets strict requirements to ensure the safety of the community around it. I strongly urge you to add more stringent requirements to the current ordinance around on-site security personnel, perimeter fencing, and 24-hour monitoring designed to deter potential theft. I disagree with the suggestion that this be used as an experiment, as well as the statements that it is unlikely to bring additional crime to the city. No one can be certain about what will happen but a quick google search of the past year brings up a significant number of marijuana business robberies up and down the state. I hope to be wrong but putting a location directly across from the busiest business center in the city seems to put Moorpark families directly in the path of any potential incidents. Please add additional safety measures to further deter potential violent crime before enacting this ordinance. Thank you for your consideration! Scott Mosier ATTACHMENT 3 From:Mark Ayoub To:Moorpark Subject:Moorpark cannabis business - NEEDS RESIDENTS APPROVAL! Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:24:00 AM Dear Moorpark, I have been made aware that moorpark is in the process of allowing cannabis business/warehouses to sprout up in our peaceful city without resident approval. Has any of the issues/crime associated with these types of businesses been vetted internally, and with the city of Moorpark and its community? I am in complete disagreement with passing an ordinance that allows such businesses to sprout up in our city. We need to take a harder look at these businesses, and assess how they will impact our city and our quality along with safety of life. Mark Ayoub Moorpark resident 35 years 4 From:Mardi Douglas To:City Council & City Manager; Moorpark Subject:Cannibus vote tonight Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 12:14:43 PM Mayor Enegren, City Manager Troy Brown and Council Members, Please delay this vote. It it is being fast tracked without enough public opportunity to respond. I am against any distribution center in Moorpark. We are being told there is no choice. However, other cities have done a better job of handling this situation. TO has a huge amount of protective regulation in place. Fillmore rejected legal cannabis and Simi hasn't rushed to allow it. This information was posted on Facebook: "::::OKAY here’s another update, did you know that the city of TO has super strict security measures for cannabis business. We didn’t enact any of these because we were told at the meeting that people don’t rob cannabis warehouses in Ventura County. I guess Moorpark has an invisible shield around us for crime, unlike TO? Don’t we deserve just as strict guidelines within our city and right down the street from OUR homes! Read section 5-29.28 regarding security. WOW, you have to go through hoops and work with the police department on security and surveillance in TO…in Moopark, not so much. WE MUST DO BETTER MOORPARK! (4) Installing 24-hour security surveillance cameras of at least hi-definition quality, on the interior and exterior of the business, to monitor all entrances and exits to and from the premises, all interior spaces within the commercial cannabis business which are open and accessible to the public, all interior spaces where cannabis, cash or currency is being stored for any period of time on a regular basis, and all interior spaces where diversion of cannabis could reasonably occur. Camera placement shall be in locations on the interior and exterior approved by the Police Chief or designee. Cameras shall record at least 30 frames per second. The commercial cannabis business shall be responsible for ensuring that the security surveillance camera's footage, both live and stored video, is captured in a method acceptable to the Police Chief or designee, is remotely accessible, and that it is compatible with the City's software and hardware. In addition, remote and real-time, live access to the video footage from the cameras shall be provided to the Chief of Police or his/her designee(s). Video recordings shall be maintained for a minimum of forty-five (45) days, and shall be made available to the Chief of Police or his/her designee(s) upon request. It shall be a violation of this chapter to fail to maintain video surveillance cameras, recording devices or other items related to compliance with this requirement. (9) Security personnel shall be on-site 24 hours a day or alternative security as authorized by the Police Chief or his/her designee(s). Security personnel must be licensed by the State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services personnel and shall be subject to the prior review and approval of the Chief of Police or his/her designee(s), with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Here is the link for TO. Chapter 29 is about the ordinances for cannabis in their city. 5 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/thousandoaks/latest/thousandoaks_ca/0-0-0-35756 " Another Facebook post: "Carpinteria saw city council corruption and black market selling. What a nice town overrun with the Big Cannabis industry. So, what does Fillmore know that we don’t? Did you know that Fillmore was the only city to reject legal cannabis? Why? Because it was all around them in the unicorporated areas of the city. They felt and witnessed the marijuana business. So now look, they are WAYYY SMARTER than Moorpark. In December in response to SB1186 they voted for a moratorium on cannabis for 45 days with the options of EXTENDING this moratorium another 10 months and 15 days. And then they could extend it another year! OUR CITY ATTORNEY SAYS THIS CAN’T BE DONE! Simi hasn’t even addressed this issue. All three of our cities have no cannabis ordinances and only Moorpark is caving? Why? The city must want it here! We are the only city in our area caving. I like our safe city. It’s safe because we safeguard it not because criminals don’t want to steal from us." Please do not vote for this distribution center, especially with no security measures. This issue needs more time! What is the rush? Thank you, 6 From:Stephanie Maio To:Moorpark; Tom Means; Chris Enegren; Daniel Groff; Renee Delgado; Antonio Castro Subject:Cannabis Warehouse - meeting to approve ordinance January 17, 2024 Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:50:14 PM Dear City Council and Mayor Enegren, I am writing to urge you to postpone the vote on the ordinance approving the medical marijuana warehouse down the street from my home. As you know, my neighborhood was very much against marijuana cultivation near homes and schools. We were very vocal about the negative effects marijuana businesses would have on our community based on our sound research. Why would the city now approve an ordinance to have it right down the street from us without getting our input? I can assure you that our minds have not changed on this matter. We fought hard for three long years for a resolution after the fact. I don’t understand the need to push this through so fast. I would have been at the last meeting but I was out of town. In fact, many people are just getting back into the swing of things after the holiday. I don’t believe any city ordinance should be voted on without proper research and resident input, especially a cash marijuana business. What surprised me the most about the last meeting was the lack of knowledge for this type of business. There seemed to be more questions than answers. Wouldn’t it be prudent to do more research so we know what kind of business we are approving? The city has an obligation to the current residents and current businesses, like the city’s major anchor stores across the street that provide the city’s sales tax revenue. We can’t afford to lose these businesses if they don’t want to be located by a marijuana distribution warehouse. As a city we learned a lot with our first cannabis go around. We learned that residents want safety and limitations on cannabis businesses. The city has not done this. I know that the law has a time limit, but we could put a temporary moratorium on this while we study the impacts to our community. This study will help us properly understand the business and its problems - and there will be problems - so we can develop a sound ordinance that protects our community and our city. We need to learn about potential crime, odors, traffic, how the business is conducted, how much cash and product could be stored, how big of a warehouse we would want to approve, how many armed guards it needs, how to ensure safe deliveries once the trucks are on the road, how many potential trucks would be on the road, how to ensure that the marijuana business is abiding by the laws, and what surrounding areas the warehouse could service. The business concept is also vague in the ordinance. What exactly is going to be allowed with this distribution center? Once this ordinance is approved it will be difficult to go back. The city should know the answers to all these questions and more, BEFORE they approve such a huge property for this warehouse. Maybe if we knew the answers, we would find that we need more restrictions and not less. Let’s just do a wait and see. Like Fillmore, we could place a moratorium on these warehouses. This is not a ban, but a temporary stay while we figure out a solid ordinance with more security measures. Who knows maybe this law will be deemed unconstitutional in the courts. A moratorium will give us time. I just don’t see the state coming in and suing us if we are working on a solution. The state would also have to sue Fillmore and Simi Valley to comply and who knows how many other cities. Do we really think the state will want to go on national tv suing cities to comply at a time when addiction and overdoses are the highest our country has even seen? Again, my neighborhood deserve’s the city’s due diligence on this matter. We had almost 300 people show up in front of this council. We are the same people now asking you to stop and pause and make common sense rules that protect us and the rest of the community. The city needs more time to address these important concerns. We want to get this right. There is too much to lose! This is the Fillmore moratorium: https://legistarweb- production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2327318/MORATORIUM_ON_MEDICAL_MARIJUANA.pdf Stephanie Maio Sent from my iPad 7 From:Joanna Carnes To:Moorpark Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, January 17, 2024 4:09:05 PM Dear Mayor, Council, and City of Moorpark. Upon reading of a possible rezoning to allow for Cannabis Warehousing within city limits, I began researching issues regarding safety and warehousing. From articles in April 2023, I found that the largest warehouse existing, at 87,000 square feet, was located in a small town in Tulare County. It's set far away from neighborhoods and businesses in a town with a population of approximately 7500. At its official opening, it demanded 12 full-time armed guards because of known safety issues at their sites. As a warehouse is a different business than a dispensary, we are unable to compare safety profiles between a large warehouse and a dispensary, so our local public safety data points might not be accurate. I'm hoping that the city has taken into account all the data related to large scale cannabis warehousing, both in increased truck traffic (an 87,000 square foot facility can have ongoing large truck traffic 24 hours a day), as well as the increased public safety resources needed for cannabis businesses, as discussed and lobbied for by store owners. This cost will ultimately come from taxpayer money and residents in addition to possible decreased property value should Moorpark's crime rate increase. I hope we are able keep large warehouses with high security risks profiles out of city limits, as we know it will likely affect us negatively. This is a not a cannabis product issue, but an existing safety concern regarding warehousing of this specific product. Thank you for your time, Joanna Carnes Moorpark Resident 8