HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.D 11/07/2016Agenda Item #5.D
DATE: November 7, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Through City Manager
FROM: Eric Danly, City Attorney 0
SUBJECT: Consideration and Possible Adoption of An Urgency Ordinance
of the City of Petaluma Making Findings and Establishing a
Temporary Moratorium on Nonmedical Marijuana Uses.-in the
City, to Become Effective Immediately Pursuant to,Califomia
Government Code Section 65858
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Urgency Ordinance of the City of
Petaluma Making Findings and Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Nonmedical
Marijuana Uses in the City, to Become Effective Immediately Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65858,
BACKGROUND
In 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) which, among other things,
makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess, or use marijuana in the United
States. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law as it exists today.
Since 1996, when California voters approved Proposition 215 entitled "The Compassionate
Use Act of 1996" or "CUA," which is codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5,
et seq., there has been ongoing litigation and court rulings and further regislative activity
regarding the status of medical marijuana in California and the ability of local government
agencies to regulate medical marijuana and its community impacts. In Petaluma, the City has
adopted local regulations intended to work in conjunction with state law to minimize negative
community impacts of medical marijuana. Following is a brief synopsis of state law and City
regulatory activity to date related to medical marijuana.
When Proposition 215 was enacted, it anticipated local legislation and did not condone
nonmedical marijuana use: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede
legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to
condone the diversion of marijuana for non - medical purposes." (Health and Safety Code
Section 11362.5(b)(2)).
In January, 2004, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 420, known as the Medical Marijuana
Program ( "MMP "), codified in Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 through 11362.83.
The MMP establishes the term "qualified patient," defined as a person whose physician has
recommended the use of marijuana to treat a serious illness or any other illness for which
marijuana provides relief. (Health and Safety Code, §11362.7(f); §11362.5(b)(1)(a)) The
MMP also establishes the term "primary caregiver," defined as a person who is designated
by a qualified patient and "has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or
safety" of the patient. (Health and Safety Code, § 11362.7(d); § 11362.5(e)) Qualified
patients and primary caregivers for qualified patients have immunity from state criminal
liability for possession of marijuana. (Health and Safety Code, §11362.7(e))
On January 21, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2269 N- ,C.S., adding Chapter
10.15 to the Municipal Code, to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. The
ordinance was enacted to protect residents from the secondary impacts associated with
dispensaries, such as illegal sales, loitering, fraud, assaults and other crimes, and to prevent
increased demands for police response resulting from those activities. Chapter 10.15 did
not address marijuana cultivation.
Following enactment of the CUA and MMP, there was extensive litigation regarding the
extent to which cities and counties could regulate medical marijuana. In 2013, City of
Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., (2013) 56 Ca1.4th
729, held that cities have the authority under their land use and police powers to restrict,
limit or entirely exclude facilities that distribute medical marijuana and to enforce such
policies by nuisance actions. In the same year, Maral v. City of Live Oak, (2013) 221
Cal.AppAth 975 held that cities have the authority to ban marijuana cultivation within their
boundaries. It is now settled that California cities have the authority to ban both medical
marijuana dispensaries and cultivation under the law as it exists today.
AB 243, AB 266, and SB 643, collectively entitled the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act ( "MMRSA "), were enacted in 2015 and created a statewide regulatory and
licensing program covering a broad range of medical marijuana related activities, including
cultivation, commercial cannabis activity, transport, delivery, and physician
recommendations of medical marijuana. AB 243, part of the MMRSA regulating medical
marijuana cultivation, prohibits in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.777, subdivision
(b), cultivating medical marijuana without first obtaining both a permit from the local
jurisdiction in which the cultivation will occur, and a state license. Subdivision (g) of
Section 11362.777 creates an exception from state licensing requirements for qualified
patients cultivating marijuana in areas that do not exceed 100 square feet for their personal
medical use and not for sale, distribution, donation, or provision to any other person or
entity, and for primary care givers cultivating marijuana in cultivation areas that do not
exceed 500 square feet exclusively for the personal medical use of not more than five
specified qualified patients for whom they act as primary caregivers without compensation
except as permitted by law.
The exceptions in the MMRSA for qualified patients and primary caregivers was important
for local jurisdictions like Petaluma that considered banning medical marijuana cultivation,
subject to an exception for qualified patients and primary caregivers, because it excuses
eligible qualified patients and primary caregivers from obtaining state cultivation licenses,
which they would be unable to obtain without a local permit. Section 11362.777 also
2
provides in subdivision (g) that the exemption in that section does not limit or prevent local
jurisdictions from exercising their police authority under Section 7 of Article XI of the
California Constitution. In other words, the MMRSA expressly permits local agencies like
Petaluma to use their police power to prohibit local cultivation of medical marijuana,
regardless of the exception for qualified patients and primary caregivers.
AB 266, part of the MMRSA regulating commercial cannabis activity such as
manufacturing, distributing, processing, storing, testing, labeling, transporting, or selling
medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, provides in Business and Professions Code
Section 19315, Subdivision (a), that nothing in that chapter supersedes or limits existing local
authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement of local zoning requirements or local
ordinances, or enforcement of local permit or licensing requirements. AB 266 provides in
Business and Professions Code Section 19340, subdivision (a) that medical marijuana
deliveries as defined can only be made by a dispensary and in a locaLiprisdiction that does
not explicitly prohibit it by a local ordinance. SB 643, part of the MMRSA regulating
physician cannabis recommendations and commercial cannabis activity provides in
subdivision (a) of Section 19319 of the Health and Safety Code that qualified patients and
primary caregivers as defined are exempt from the licensing requirements under that chapter.
Together these MMRSA provisions provide a legal basis for the City to ban commercial
cannabis activity and marijuana delivery while excluding from the ban delivery to qualified
patients and primary caregivers that is consistent with the ordinance.
After a series of stakeholder meetings, a workshop, and Council direction to staff, staff
prepared an ordinance intended to exercise the local authority recognized in the MMRSA
and in the medical marijuana case law to ban within the City of Petaluma most medical
marijuana - related activity, including dispensaries, cultivation, commercial cannabis activity
and delivery, subject to specified exceptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers. The
limited exceptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers were intended to work in
conjunction with exemptions in the MMRSA so that qualified patients and primary
caregivers in Petaluma can cultivate and receive delivery of sufficient medical marijuana
without violating local or state law and without creating nuisance conditions in the City
that create safety risks and diminish the quality of life for all citizens. The final version
of the ordinance excluded from the City's cultivation ban limited indoor and outdoor
cultivation for qualified patients and primary caregivers, and also prohibited commercial
cannabis activity and delivery in the City (subject to an exception for delivery from a
dispensary outside the City to qualified patients and caregivers within the City where
specified additional requirements are met). The new City medical marijuana regulations
adopted in response to the MMRSA are contained in Chapter 10.15 of the Petaluma Municipal
Code.
DISCUSSION
Proposition 64, "The Adult Use of Marijuana Act" or AUMA, has qualified for the November
8, 2016 California general election ballot. If approved by the voters, the AUMA will legalize
nonmedical use of marijuana for purposes of California law by persons 21 years of age and
older, including smoking or ingesting marijuana and marijuana products, possession,
processing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of age or
older, without any compensation, 28.5 grams of marijuana, or 8 grams of concentrated
3
marijuana, including as contained in marijuana products, and possession, planting, cultivating,
harvesting, drying or processing up to six living marijuana plants for personal use. In addition,
if approved, the AUMA will create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the
commercial cultivation, testing and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacture
of nonmedical marijuana products. It is important to note that if approved by the voters,
Proposition 64 will take effect November 9, 2016.
Chapter 10.15 of the Petaluma Municipal Code governing medical marijuana uses in the City
does not address nonmedical marijuana. If Proposition 64 were to be adopted without the City
taking any regulatory action regarding nonmedical marijuana, the public health, safety and
welfare concerns which the City's medical marijuana regulations are intended to address would
not be addressed regarding nonmedical marijuana. The City can avoid this result by adopting
an interim urgency ordinance under Section 65858 of the Government Code and declare to the
extent permitted by Proposition 64 that nonmedical marijuana uses are not permitted uses in
the City. Adoption of an interim ordinance regarding nonmedical marijuana uses in the City
can prevent new, nonmedical marijuana uses in the City from being established while the City
considers whether and to what extent Proposition 64 warrants new Citymarijuana regulations.
Adoption of interim ordinances under Government Code Section 65858 does not require the
procedures that apply to most zoning legislation: noticed hearings before the Planning
Commission and the City Council. However, prohibiting uses that may conflict with future
land use regulations under Section 65858 does require adoption of an ordinance by a four fifths
vote of the Council, and the initial interim ordinance expires 45 days from its adoption.
Interim ordinances must contain legislative findings of a current and immediate threat to the
public health, safety or welfare that the ordinance addresses. Interim ordinances may be
extended twice, for a total duration of not more than a total of two years. Extensions of the
initial interim ordinance also require passage by a four fifths vote, as well as noticing and
public hearings as for zoning amendments.
The attached interim ordinance regarding nonmedical marijuana uses in Petaluma includes
legislative findings of urgency required under Section 65858. The interim ordinance also
broadly prohibits nonmedical marijuana uses in all City zones, subject to a savings provision
intended to avoid possible preemption by the AUMA. The interim ordinance would take
immediate effect if adopted by an affirmative vote of six City Council members in accordance
with Section 65858 and City Charter requirements. The interim ordinance will expire 45 days
after its adoption unless renewed in accordance with Section 65858 before that time. The
interim ordinance has also been prepared to automatically repeal in them vent Proposition 64
fails to pass.
FISCAL IMPACT
The primary anticipated fiscal impacts of the proposed interim ordinance are staff time
preparing it, and renewing it if it is adopted, and concerning preparation of potential new
nonmedical marijuana regulations the Council may consider enacting, should Proposition 64
pass.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Interim Ordinance
V,
ATTACHMENT 1
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA
MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON NONMEDICAL MARIJUANA USES IN THE CITY,
TO BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
PURSUANT TO•CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1, Findings
A. In 1996 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, codified as
Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq, and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of
1996" ( "CUA ").
B. The intent of Proposition 215 was to enable persons who are in need of medical
marijuana for specified medical purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specified
circumstances.
C. On January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, known as the "Medical Marijuana Program,"
codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 through 113 62.83, ( "MMP ") became
effective to clarify the scope of the CUA.
D. The CUA is limited in scope in that it provides a defense from criminal
prosecution under state law for possession and cultivation of marijuana for qualified patients and
their primary caregivers; establishes a statewide identification program and affords qualified
patients, persons with identification cards and their primary caregivers an affirmative defense to
certain enumerated criminal sanctions that would otherwise apply to transporting, processing,
administering or distributing marijuana.
E. Neither the CUA nor the MMP requires or imposes an affirmative duty or
mandate upon local governments, such as the City of Petaluma, to allow authorize or sanction
the establishment and the operation of facilities cultivating, distributing, or processing medical
marijuana within their boundaries.
F. On May 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in City of
Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., (2013) 56 CalAth 729,
which held that neither the CUA nor the MMP expressly or impliedly preempts the authority of
California cities and counties, under their traditional land use and police powers, to restrict, limit,
or entirely exclude facilities that distribute medical marijuana, and to enforce such policies by
nuisance actions.
Ordinance No. N.C.S.
G, On November 26, 2013, the Third District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in
Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 975, which held that 4he CUA and the MMP
do not preempt a city's police power to prohibit the cultivation of all marijuana within that city.
H. During the 2014/2015 legislative session, the Legislature enacted three bills
regulating medical marijuana collectively entitled the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act" ("MMRSA"): AB -243, AB- 266, and SB -643.
I, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.777, which is part of the MMRSA,
provides in subdivision (b) that cultivation of medical marijuana prior to obtaining both a permit
from the city, county or city and county in which the cultivation will occur and a state license is
prohibited.
J. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.777(g) provides that that section does not
apply to qualified patients cultivating marijuana pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
11362.5 in cultivation areas that do not exceed 100 square feet for their personal medical use and
not for sale, distribution, donation, or provision to any other person or entity, or to primary care
givers cultivating marijuana pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 in cultivation
areas that do not exceed 500 square feet exclusively for the personal medical use of not more
than five specified qualified patients for whom they are the primary carQgiver within the meaning
of Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 without compensation except in full compliance with
Health and Safety Code section 11362.765, subdivision (c).
K. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.777(g) further provides that the
exemptions from the requirements of that section do not limit or prevent a city, county or city
and county from exercising its police authority under Section 7 of Article XI of the California
Constitution.
L. Business and Professions Code Section 19340(a), which is part of the MMRSA,
provides that medical marijuana deliveries can only be made by a dispensary and in a city,
county or city and county that does not explicitly prohibit it by a local ordinance.
M. On December 1, 2015, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in
Kirby v. County of Fresno, (2015), which upheld a county ordinance banning medical marijuana
dispensaries, cultivation and storage, but invalidated the ordinance's classification of local
medical marijuana cultivation as a misdemeanor, holding that section 113662.71 of the MMP
preempts local criminalization of medical marijuana cultivation.
N. Although the court in Kirby v, County of Fresno invalid-ate`d on preemption
grounds the local criminalization of medical marijuana cultivation as a misdemeanor, the court
noted that local prosecution of the failure to abate a public nuisance involving medical marijuana
cultivation is not preempted, because the Legislature recognizes the failure to abate a public
nuisance after notice as a separate crime.
O. In 2007 the Petaluma City Council adopted Chapter 10.15 of the Petaluma
Municipal Code prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in the City to promote the public
health, safety and welfare and protect citizens from impacts associated with medical marijuana
Ordinance No, N.C.S.
dispensaries, including, but not limited to, increased public consumption of marijuana and the
potential for increased marijuana DUIs, illegal resale of marijuana obtained at low cost from
dispensaries, loitering, fraud in obtaining or use of medical marijuana identification cards,
robbery, assaults and other crimes, and increased demands for police response resulting from
activities at medical marijuana dispensaries reducing the ability of the City's public safety
officers to respond to other calls for service. At the time the Petaluma City Council adopted
Chapter 10, 15, some cities that permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries
experienced crimes, such as burglary, robbery and sale of illegal drugs in the areas immediately
surrounding such medical marijuana dispensaries.
P, Marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled Substances
Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq., which makes it unlawful for any person to cultivate, manufacture,
distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana for
any reason, even though the CUA, MMP, and MMRSA decriminalize specified use of medical
marijuana by specified persons. The United States Supreme Court clarified in Gonzales v. Raich
that the provisions of the federal Controlled Substances Act apply to the personal medical use of
marijuana in California.
Q. The City of Petaluma Police Department, City residents and other public entities
have reported adverse impacts from the outdoor cultivation of marijuana within the City,
including offensive odors, increased risk of trespassing and burglary, and acts of violence in
connection with the commission of such crimes or the occupants' attez_npts to prevent such
crimes.
R. The strong odor of marijuana plants, which increases as the plants mature, is
offensive to many individuals and creates an attractive nuisance, alerting people to the location
of valuable marijuana plants and creating an increased risk of crime.
S. Petaluma has experienced structure fires and building damage threatening the
quality and safety of City neighborhoods as a result of indoor marijuana cultivation within the
City, with 7 such incidents occurring between December, 2010 and May, 2015, and a total of 33
structure fires within the Sonoma County area have been attributed to illegal indoor marijuana
cultivation operations.
T. Petaluma has experienced property loss valued at approximately $344,000, and
the Sonoma County area has suffered property loss estimated at approximately $1,693,000 as a
result of commercial cannabis activity, due to such causes as substandard wiring and electrical
systems, grow lights, and use of butane to illegally extract hash oil.
U. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare, on January 25, 2016, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No, 2563 N.C.S. to add to then - existing provisions in Chapter 10.15
of the Petaluma Municipal Code prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries new provisions
prohibiting cultivation, commercial cannabis activity, and delivery of marijuana within the City,
subject to specified exceptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers.
Ordinance No, N.C.S. 7
V. By adoption of Ordinance 2563 N.C.S the City Council intended that nothing in
Chapter 10.15 of the Petaluma Municipal Code governing medical marijuana be deemed to
conflict with federal law as contained in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 841,
by permitting, or otherwise authorizing, any activity which is lawfully and constitutionally
prohibited under that law. Mindful of the fact that marijuana possession and use is prohibited
under federal law and partially decriminalized under state law, it was the Council's intention that
nothing in Chapter 10.15 be construed, in any way, to expand the rights of anyone to use or
possess marijuana under state law; engage in any public nuisance; violate federal law, or engage
in any activity in relation to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is
otherwise illegal.
W. Proposition 64, "The Adult Use of Marijuana Act" or AUMA, has qualified for
the November 8, 2016 California general election ballot. If approved by the voters, the AUMA
will, for purposes of California law, become effective November 9, 2016, legalize nonmedical
use of marijuana by persons 21 years of age and older, including smoking or ingesting marijuana
and marijuana products, possession, processing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining or giving
away to persons 21 years of age or older, without any compensation, 28.5 grams of marijuana, or
8 grams of concentrated marijuana, including as contained in marijuana products, and
possession, planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying or processing up to six living marijuana
plants for personal use. In addition, the AUMA, if approved by the voters, will create a state
regulatory and licensing system governing the commercial cultivating, testing and distribution of
nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacture of nonmedical marijuana products ( "nonmedical
marijuana uses ").
X. The City of Petaluma medical marijuana regulations codWed -in Chapter 10.15 of
the Petaluma Municipal Code do not address or regulate in any way nonmedical marijuana, such
that if the AUMA is enacted and in the absence of local regulation, many of the same public
health, safety and welfare risks addressed by the City's medical marijuana regulation will exist,
unregulated, with respect to nonmedical marijuana.
Y. The City Council finds that it is necessary to study the possible adoption of
amendments to the City's Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance so as to address public health,
safety, and welfare risks related to potential nonmedical marijuana uses in Petaluma that are
presented by the potential passage of the AUMA.
Z. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that issuing permits, business
licenses or other applicable licenses or entitlements providing for the establishment of
nonmedical marijuana uses in Petaluma, and /or that allowing the establishment of nonmedical
marijuana uses in Petaluma through failure to regulate concerning such uses, prior to the
completion of the City's study of the potential impact of such uses, poses a current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and that therefore a temporary
moratorium on establishment of nonmedical marijuana uses in Petaluma, to the maximum legally
permitted extent, is necessary.
Ordinance No, N.C.S. 8
Section 2. Imposition of Moratorium
A. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Petaluma under Government
Code Section 65858 and other applicable law, including the AUMA, from and after the effective
date of this ordinance, to the maximum legally permitted extent, nonmedical marijuana uses in
Petaluma shall not be permitted uses in any City zoning district. No permit or any other
applicable license or entitlement for nonmedical marijuana uses, including, but not limited to, the
issuance of a business license, shall be approved or issued for the establishment or operation of
nonmedical marijuana uses.
B. The prohibition against nonmedical marijuana uses, and granting of permits,
licenses or other entitlements for nonmedical marijuana uses pursuant to this ordinance is not
intended to apply and shall not apply to any nonmedical marijuana uses regarding which the
AUMA preempts or otherwise precludes local prohibitions, including, but not limited to,
personal indoor cultivation pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.1(a)(3) and
11362.2.
C. Subject to the savings provision in Section 2(b) of this ordinance, nothing in this
ordinance is intended to or may be construed to relax, suspend, waive or amend any building,
fire safety or other codes in effect in the City.
D. For purposes of this ordinance, "nonmedical marijuana uses" refers to nonmedical
use of marijuana by persons 21 years of age and older as authorized for purposes of California
law pursuant to the AUMA, including smoking or ingesting marijuana and marijuana products,
possession, processing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of
age or older, without any compensation, 28.5 grams of marijuana, or 8 grams of concentrated
marijuana, including as contained in marijuana products, and possession, planting, cultivating,
harvesting, drying or processing up to six living marijuana plants for personal use, and
commercial cultivation, testing and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacture of
nonmedical marijuana products.
E. This ordinance is an interim ordinance adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to
the authority granted the City of Petaluma under Government Code Section 65858 and Section
76A of the City's Charter, and is for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and
welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are contained in the findings above, which are made
a part of this ordinance for all purposes, and in summary include that: Proposition 64, entitled
"The Adult Use of Marijuana Act" or AUMA, has qualified for the November 8, 2016 ballot,
and if approved by the voters, will, for purposes of California law, effective November 9, 2016,
legalize nonmedical uses of marijuana by persons 21 years of age and older, including smoking
or ingesting marijuana and marijuana products, possession, processing, transporting, purchasing,
obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of age or older, without any compensation, 28.5
grams of marijuana, or 8 grams of concentrated marijuana, including as contained in marijuana
products, and possession, planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying or processing up to six living
marijuana plants for personal use, and, subject to a state regulatory and licensing system, the
commercial cultivation, testing and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacture of
Ordinance No. N.C.S. 9
nonmedical marijuana products; the City of Petaluma does not currently have standards in the
Petaluma Municipal Code or Zoning Ordinance related to nonmedical marijuana uses within the
City; and absent the adoption of this urgency ordinance, the establishment and operation of
nonmedical marijuana uses in the City would result in the health, safety and welfare threats
identified above. As a result of the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and
welfare in Petaluma posed by potential nonmedical marijuana uses without applicable local
regulation, it is necessary, in accordance with Government Code Section 65858, to temporarily
establish a 45 -day moratorium on the establishment and operation of nonmedical marijuana uses
in the City to the maximum legally permitted extent pending the completion of the City's study
of the potential impacts of nonmedical marijuana uses and possible amendments to the City's
Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. °
Section 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act
The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter
3 of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly - it prevents changes in the environment
pending the completion of the contemplated Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance review.
Section 4. Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to
other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and
effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, `subsections, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 5. Effective Date
In accordance with Section 76A of the Petaluma City Charter, which provides that certain
specified types of ordinances are not subject to the 30 -day referendum period specified in that
section, including ordinances governed by particular provisions of state law prescribing the
manner of their passage and adoption, and California Government Code Section 65858, which
provides that interim urgency ordinances may be adopted in accordance with that section by a
four -fifths vote of the legislative body, this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption if approved by at least four -fifths or six affirmative votes of the City Council.
Section 6. Expiration
In accordance with Government Code Section 65858, this ordinance shall expire and cease to be
in effect forty -five days from the date of its adoption unless extended by the City Council as
Ordinance No. N.C.S. 10
in effect forty -five days from the date of its adoption unless extended by the City Council as
required by law.
Section 7. Automatic Repealer
If when the results of the California general election of November, 2016 are declared it is
determined that Proposition 64, also referred to as the AUMA, has not been approved by the
voters, then upon such declaration this ordinance shall be deemed automatically repealed in its
entirety and of no effect without further action of the City Council.
INTRODUCED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED posted /published this 7th day of November,
2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Claire Cooper, CMC, City Clerk
David Glass, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric W. Danly, City Attorney
Ordinance No. N.C.S.
11