Council seeks outright ban on pot businesses

The Monroe City Council will consider establishing an outright ban on marijuana-related businesses in the city of Monroe. The ban, which was discussed on March 17 during the regular council's business meeting, would encompass all marijuana-related businesses including processing, production and retail sales.

Currently, marijuana-related businesses are effectively disallowed via a provision in the Monroe Municipal Code, which mandates that all businesses must comply with both state and federal law. Since the federal government still identifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, it is impossible for a marijuana business to comply with both state and federal law. -á

Keeping pot out

The council has been consistent with its inclination to prohibit marijuana-related businesses. Since the passage of Initiative 502 in 2012, numerous public hearings have been held and hours of public testimony have been heard GÇô mostly from citizens interested in keeping marijuana-related businesses out of Monroe.-á

Thus far, the issue of whether a municipality can opt out of I-502 has been largely speculative due to a lack of legal precedent. In January, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced in his formal opinion that I-502 does not preclude cities and counties from establishing their own ordinances prohibiting marijuana businesses. -á

Attorney General opinions, while compelling, are not binding in court.

Late last year, the council decided to establish zoning regulations as a precautionary measure, should the city face any legal ramifications from the business-license prohibition. Per I-502, marijuana-related businesses cannot be located within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child-care center, public park, public transit center, library or an arcade that is not restricted to individuals age 21 and older.-á

The council expressed an interest in crafting an ordinance that would increase the list of buffered area to include private parks, religious establishments and the Evergreen State Fairgrounds.-á

Groups at odds

The Monroe Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed expanded buffered areas ordinance on Feb. 9 but was unable to make a recommendation to the City Council at that time. Subsequently, on Feb. 23, the commission recommended that the council reject the proposed ordinance.-á

The council has the ability to either accept or reject the commission's recommendation and, in this case, chose to reject it. Councilmember Kurt Goering sought clarification from Monroe City Attorney Zach Lell in regard to simply banning marijuana-businesses, rather than proceeding with the intermediate step of increasing the buffered areas. -á

"The state is still waiting for the outcome of at least two different appellate cases that will finally establish some judicial precedent in this field,GÇ¥ Lell said. "But as the current landscape legally stands, you do have the authority to either establish additional buffering requirements as the draft ordinance in front of you provides or to ban these uses outright.GÇ¥

Additional clarification could come legislatively, Lell said, as discussions are currently being held in Olympia that could either constrain or expand local regulatory power in the context of I-502.-á

An outright ban

After further discussion, the council held its first reading of Ordinance No. 004/2015, expanding the list of buffer areas. It passed unanimously. In a concurrent motion, Goering sought an outright ban.

"I move to direct staff to alter the proposed ordinance to include an outright ban of marijuana-related businesses in the city of Monroe,GÇ¥ Goering said.

The motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Patsy Cudaback, passed unanimously.-á

After analyzing procedural guidelines, the city determined that altering the existing ordinance would necessitate that a new environmental determination be made, including an additional public hearing. The council could choose to delay the second reading of Ordinance No. 004/2015 until April 21, at which point it could hold the required public hearing.

At that point, the council could choose to pass the ordinance as written, pass an altered version of the ordinance implementing an outright ban or pursue another course of action. -á

The council could also choose to adopt Ordinance No. 004/2015 as it is written by holding the second and final reading on Tuesday, March 24. They could then pursue an outright ban by initiating a new ordinance, which would go back to the planning commission for public hearing and review.