City Council to examine ordinance that would ban all marijuana businesses in Auburn
Published 4:28 pm Friday, April 1, 2016
City council members get their first look Monday night at an ordinance that proposes to ban all marijuana processing and production, retail outlets and sales of marijuana in the city.
City Attorney Dan Heid said the reason for the ordinance is that staff continue to receive inconsistent, conflicting, unreliable information from the Liquor and Cannabis Control Board, the panel that regulates and licenses the burgeoning new industry.
And that, Heid said, puts the City in a tough spot.
“The reality is we are not getting cooperation from the Liquor and Cannabis Control Board,” Heid said.
If enacted, the ordinance would also end the one-year moratorium on additional pot-related businesses applying for licenses and permit enacted by the City Council on Jan. 4.
Recent court decisions have given jurisdictions in Washington state the authority to ban pot-related processing and retail activity within their boundaries, Heid added.
Councilmembers could adopt the ordinance at its second reading as early as 7 p.m., Monday, April 18 at Auburn City Hall, 25 W. Main St.
Washington State voters approved I-502 in November 2012, decriminalizing possession and the use of certain amounts of marijuana, authorizing the then-Liquor Control Board to create regulations, and to license producers, processors and retailers to make and sell pot throughout the state.
Under the lottery system, the state of Washington created in the wake of the passage of I-502, Auburn got two stores: The Stashbox, which opened in November 2014 at 3108 A St. SE, and The Evergreen Market at 402 16th St. NE, which opened last month.
In September 2015, however, state lawmakers passed a new law, SB-5052. Its intent was to fold medical marijuana stores into retail outlets. Under SB-5052, Auburn was given two more stores. But the state left it up to jurisdictions to decide whether they would allow them.
On Jan. 4, the City of Auburn enacted a one-year moratorium, declaring that no new pot stores could apply for licenses, permits, etc., until the City decided whether more were needed. But soon the board informed the City it would not honor its moratorium.
Adoption of the ordinance would seem to leave in doubt the fate of the two retail outlets that do exist.
Not necessarily, according to Heid. The future of those businesses is a matter distinct from the proposed ordinance, Heid said, and it asks a question that references a different section of the City Code.
“I am not precluding the possibility that the City could deem something a pre-existing, non-conforming conditional use,” Heid said. “But that’s a separate assessment. If a business is so deemed, the option at that point is whether to do something for the amortization of the non-conforming use. But the choices will be made on an individual basis. … That’s a call that the code gives the planning director the authority to make, but it doesn’t need be plugged in here.”
