Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2015 PH1 Code Amendment - Odor Nuisance Mar. 17, 2015 PH1 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADD AN ODOR NUISANCE PROVISION TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to regulate offensive odors. DISCUSSION Background This item is a follow up to a City Council public hearing regarding the cultivation of medical marijuana. Since the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, also known as the “Compassionate Use Act,” medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution in California has become increasingly more common. Although cultivation, processing, distribution and consumption of marijuana for qualified medicinal purposes is exempt from enforcement under certain state criminal statutes, recent court decisions have affirmed that cities retain full regulatory authority to prohibit and/or regulate medicinal marijuana related activities and land uses within their jurisdictions. Also, marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., with no Federally recognized medicinal use. On September 3, 2013, the City began receiving complaints from community members that the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana in residential neighborhoods was creating significant odor issues and that ongoing cultivation was creating health and safety concerns to adjacent neighbors and negatively impacting the surrounding community. In response to these concerns, the City Council directed staff to agendize consideration of regulatory options to address the issue. On May 6, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing to review a proposed ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution in all areas of the City, with limited exceptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers. Specific provisions were included for cultivation by qualified patients and primary caregivers that included a prohibition on outdoor cultivation and limitations on the size of indoor cultivation. Council Direction After testimony from the public and deliberation by the City Council, the ordinance was not approved and staff was directed to focus on the potential nuisance effects of medical marijuana cultivation, such as odor, and utilize existing code enforcement tools to address such adverse impacts. There was no direction by the City Council to return with an ordinance to specifically regulate the method or scope of medical marijuana cultivation. The City Council also directed staff that it was not interested in considering new or amended ordinance language related to medical PH1-1 Odor Nuisance Page 2 marijuana dispensaries, beyond what is currently embodied in the City’s Municipal Code (i.e., dispensaries are not currently listed as an allowed use within the City and, like other non-permitted uses, are prohibited). Finally, the City Council directed that the issue be vetted through the appropriate advisory bodies. Additional Complaints Since the initial complaint in September of 2013, the City has received additional complaints regarding at least two more locations regarding outdoor medical marijuana cultivation in residential neighborhoods. Each complaint has cited odor, as well as other issues including safety and traffic impacts. Human Relations Commission Study Session In accordance with City Council direction, on February 4, 2015, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) held a public hearing to discuss various options for addressing this issue. The study session provided an opportunity for the HRC, as well as the general public, to provide feedback to guide the development of policy recommendations for consideration by the City Council. At the hearing, the HRC studied approaches other cities have used to address issues related to medical marijuana. While many of those cities have developed separate chapters in their municipal codes with specific regulations pertaining to dispensaries, and indoor and outdoor cultivation, the study session focused on the specific elements of those ordinances related to mitigating and enforcing against potential adverse impacts from medical marijuana cultivation. The staff report (Attachment 1) looked at examples from the cities of Rancho Cordova, CA, Riverside, CA and Boulder, CO, to illustrate the spectrum of policy options. The HRC was asked to consider these policy options in light of public testimony and provide feedback to staff. After public comment and deliberation by the HRC, general consensus was reached to recommend adding an odor nuisance definition to the Municipal Code. The HRC felt that this definition should include nuisances that result from any odor, not just those related to the cultivation of medical marijuana. There was also discussion that the ordinance should have certain thresholds established for taking enforcement action. Finally, the HRC expressed concerns related to the narrow scope of this approach relative to the size and complexity of the broader issue of medical marijuana in the community. Proposed Ordinance Currently, the City has a variety of nuisances defined within the Municipal Code, but does not have any specific provisions for odor. Based on direction from the City Council, feedback from the HRC and testimony by the public, staff has drafted the proposed Ordinance to create a new section in Chapter 8 (Health and Safety) of the Municipal Code to define odor nuisances. The specific proposed provision for odor nuisances is as follows: A. It is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance to cause or permit any odors, which are offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity, to emanate across any parcel or property line. PH1-2 Odor Nuisance Page 3 B. An odor shall be presumed offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity if the City receives three or more verified complaints of an odor emanating across a property line from individuals representing separate residences or places of business within the city within a one month time span concerning an odor emanating from a single source, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to require three complaints before the City may initiate enforcement action. C. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prohibit the normal operations of any governmental agency or municipal facility operating pursuant to otherwise applicable law or regulatory permit. This language was developed using relevant ordinances from other cities as well as current nuisance definitions in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. In order for a property to be in violation of the proposed Ordinance, City staff must verify the violation to exist. For this Ordinance, the odor must be found “offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity” which will be determined on a case by case basis in light of the underlying facts and circumstances. The proposed ordinance does include a presumption that any odor is “offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity” if the City receives three or more complaints within a one month period regarding an odor from a single source. The presumption can always be rebutted by contrary evidence presented by the party charged with violating the ordinance. If the City takes code enforcement action without three complaints within a one month period, the City must affirmatively establish, as a threshold to enforcement, that the odor is “offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity” as verified by City staff. The complete language for the new section can be found in the proposed ordinance (Attachment 2). Enforcement Adding a provision regulating offensive odors in the City’s Municipal Code will allow the City to take enforcement action on any conditions which cause offensive odors to emanate across property lines. The City would be able to use a variety of enforcement tools including, but not limited to, issuing an administrative citation, which is subject to the City’s appeal procedures. Enforcement of the recommended changes would continue through the existing operations and resources of Code Enforcement and Community Development Department staff. CONCURRENCES A team of staff from the Community Development, Police and Administration departments as well as the City Attorney’s Office participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Ordinance adds an additional nuisance definition to the City’s Municipal Code. All nuisance complaints are currently investigated and enforced by Code Enforcement staff and prosecuted by the City Attorney. At this time, the impacts of implementing and enforcing the additional elements of the ordinances can be incorporated into existing resources. PH1-3 Odor Nuisance Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the proposed ordinance and direct staff to facilitate a study session on the topic of medical marijuana. The City Council may approve the proposed ordinance and also direct staff to facilitate a study session to discuss processes to approach medical marijuana regulations. 2. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any modifications. 3. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 4. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance although public testimony demonstrates that an ordinance is needed. ATTACHMENTS 1. February 4, 2015 Human Relations Commission Study Session Report 2. Proposed Ordinance T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-03-17\Medical Marijuana (Johnson-Hermann)\ECAR- Odor Nuisance.docx PH1-4 Meeting Date: February 4, 2015 Item Number: 12 HUMAN RELATIONSCOMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Nuisance Abatement Study Session PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: GregHermann, Special Projects Manager Phone Number: 781-7194 e-mail: ghermann@slocity.org FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director Recommendation 1. Receive a presentation on enforcement tools and policy options to address potential nuisance conditions related to medical marijuana cultivation. 2. Provide feedback to staff regarding potential amendments to the Municipal Code. Background Medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution in California havebecome increasingly common since the adoption of Proposition 215, also known as the “CompassionateUse Act”, in 1996. Althoughcultivation processing, distribution and consumption of marijuana for qualified medicinal purposes is exempted from enforcement under certain state criminal statutes, recent court decisions have affirmed that cities retain full regulatory to prohibit and/or regulate medicinal marijuana related activities and land uses within their jurisdictional limits. Also, marijuana remains an illegal substance underthe Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. On September 3, 2013, the City began receiving complaints from community members that outdoor medical marijuana cultivation in a residential area was creating noxious odors and that the ongoing cultivation was creating health and safety concerns to adjacent neighbors and neighborhoods. In response to these concerns, the City Council directed staff to agendize regulatory options to address the issue. On May 6, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing to review a proposed ordinance1 to prohibit medicalmarijuana cultivation, processing and distribution in all areas of the City, with limited exceptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers. Specific provisions were included for cultivationbyqualified patients and primary caregivers that included a prohibition on outdoor cultivation and limitations on the size of indoor cultivation. Council Direction After significant testimony from the public and deliberation by the City Council, the ordinance was not approved and staff was directed to focus only on enforcement tools to address the effects of medical marijuana cultivation when they reach the level of a nuisance. Much of the discussion by the City Council focused on theidea of adding provisions to the City’s Municipal Code that would permit the City to define and address potential nuisance effects of medical marijuana cultivation, such as odor, 1 May 6th, 2014 City Council AgendaReport: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=17291&dbid=1 Item 1 KM gh Attachment 1 PH1-5 Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Nuisance Abatement Study Session (Citywide) Page 2 and to enforce against violations of such provisions via existing enforcement methods. There was no direction by the City Council to return with an ordinance tospecifically regulatethe method or scope of medical marijuana cultivation, so long as such cultivation does notresult in adverse impacts to residents or neighborhoods. The City Council also directed that it was not interested in considering new or amended ordinance language related to medicalmarijuana dispensaries, beyond what is currently embodied in the City’s Municipal Code (i.e., dispensaries are not currently listed as an allowed use within the City and, therefore, are prohibited). Finally, the City Council asked that the issue be vetted through the appropriate advisory bodies. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) is the appropriate advisorybody to review the issue and provide feedback for Council consideration. Since the initial complaint, the City has received numerous complaints regarding at least two additional locations of outdoor medicalmarijuana cultivation in residential neighborhoods. Each complaint has cited odor, in addition to other issues including safety and traffic impacts, as a significant source of the concern. Nuisance Determination Options for Medical Marijuana Cultivation There are a variety of approaches other cities have used to addressissues related to medicalmarijuana. Many have developed separate chapters in their municipal codes with specific regulations pertaining to dispensaries, and indoor and outdoor cultivation. Given the focus of the City Council direction, this report will focuson specific elements of these ordinancesrelated to mitigating and enforcing against nuisance conditionsresulting from medical marijuana cultivation. One option available to the City is to identify all of the potential nuisance conditions that can result from the cultivation of medical marijuana and expressly define the creation or maintenance of those conditions as prohibited nuisances underthe City’s Municipal Code. The City of Rancho Cordova has defined several types of medical marijuana cultivation related nuisances as a part of a broader, comprehensive ordinance addressing medical marijuana. Those nuisances are identified and defined as follows: 6.90.050 Public nuisance. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of anyparcel within the city of Rancho Cordova to create a public nuisance in the course of cultivating marijuana plants or any partthereof. A public nuisance may bedeemed to exist if such activity produces: A. Odors which are disturbing to people of normal sensitivity residing or present on adjacent or nearby property or areas open to the public; B. Repeated responses (more than three times in a one-year time period) to the parcel fromlaw enforcement officers; C. Repeated disruption (more than three times in a one-year time period) to the free passage of persons or vehicles in the neighborhood; D. Excessive noise in violation of applicable city noise standards in the general plan or Item 1Attachment 1 PH1-6 Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Nuisance Abatement Study Session (Citywide) Page 3 municipal code; E. Any other impacts on the neighborhood which are disruptive of normal activity in the area.”2 As previously noted, the majority of complaints received to date in San Luis Obispo regarding medical marijuana cultivation in the City have specified odor as one of the major offending factors, which is similar to what other jurisdictions are experiencing. Currently, the City has a variety of nuisances defined within the Municipal Code, but does not have any specific provisions for odor. As such, one policy option available is to add provisions to the Municipal Code defining pervasiveodors impacting adjacent properties or residents related to medical marijuana cultivation as a prohibited nuisance condition. This has been theapproach used by the City of Boulder, CO. Boulder also has a comprehensive ordinance for medical marijuana, which includes a more specific definition of a public nuisance related to odor and goes into greater detail regarding a threshold for initiating enforcement action related to thenumber of complaints from surrounding neighbors. Those provisionsinclude: 5-10-6: Marijuana Odor Emissions. a) No person, tenant, occupant, or property owner shall permit the emission of marijuana odor from any source to result in detectable odors that leave the premises upon which theyoriginated and interfere with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of another's property. b) Whether or not a marijuanaodor emission interferes with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of a property shall bemeasured against the objective standards of a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. c) A marijuana odor emission shall bedeemed to interfere with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of property if the city managerreceivesthree or more complaints concerningmarijuana odor emanating from the same source from individuals representing separate households, rooming units, or places of business within the city.”3 Anotheroptionis to add a nuisance definition regarding odor to the City’s Municipal Code, butnot limit it solely to the cultivation of medical marijuana. An example of this can be seen from the City of Riverside, CA. Riverside includes a provision onodor in the city’s nuisance abatement ordinance, but it is generallyapplied to all odors. That language includes: Section 6.15.020: Declaration of nuisances: It is unlawful and is hereby declared a nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any property and any vehicle thereon, in the City to maintain the property in such a manner that any of the following conditions are present: L) The existence of loud or unusual noises, or foul or noxious odors which offend 2 City of Rancho Cordova, CA Municipal Code: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ranchocordova/ 3 City of Boulder, CO Municipal Code: https://www.municode.com/library/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code Item 1Attachment 1 PH1-7 Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Nuisance Abatement Study Session (Citywide) Page 4 the peace and quiet of persons of ordinary sensibilities and which interferes with the comfortableenjoyment of life or property and affect the entireneighborhood of any considerable number of persons.”4 Enforcement Adding nuisance definitions and express prohibitions on the creation or maintenance of such conditionsto the City’s Municipal Code to include issues that can result from medical marijuana cultivation will increase the City’s ability to take enforcement action on this issue when the activity generates anadverse impact in a neighborhood. Dependent on the definitions used and thresholds set for initiation of enforcement action to take place, the City would be able to use a variety of enforcement tools including issuing an administrative citation, which is subject to the City’s appeal procedures. HRC Role This study session is an opportunity for the HRCto provide input to City Council regarding proposed municipal code additions to address nuisances related to growing medical marijuana in the City of San Luis Obispo. The HRC’s role is to consider these policy options in light of public testimony and provide feedback tostaff. Focus Questions for Commission Discussion Staff has provided several questions to facilitate HRC discussion of the issue in order to provide feedback for Council consideration: 1. Add nuisance definitions and prohibitions to the City’s Municipal Code to address potential odor issues related to cultivation of medicalmarijuana? Yes No 2. Add nuisance definitions and prohibitions to the City’s Municipal Code to address other potential nuisance issues related to cultivation of medical marijuana? Yes No 3. If “Yes” to question #2, identify other potential issues and describe nuisance factors associated with them. 4. Should the nuisance definitions and prohibitions added to the Municipal Code relate directly to the cultivation of medical marijuana? Yes No The HRC’s recommendations will guide the development of any Municipal Code changes and be forwarded to the City Council with the staff report on this item. I:\Community Development\GHERMANN\Medical Marijuana\Medical Marijuana Nuisance Abatement Ordinance Amendment HRC Reprt.docx 4 City of Riverside, CA Abatement of Public Nuisances Ordinance: http://www.riversideca.gov/municode/pdf/06/6-15.pdf Item 1Attachment 1 PH1-8 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO._______ (2015 Series) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDING CHAPTER 8.22 TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OFFENSIVE ODORS WHEREAS, through its police powers, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is authorized to enact laws to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community; WHEREAS, over the years, the City has received various complaints regarding the presence of offensive odors emanating from private property; WHEREAS, the most recent complaints received by the City relate to offensive odors due to the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such odors have the potential to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of property within the City and otherwise affect the health, safety and welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, by this ordinance, the City Council desires to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community by prohibiting any person or entity within the city from allowing any odors which are offensive to people of normal sensitivity to emanate across property lines. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings in support of the following regulations and further finds that the following regulations are necessary and appropriate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and businesses of San Luis Obispo. SECTION 2: Chapter 8.22, entitled Offensive Odors, is hereby added to Title 8 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 8.22 OFFENSIVE ODORS 8.22.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to define and establish standards for the regulation of odors within the city. The intent of these standards is to ensure that odors emanating from sources or locations within the city do not adversely impact or unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of property. 8.22.020 Prohibited activities declared a public nuisance. A. It is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance to cause or permit any odors, which are offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity, to emanate across any parcel or property line. B. An odor shall be presumed offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity if the city receives three or more verified complaints of an odor emanating across a property line from individuals representing separate residences or places of business within the city within a one month time PH1-9 Attachment 2 span concerning an odor emanating from a single source. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require three complaints before the city may initiate enforcement action. C. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prohibit the normal operations of any governmental agency or municipal facility operating pursuant to otherwise applicable law or regulatory permit. 8.22.030 Continuing violations. Each day a violation is allowed to continue in violation of this chapter shall constitute a new and separate offense. 8.22.040 Severability. If any part or subsection of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, such invalidity, unlawfulness, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity, lawfulness, or constitutionality of any other part of this chapter. SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. This ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) – the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and Section 15060(c)(3) – the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 4. Effective Dates. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 17th day of March 2015, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _____ day of March 2015, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PH1-10 MAMA THENewspaper of the Central Coast MBUNE 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781 -7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo A ; �O AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AD # 1 6051 83 The San Luis Obispo City Council invites CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO all interested persons to attend public hear. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Ings on Tuesday, March 17, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Call. fornia, relative to the following: STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1. CONSIDERATION _ OF _ _AN_ ORDI- NANCE TO ADD AN ODOR NUISANpr: ss. PROVISION TO THE MUNfCIPAL CODE County of San Luis Obispo A public hearing to consider an ordinance to add an odor nuisance provision to the I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to prohibit odors from emanating from property which Count aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen not y ' g g een an are disturbing to people of normal sonsitivl- interested in the above entitled matter; 1 am now, and at ty residing or present on adjacent or near - by properties or areas open to the public. all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned p For more information, you are invited to contact Greg Hermann of the City's Com- was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of munily Development Department at (805) THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation, 781 -7194 or by email at ghermannoslocity org. printed and published daily at the City of San Luis 2, C{gNR1DSRATIOHQF ¢.SCO�fIMfZNI- Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice TY oE1lEL�MEJN _BLOCK GRANT at which the annexed clippings is a true Copy, was CDBG FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS published in the above -named newspaper and not in any 1+ public hearing to consider the Human Re- supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; lations Commission's recommendation to adopt a resolution to approve funding rec. MARCH 6, 2015 that said newspaper was dui and y ommendaltons for approximately $466,000 of Community Development Block Grant regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of funds for the 2015 program year. For more general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior Information, you are invited to contact Tyler Corey of the City's Community Develop - Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on ment Department at (805) 781 -7169 or by Julie 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code email at tcore t�sloci .or . of the State of California. The City Council may also discuss alhar hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the proposed projects in court, you may be Iim- tied to ralsing only those issues you or foregoing is true and correct. someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corre- -_ spondence delivered to the City Council a1, 1 II or prior to, the public hearings. (Signat ( of Principal Clerk) Reports for this meeting will be available DATED: MARCH 6, 2015 for review in the City Clerk's Office and on- line at www.slocity.org on Wednesday, AD COST: $184.80 March 11, 2015. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 for more information. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www.slocity.org. Anthony J. Mejia City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Mardi 8, 2015 1605183 Odor Nuisance Ordinance City Council Meeting – March 17, 2015 Recommendation Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to regulate offensive odors. Background Initial complaints in September 2013 May 6th, 2014 Public Hearing Comprehensive medical marijuana ordinance Council Direction Focus only on enforcement tools to address the effects of medical marijuana cultivation when they reach the level of a nuisance 3 Research 4 Policy Options 5 Multiple Effects •Rancho Cordova, CA Odor (Specific) •Boulder, CO Odor (General) •Riverside, CA Human Relations Commission Study session Public feedback Commission recommendation Adding an odor nuisance definition to the Municipal Code Include nuisances that result from any odor Establish thresholds for taking enforcement action Include ability for City to take immediate action 6 Proposed Ordinance A. It is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance to cause or permit any odors, which are offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity, to emanate across any parcel or property line.  B. An odor shall be presumed offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity if the City receives three or more verified complaints of an odor emanating across a property line from individuals representing separate residences or places of business within the city within a one month time span concerning an odor emanating from a single source, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to require three complaints before the City may initiate enforcement action. 7 Proposed Ordinance C. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prohibit the normal operations of any governmental agency or municipal facility operating pursuant to otherwise applicable law or regulatory permit. 8 Enforcement Complaint based Three or more complaints within a one month period regarding an odor from a single source OR The City must establish the odor is a nuisance Municipal Code violation Typically an administrative process 9 Recommendation Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.22 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to regulate offensive odors. Alternatives Approve the proposed ordinance and direct staff to facilitate a study session on the topic of medical marijuana.