.
.
.
It came without warning! Except here on Orange Juice Blog!
Anaheim’s City Manager Paul Emery has placed Item 33 on the City Council’s “consent calendar,” which is supposed to contain items insufficiently controversial to require debate. Item 33, however, looks like it might elicit enough public interest that debate would be warranted. All it takes is one member of the Council to pull an item from the Consent Calendar so as to let the public hear the Staff Report, and let the Council ask some questions of Staff, and allow for debate. This is, after all, merely a proposal being snuck through here.
Given that this report seems to incorporate some at least questionable assertions and assumptions, and given that this ordinance (unless redrafted at Council’s direction) will criminalize certain activities that will be legal elsewhere in California, and given that criminal enforcement of those activities will probably (the world being what it is) focus largely on the poorer and less privileged sectors of the population — meaning that some people may well die over this — it may be appropriate for the Council to at least allow some public debate to take place.
I’ll have a few words to say on the topic after we consider the Staff Report on the item — notable sections of which have been converted to boldface or even boldface red — and the proposed ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 25, 2017
FROM: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.100 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES AND BAN THE OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 33
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by Motion, introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 4.100 to the Anaheim Municipal Code, in accordance with Proposition 64, in order to prohibit commercial marijuana activities and ban outdoor cultivation of marijuana in the City of Anaheim.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has consistently taken the position that medical marijuana operations are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and has adopted regulations prohibiting such operations in the City. In 2007, the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Anaheim. The City was subsequently sued, and the pending litigation impacted the City’s ability to enforce its ban due to possible preemption issues. As a result, the number of dispensaries in the City began to grow, as did public complaints regarding dispensaries. In 2011, in order to prevent the proliferation of new dispensaries during the pending litigation, the City adopted an interim urgency ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. The interim moratorium remained in place for two years.
In 2013, the City expanded the prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries to include mobile medical marijuana dispensaries. In 2014 and 2015, the California courts issued decisions upholding a city’s right to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, including a case upholding Anaheim’s civil and criminal enforcement of its dispensary ban. Thereafter, the City amended the Anaheim Municipal Code to clarify that the prohibitions applied to property owners, landlords and/or property managers. In 2016, in preparation of the pending implementation of the “Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act,” the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and processing of medical marijuana.
Even with these efforts, the City of Anaheim, like most cities, has experienced numerous adverse impacts from marijuana activities as a result of establishments that have operated illegally, including medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation sites. Adverse impacts, documented by the City’s Police Department and Code Enforcement Division, include criminal activity such as burglaries, armed robberies and a homicide, as well as health and safety concerns caused by unpermitted tenant improvements, including illegal wiring of electrical panels and unpermitted and unsafe structural modifications. There have also been repeated citizen complaints about the adverse impacts of medical marijuana dispensaries operating in the City, and the Anaheim Police and Fire Departments have responded to numerous calls for service relating to unsafe conditions and criminal activities at medical marijuana dispensaries.
DISCUSSION:
Last November, California voters approved Proposition 64, which is known as ‘The Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use Marijuana Act (the “AUMA”). With the passage of the AUMA, personal and commercial (non-medical) use of marijuana is now decriminalized under California law, subject to certain restrictions. For example, individuals 21 years of age or older may now possess, transport, purchase, use, and transfer recreational marijuana. Under AUMA, adults may possess up to 28.5 grams of marijuana, up to 8 grams of marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis (which may be present in marijuana products such as edibles), and up to six living marijuana plants, and any marijuana produced by those plants, at their private residences. AUMA also decriminalized the cultivation of recreational marijuana, commercial marijuana delivery services, and commercial (non-medical) marijuana retail services. AUMA did little to change existing law that governs medical marijuana; consequently, these laws remain substantively intact.
In 2018, State agencies will start to issue licenses for the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, transportation, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. Unless otherwise prohibited by the City (which is allowed in the AUMA), this creates the opportunity for the proliferation of various commercial marijuana-related activities, including retail storefronts. Given the City’s experience with adverse impacts associated with marijuana dispensaries and cultivation sites, the potential proliferation of commercial marijuana establishments would be contrary to the City’s previous efforts to maintain local control and offer all available protections afforded by State law.
To this end, the City Attorney’s Office prepared the attached ordinance (“Ordinance”). The proposed Ordinance would prohibit all commercial marijuana activities in the City, which includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, distribution, delivery, trade or sale of marijuana and marijuana products by any person, entity, commercial or business enterprise, whether for-profit or nonprofit. Additionally, the ordinance would prohibit the outdoor cultivation of marijuana, which would include any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana that is not within a fully enclosed and secure structure. Consistent with the requirements of the AUMA, the ordinance would not prohibit the cultivation of up to six marijuana plants inside a person’s private residence (which would not include his/her place of business) and inside a fully enclosed accessory structure to a person’s private residence. The Ordinance would not alter the protections afforded by the previous ordinances adopted by the City Council concerning medical marijuana dispensaries, mobile medical marijuana dispensaries, and the cultivation and processing of medical marijuana.
The proposed Ordinance would add a new Chapter (4.100) to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and is attached to this report.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
There is no budgetary impact.
Respectfully submitted,
David Belmer, Planning and Building Director
Concurred, Kristin Pelletier Acting City Attorney
Attachment:1. Draft of Proposed Ordinance
Here’s that proposed ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.100 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (COMMERICAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES AND OUTDOOR CULTIVATION) TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES AND BAN THE OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DETERMINING PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT A PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15060(C)(2), 15060(C)(3) AND 15378 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, in November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, which is known as The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (the “AUMA”); and
WHEREAS, one of the stated purposes of the AUMA is to strictly control the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing and sale of nonmedical marijuana through a system of state licensing, regulation, and enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the AUMA authorizes the issuance of state licenses for “commercial marijuana activities” which include the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of nonmedical marijuana or marijuana products as defined in Section 26001 of the California Business and Professions Code, which is part of the AUMA. Pursuant to the AUMA, no state license for any commercial marijuana activities may be issued if the approval will violate local ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Section 26200, which is included in the AUMA, expressly recognizes the authority of cities to completely prohibit commercial marijuana activities or businesses as a valid exercise their local powers; and
WHEREAS, on July 31, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6067 adding Chapter 4.20 to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the “Code”) prohibiting the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6281 adding Chapter 4.21 to Title 4 of the Code prohibiting the establishment or operation of mobile medical marijuana dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6315, which made clarifying amendments to Chapters 4.20 and 4.21 of the Code to address enforcement against the owner or operator of a property on which a Code violation occurs; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6354 adding Chapter 4.19 to the Code prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation and processing activities; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with legislative action to adopt Ordinances Nos. 6067, 6281, 6315 and 6354, the City Council considered reports of criminal activities, hazardous practices and other persuasive, documented evidence regarding immediate threats to the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, despite the City’s existing prohibition against all types of medical marijuana businesses, the City has experienced numerous adverse impacts from marijuana activities as a result of establishments that have operated illegally, including medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation sites; and
WHEREAS, a number of California cities have reported negative impacts of marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution, including offensive odors, illegal sales and distribution of marijuana, trespassing, theft, violent robberies and robbery attempts, homicides, fire hazards, and problems associated with mold, fungus, and pests; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Police Department and Code Enforcement Division have documented numerous adverse impacts caused by marijuana activities, including criminal activities such as burglaries, armed robberies and a homicide, as well as health and safety concerns caused by unpermitted tenant improvements, including illegal wiring of electrical panels and unpermitted and unsafe structural modifications; and
WHEREAS, there is significant evidence that marijuana delivery services are targets of violent crime and pose a danger to the public; and
WHEREAS, marijuana plants, as they begin to flower and for a period of two months or more, produce a strong odor, offensive to many people, and detectable far beyond property boundaries if grown outdoors; and
WHEREAS, the strong smell of marijuana creates an attractive nuisance, alerting persons to the location of the valuable plants, and creating a risk of burglary, robbery or armed robbery; and
WHEREAS, one marijuana plant needs five to ten gallons of water per day or an estimated three billion liters of water per square kilometer in one season, and marijuana farmers have been found directly siphoning water from tributaries and other bodies of water. This extraordinary consumption of water not only negatively impacts the City’s efforts to conserve water resources but the reduction in available water negatively affects other plants and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, heavy use of pesticides to prevent rodents and other wildlife from eating marijuana plants, as well as poorly-built irrigation systems, has polluted the ecosystem and contaminated soil, groundwater, sewer systems and storm drains; and
WHEREAS, the Attorney General’s August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and NonDiversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use recognizes that the cultivation or other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that nearby homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime; and
WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association has compiled an extensive report detailing the negative secondary effects associated with storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. The City Council hereby finds that the report contains persuasive anecdotal and documentary evidence that both storefront and mobile medical marijuana dispensaries pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare, and that this threat is likely to be just as great, if not greater, with recreational marijuana dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, in Colorado, where recreational marijuana became legal and commercialized in 2013, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police published a report describing the adverse community impacts related to recreational marijuana; and
WHEREAS, during a panel discussion on the AUMA held in Anaheim on October 4, 2016, moderated by the California Police Chiefs’ Association, John Jackson, Chief of Police of Greenwood Village, a suburb of Denver, confirmed that since recreational marijuana use became legal in Colorado, the state has experienced spikes in marijuana use by young people, traffic fatalities involving drivers under the influence of cannabis, homelessness, and criminal organizations moving to Colorado to produce and then illegally export marijuana to other states; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable to conclude that similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare described above are likely to occur in Anaheim as a result of commercial marijuana activities; and
WHEREAS, all of the aforementioned findings, reports, and evidence shall be included as part of the record before the City in this matter, and are hereby incorporated into the City Council’s record and findings related to this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution grants charter cities the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a city may make and enforce within its limits all police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim, as a charter city, by and through its City Council, has and may exercise all powers necessary to ensure the general welfare of its inhabitants; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to exercise its local power and authority to prohibit commercial marijuana activities and ban outdoor cultivation of marijuana as part of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Business Regulation); and
WHEREAS, based on the findings, above, the City Council has determined that there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare if the City does not add Chapter 4.100 to the Municipal Code to prohibit commercial marijuana activities and ban outdoor cultivation of marijuana in the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the City, its residents, and its lawfully permitted businesses that the City adopt this ordinance to expressly prohibit the establishment and operation of commercial marijuana activities and outdoor cultivation of marijuana, except where the City is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on any such establishment or activity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and is enacted pursuant to the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution and is consistent with the AUMA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the “State CEQA Guidelines”), the City is the “lead agency” for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project”, as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That new Chapter 4.100 (Commercial Marijuana Activities and Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana) be, and the same is, hereby added to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Business Regulation) to read in full as follows:
CHAPTER 4.100 COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES AND OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
Sections:
4.100.010 Purpose and Findings.
4.100.020 Definitions.
4.100.030 Commercial Marijuana Activities Prohibited.
4.100.035 Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana Prohibited
4.100.040 Delivery of Marijuana and Marijuana Products Prohibited 4.100.045 Prohibited Commercial Marijuana Activities and Outdoor Cultivation Declared Public Nuisances
4.100.050 Use or Activity Prohibited by State or Federal Law.
4.100.010 PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
The City Council finds that purpose and intent of this Chapter is to prohibit commercial activities involving nonmedical marijuana and marijuana products and to ban the outdoor cultivation of marijuana in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
4.19.020 [sic] DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
.010 “Marijuana ” mean all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Marijuana” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 81000 of the Food and Agricultural Code or Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code as the same may be amended from time to time. “Marijuana” does not include medical marijuana defined in Chapter 4.20.
.015 “Commercial marijuana activities” includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, distribution, delivery, trade or sale of marijuana and marijuana products by any person, entity, commercial or business enterprise, whether for-profit or nonprofit.
.020 “Delivery” means the transfer of marijuana or marijuana products to a location within the City of Anaheim.
.025 “Fully enclosed and secure structure” ” means a code compliant space within a building, greenhouse or other structure which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, which is secure against unauthorized entry, provides complete visual screening, and which is accessible only through one or more locking doors.
.030 “Marijuana products” means 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, ingestible or topical product containing marijuana or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.
.035 “Outdoor cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana that is not within a fully enclosed and secure structure.
4.100.030 COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED
Commercial marijuana activities are prohibited in the City of Anaheim. No use permit, variance, building permit, or any other entitlement, license or permit, whether administrative or discretionary, shall be approved or issued for commercial marijuana activities. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct, or operate, or as a landlord or land owner (or as such landlord or land owner’s agent, property manager or similar person having control over real property on behalf of its owner) to allow or permit to exist, or be established, conducted, operated, owned or managed on or within real property owned or controlled by such person, any commercial marijuana activity or to participate as a landlord, lessor, land owner, employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity, in any commercial marijuana activity. Each day a violation of this provision of this chapter is committed, or permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate offense.
4.100.035 OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITED
Outdoor cultivation of marijuana by any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any parcel within any zoning district in the city is prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct, or operate, or as a landlord or land owner (or as such landlord or land owner’s agent, property manager or similar person having control over real property on behalf of its owner) to allow or permit to exist, or be established, conducted, operated, owned or managed on or within real property owned or controlled by such person, the outdoor cultivation of marijuana or to participate as a landlord, lessor, land owner, employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity, in the outdoor cultivation of marijuana. Each day a violation of this provision of this chapter is committed, or permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate offense.
4.100.040 DELIVERY OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PROHIBITED
Delivery of marijuana or marijuana products is prohibited within the City of Anaheim.
4.100.045 PROHIBITED COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES AND OUTDOOR CULTIVATION DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of any commercial marijuana activity or outdoor cultivation of marijuana in violation of this Chapter within the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by all available means.
4.100.050 USE OR ACTIVITY PROHIBITED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to permit or authorize any use or activity which is otherwise prohibited by any state or federal law.
SECTION 2. EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES.
Any business operation or outdoor cultivation activity existing or operating within the City of Anaheim on the effective date of this ordinance shall cease operations forthwith.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted 8 by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION; PUBLICATION BY CLERK.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Anaheim.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2017, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2017, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM By: MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM _____________________________________
ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
* * * * *
Now let’s have a little discussion.
(1) There’s no doubt that Anaheim can pass something like this under the state’s new law. Parts of it may be rejected by the courts, as the ordinance recognizes, but Anaheim can certainly be as draconian as it would like to be about cannabis.
(2) This is an extremely draconian law.
(3) Anaheim does not have to enact such a draconian policy.
(4) THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT SOMETHING THIS SIGNIFICANT THIS SHOULD BE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
(5) Many of the statements in the resolution regarding the horrific effects of marijuana seem likely to be exaggerated — a judgment I make based on its discussion of the effects of marijuana legalization in Colorado, where it has been overwhelmingly been considered to have been a great success.
(6) Every single instance of how cannabis use and sale has had bad effects on Anaheim has occurred under a legal regime in which cannabis has been illegal under state law. That is no longer the case. One can no more use examples of how involvement of criminals in marijuana sale an distribution as an example of what to expect under a legal cannabis regime than one could use the acts of Al Capone and John Dillinger under Prohibition to predict the effect of alcohol sale and consumption in a world where alcohol can be purchased at Costco and Safeway and consumed in Dave & Busters and Angels Stadium.
(7) In criminal law, this is described as the difference between something that is malum in se — “bad in and of itself,” such as child molestation — and malum prohibitum — bad only because it is prohibited and you can therefore get arrested for it, such as possession of marijuana paraphernalia or parking on the wrong side of the street.
(8) At a time when the City claims that it doesn’t have the resources to engage in sufficient Code Enforcement for Short-Term Rentals (“STRs”) — residents of whom have been reported trespassing on property owners’ land and defecating on their lawns — this represents a huge increase in the demands on Code Enforcement (especially for cultivation of marijuana outdoors in “secure structures.”) Won’t this detract from higher priorities?
(9) On the bright side, some of the language highlighted above will make it a lot easier to drive existing STR owners out of business, because as soon as some resident lights up a joint the owner is now engaged in the commercial marijuana business under Anaheim law.
(10) And if Disney permits people to possess cannabis on its property, isn’t it in violation of 4.100.030 of this code? Surely commercial establishments aren’t exempt from these rules against allowing the possession (let alone use!) of recreational marijuana on their property! (Of course the Council could exempt them from liability. Haha, just kidding — that’s a trap!) I look forward to learning about what provisions Disney plans to take to prevent its guests from smuggling in marijuana products in their orifices. (Same goes for the Angels, Ducks, and other businesses.) Hey, you write a draconian law, you suffer the consequences!
(11) And what about that part where “all of this other evidence [of these doubtful claims] becoming part of the record”? Do you see it anywhere here for your consideration? Isn’t it supposed to be distributed to you with the agenda? Why is the City Manager allowing the Council to violate the Brown Act in this way? (Damn, I hate having to write demands letters when I have other things to do!)
Now these next two points will be ultra-serious:
(12) WE KNOW (DON’T WE?) THAT THIS LAW WOULD BE ENFORCED MORE VIGOROUSLY AGAINST PEOPLE IN THE POORER COMMUNITIES OF ANAHEIM THAN IN THE HILLS AND OTHER WEALTHIER AREAS WHO WILL ALSO BE IN VIOLATION OF IT. This law will therefore exacerbate the racial injustice problems in our community — and police shootings of those supposedly suspected of violating it. So: more big lawsuits. (There’s your “budget impact” right there!) But it gets worse.
(13) (and I could go on, but after this this I’ll close:) This law exempts medical marijuana from its own terms. Medical marijuana is still protected. How are the police — or other law enforcement — supposed to be able to tell medical marijuana products (including consumables) from recreational marijuana products that this makes illegal to possess, transport home from a legal dispensary, or deliver?
Any Council Member who votes for this without being able to answer these questions is not doing their job. And if the city doesn’t suffer for it, it will only be because the victims of this law may not be able to afford legal counsel. (Unless they’re killed for having medical marijuana products in their car — then they’re probably going to be able to find one.)
Add the fact that the city is trying to sneak through such a major and serious change in its law on the consent calendar — and I know that this is “only a first reading, but a first reading is supposed to mean something, not to be snuck past those who aren’t paying close attention — to the teetering existing stack of reasons why City Manager Paul Emery should be terminated.
“heavy use of pesticides to prevent rodents and other wildlife from eating marijuana plants, as well as poorly-built irrigation systems, has polluted the ecosystem and contaminated soil, groundwater, sewer systems and storm drains; and”
That was the funniest and stupidest justification for an ordinance I have ever read.
Until I read this:
“John Jackson, Chief of Police of Greenwood Village, a suburb of Denver, confirmed that since recreational marijuana use became legal in Colorado, the state has experienced spikes in marijuana use by young people, traffic fatalities involving drivers under the influence of cannabis, homelessness, and criminal organizations moving to Colorado to produce and then illegally export marijuana to other states; and”
Those were two of my favorites as well. I want to know where they got the “a single plant needs 5-10 gallons of water every day” statistic. I suspect that they may have misread some manual on hydroponics.
I really, really, really want to know who drafted this report – and how much they got paid, and how much of it came from Wikipedia.
See you at public comnents, I’m guessing. (Hard to resist that temptation, right?)
Wanna bet it’s Orange’s favorite political son?
Maybe, I suppose. But isn’t he a “wordsmith”? This looks like it was written by a “wordmonkey.”
Really bad legislation who is responsible for advancing this?
Seems like it came from Staff. Anaheim does have to act in some way if it doesn’t want the default of “no regulation,” so the fact that an item came forth on the topic at all doesn’t seem sinister. It’s the content of the response that made my jaw drop. I’m wondering if this is motivated by Disney wanting its hometown to be as culturally conservative on drugs as possible.
Good find Juice Brother. I woulda felt lost if there weren’t an outrage on the agenda.
Apart from that, it looks like goob stuff:
– New peeps on boards and commissions including some good friends of ours;
– Lucille’s Pranktuary vote replaced with a vote on whether or not to oppose Trump’s Muslim ban;
– and finally one thing the People’s Homeless Task Force has been asking for: (discussion at least on) creating an official task force or commission on homelessness.
I believe I’ll pass your piece on to all the pot people I know.
Thanks — especially for passing it on! I wonder if any other cities in Anaheim are planning something quite this draconian.
(And for the record, not that Vern needs this definition, because I so often get into trouble with some people regarding my word usage:
Good word to know! Comes in handy far too often in life.
As in Jefferson Bureaugard Draco Sessions.
http://volteface.me/features/great-british-facts-fudge/
Hey Greg,
Here is a link to a great article written by some researchers from the UK that push back on many of the issues. Anaheim is taking many of there reefer madness quotes from the Rocky Mountain HIDTA report that makes many mistakes. In other words lots of statistical inferences that aren’t correct.
Thanks, Diane! Interested in coming to Anaheim tomorrow to make this case? I’ll already have plenty to say in my three minutes — and you could smash this point home.
So all else looks just ducky, eh, Orange Juicers ? I beg to differ.
Like glass shards in a milkshake, Anaheim’s ill-conceived-lawsuit-solution-of-hasty convenience is “the gift that keeps on giving” for hapless residents of Districts 2 and 6, whose “representatives” by virtue of “happening to live (or move !) there” are legally not THEIRS to recall or replace. NOW the toxic waste of inattention is boiling over onto Board and Commission representation. Since I bet you don’t live in 2 or 6, I bet you completely missed that the list of reps is for 1,3,4, and 5 ONLY, with the REST designated “At Large”. So what’s the problem with that ? Well the last time I looked at the definition of “at large” it meant ” from anywhere in the City” . So why if the current 2 and 6 Council members are supposed to “fill the gap” of 2 and 6, NOT actually (they’re AT LARGE !) but just because they HAPPEN TO LIVE THERE AT THE MOMENT. So the willfully myopic staff (or who else) “makes the appointments match the council seats” .. oh, duh, 4 Districts and 2 at-large, right, boss? Result, NOT ONLY did 2 and 6 get ACTUALLY DISENFRANCHISED for an entire election cycle to placate a group who merely FELT LIKE THEY WERE DISENFRANCHISED, but now the way the Agenda reads, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO PICK Board / Commission Members from Districts 2 and 6 – that’s what “at large means, from ANYWHERE in the City, Right ? NOWHERE in the Staff report beyond “those that live in the District” (WHICH DISTRICT ?) WHEN THE TITLE SAYS “AT-LARGE” ! are Districts 2 or 6 specified ANYWHERE ! Functioning Brain cells and a working sense of smell are becoming a CURSE in this dystopia.
Oh, and MORE and MORE labor is being shunted by Emery and Minions to “at will labor pools” (Item 17), to give us LESS VISIBILITY, and LESS ACCOUNTABILITY. So what’s new? Not much. Category 4871 has been a MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CATCH ALL in the line item budget for ALL OF EMERY’s REIGN with NEVER a footnote or explanation for ANY OF THE ITEMS. Same old S%&T.
Oh, those poor Anaheim Hills dwellers and their lack of representation! (Till 2019.)
And the folks in District 2 who never minded the status quo enough to complain about it.
Till Jan 2019.
When that whole issue started, I ‘complained’, quite a lot, that among other things, it would bring balkanization to Anaheim, but got drowned out by “Si se puede !” And now, you just became the poster child for proving me right. “Si, se puede (and screw the rest of you !) “, huh ? I’m done.
Patience!
Sorry, forgot you were in 2. Yes, you did bring up a lot of objections.
The danger in suffering too many fools gladly is in eventually becoming one. Bye.
What I’ve heard is that they’re going to take pains to appoint one at large candidate from Ward 2 and one from Ward 6 where and when they can. Sometimes good will can transcend the lack of an ideal rule. Again, there was no truly right way to phase in this change — but good faith can do wonders.
Actually, yes there was,( in fact it was YOUR 9-seat idea ! ) but past never seems to be prologue in Anaheim. I’m sure any STR neighbor can tell you about the success of “taking pains”, “good will” and “good faith” , and as a legal professional, you can certainly opine on the preference for clear, well-thought, WRITTEN, ENFORCEABLE, plans over (future) “best intentions”. But, what was I thinking ? (SMH) This is Anaheim !
I presume that you mean a temporary bump in commission size rather than Council size, given that the latter would have required voter approval.
Yes, ok, that could have worked. But it didn’t make the cut: no faction of the Council supported it. I toss out a lot of ideas, BB; I’m used to seeing them left laying around untouched.
Well, not exactly.
If 2 and 6 (along with the rest of the City) were sold the expedient solution of accepting “their” reps, (who are LEGALLY not “theirs” but AT LARGE with all the consequences of same) and this whole affair was REALLY about fairness and “equality of opportunity”, vs (temporary) “equality of outcome”, for which 2 and 6 have ALREADY been deprived of voting opportunity IN REALITY to accomplish, there should be language RIGHT NOW in the ordinance to “equally” choose “District 2 and 6″ members, not ” legally-At Large-and-we’ll-really-try-hard-not-to forget-about-you” members.
WHAT happens in two years when the anomaly of unfinished “legacy” terms is gone ? THERE WILL STILL BE NO LANGUAGE AT ALL ABOUT 2 AND 6 ! This was a defective solution whose effects should be repaired NOW since the Council structure itself can’t be changed (and could IT possibly be challenged under CVRA since the resulting inequality (now further aggravated by this effect) is CLEAR and GEOGRAPHIC) or else living in Anaheim becomes an intelligence test with the only passing grade being earned by leaving.
2 and 6 will be treated in the same way as 3 in two years. The system will be analogous to what we do with State Senate seats. There will be no remaining operative language distinguishing them from the other four districts.
I’m not engaging the rest.
That’s what I was trying to say to him — just a little patience! And nobody is overly concerned about the Hills, they’ve been overrepresented for decades.
I hope “Big Box” has applied for a board or commission, he would be valuable. I hear that there have not been enough applicants, which has been a surprise.
Well, we got Jose to pull this and it was discussed at length. As the city lawyers who drafted it explained, they were just doing the maximum possible so the city could ramp down from there if they want to, after Prop 64 goes into effect next January. Otherwise the city will not be able to regulate at all.
Jose tried to put a one-year sunset on it, Kris wondered why that was necessary as council could still alter or rescind it any time they wanted. Jose, somewhat reluctantly having no other support for his sunset clause, capitulated. But he explained why he had wanted a sunset in mid-2018: “During an election season, ALL of us are going to be reluctant to bring up a controversial issue like this, and I want to force our hand.”
He wants to revisit it once we learn more about what the effects of legal marijuana will be on a town like Anahem, and also WHY ANaheim voters, along with the rest of California, voted strongly in FAVOR of recreational marijuana / Prop 64 (even though loudmouth NIMBYs will always bitch about nearby dispensaries.)
What else happened? Well, Councilman Jose F. Moreno got the process started for a “Homelessness Working Group” which will include some of our “People’s Homeless Task Force.”
His resolution against Trump’s Muslim ban got postponed to a future meeting, because the facts regarding that ban keep changing. But still about ten pro-Trump fanatics from the group “We the People Rising” showed up and sat in the front row, making snide comments and holding up their signs, including ones that said “LIES! LIES! LIES!” None of these clowns was from Anaheim, and three of them were so disruptive that Mayor Tait had them thrown out. Hahaha…
Video from Renee Balenti https://www.facebook.com/renee.balenti/videos/10211013381963193/
One thing, they kept trying to figure out what their positions were on all kinds of local issues … would always take a minute but then they’d all follow the cue of the big loud red-capped white dude Arthur C Schaper.
When they heard Renee’s claims of unpunished police killings, they decided to raise their “LIES LIES LIES” signs. (which they didn’t have the guts to do during Donna’s speech.) But whenever they heard Disneyland presented as a villain they were always ready to get on board with that. And to get mad at the city for charging residents for parking. (All they knew was, THIS was the city that was considering defying Trump!)
One dope, trying to be constructive, suggested to Dr Moreno that INSTEAD of getting involved with foreign affairs and criticizing the president, he should try joining with Tait and Vanderbilt in opposing tax breaks for Disney. *SIGH*
Sigh? I literally laughed out loud at that one. Watta marooon.
The following JUICE FRIENDS made it onto Boards and Commissions:
Ed Lopez (and Mark Lopez) to the Budget Investment and Tech Commission!
Donna Michelle Acevedo-Nelson and Arturo Ferreras to the Community Services Board!
Mark Daniels, Brian Chuchua, Rida Hamida, Clair Pettibone, and Dr. Pat Adelekan to the Cultural and Heritage Commission!
Tim Houchen and Claudia Perez-Figueroa to the Housing and Community Development Commission!
Steve White & Bill Dalati to the Planning Commission!
And John Leos to the Library Board!
It was pretty much a rout – nearly everyone Kris Murray put forward (and a lot of Lucille’s) got voted down. Which would seem unfair. Unless you had paid attention during the previous six years, during which NONE of the above people (well, except Rida, Dalati, and Dr Pat) could have ever got on – anybody put forward by Tait, Vanderbilt or Galloway before him was NIXED BY THE KLEPTOCRATS.
That truly is one impressive looking a Cultural and Heritage Commission! A true rainbow, as well, (with Mark Daniels bringing the pink.)
Steve White on the Planning Commission is going to be awesome.
Tim Houchen for Housing was a brilliant and bold appointment from Steven Faessel.
And thanks to James Vanderbilt for appointing my wife to Community Services (a board that Faessel had suggested she apply for.) She wants to be in a position to see if all of Anaheim’s countless “nonprofits” are really doing what they are supposed to be doing, and using public monies efficiently. Conservatives should applaud this appointment.
Faessel is interesting. So smart, measured, gracious and smooth — if he could just get past his “clientitis” with Disney he would be excellent.
I rarely resent hearing him advance Disney’s positions, even when I think he’s wrong. He’s within the bounds of what a client-friendly Councilmember should do. What a striking contrast with Murray, whose disingenuous PR offensives truly put the “offensive” in “offensives.”
In any ideal multi-factional discuss of what’s best for Anaheim’s future, Faessel should obviously be there — and Murray obviously shouldn’t. If the Tait faction holds onto the Council majority next year, the 2019 meetings should be much improved. (Well, presuming there’s still Moreno and Vanderbilt, no Lodge, etc.)
When you were gone and Faessel was discoursing on Item 33, he referred to you as “a resident with concerns.” Kris couldn’t resist piping up, “Yeah, a resident… of BREA!” Lucille laughed like a hyena.
She prefers her meddling non-residents to be from Orange.
I agree. Faessel has been a pleasant surprise. Very courteous, warm, open-minded, displaying a genuine interest for the concerns of my neighborhood and deeply engaging himself on finding solutions.
I haven’t attended many council meetings lately, but at the first neighborhood district meeting, he expressed his belief that the resort district considerable contributes to the city’s general fund.
He or I may evolve on this point, but what is important is that we have common grounds as neighbors , and so far he has been a class act.
Naui’s video of Schaper getting thrown out and then bitching endlessly about it in the lobby.
“Use your tazer!” Love it