Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces amendments to cannabis enforcement appeals, expands liable parties
Summary
City staff introduced changes to Riverbank's cannabis regulations to standardize appeals, require a deposit for administrative hearings, have neutral hearing officers hear appeals, expand the definition of a responsible party to include property owners, and clarify the city's cost-recovery authority; council voted 5-0 to take the ordinance to a second reading.
City staff presented proposed amendments to Chapter 120 of the Riverbank Municipal Code on July 23 to clarify appeals of administrative penalties for cannabis-related violations and to expand the universe of potentially responsible parties.
Community Development Director Joshua Mann told the council the city adopted its cannabis ordinance in 2017 and has since encountered multiple illegal residential grow operations. He said some past enforcement actions involved large-scale operations "in excess of 200 to 500 plants resulting in fines between 296,000 and 527,000." Mann summarized four principal changes: establish procedures for filing appeals and conducting hearings (including a deposit to help cover hearing costs); require appeals be heard by a neutral hearing officer; modify the definition of "responsible party" to include property owners in addition to tenants; and clarify cost-recovery authority so the city may recover attorney fees and other costs after an administrative decision.
Mann said the amendment is not a project under CEQA and is exempt from environmental review. During council questions staff and the city attorney (Tom in the record) discussed how the change could affect property owners who perform due diligence; staff said the hearing process would allow factual determinations about responsibility and that not every citation would necessarily result in a finding against an owner.
After public comment from property owners and landlords seeking clarification, a councilmember moved and seconded the item for a second reading; the council voted 5-0 to move the ordinance to the next hearing rather than adopt it that night.
