Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2022 Item 7b, Codron / Fuchs - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: October 18, 2022 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared by: Alex Fuchs, Cannabis Business Coordinator VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 7b - INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.10 (CANNABIS REGULATIONS) AND ANNUAL CANNABIS BUSINESS PROGRAM AND REGULATION UPDATE Staff received the following questions from Council members regarding the proposed changes to the City’s Cannabis Regulations and regarding public comments received by Council on this item. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) Did this item go before the Planning Commission? No, the item did not go before the Planning Commission. Generally, staff does not bring administrative or operational details about programs to the Planning Commission. Future changes contemplated in the Council Agenda Report will go to the Planning Commission as part of the process to develop recomm endations for changes. These items relate to hours of operation and other land use details that would change Title 17 (Zoning Regulations). If the City Council directs staff to pursue these additional items, review by the Planning Commission will be required. 2) In the agenda correspondence received for this item, there is a request to maintain a minimum 2% social equity owner threshold. Is staff proposing a change to the social equity percentage threshold and, if so, in which section of the Cannabis Regulations is it detailed? Staff is proposing to prohibit any transfer of ownership that results in a reduction or elimination of the total number of social equ ity owners or percentage of social equity ownership in a commercial cannabis business when compared to the original application submitted by the operator. The proposed language changes are outlined in section 9.10.120 (Prohibition on Transfer of Commercial Cannabis Operator Permits) and are discussed under item no. 4 on page 96 of the agenda packet. The purpose of this change is to ensure clarity around the requirement that the equity owner percentages represented with the original permit application must be maintained throughout the life of the business. Item 7b. Annual Cannabis Program Update – Staff Agenda Correspondence Page 2 3) Why extend the timeline for a commercial cannabis operator to activate their permit? What justifies allowing the delay for activation an entire 2nd year as a matter of policy? Staff agrees that it is important to have permits activated as quickly as possible ; however, a one-year deadline has proved challenging for past operators to meet. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City allowed deadline extensions and operators still barely made the one-year deadline for obtaining land use permits, constructing improvements, and opening for business. 4) Have the public safety departments provided input on the request to extend operating hours for retail storefront businesses? Would it be possible to make changes to hours of operation now as part of a pilot program? The request to change hours of operation has not been formally evaluated by the City Police Department or Fire Department. Currently, the Municipal Code does not give staff the authority to make changes to hours of operation, even on a temporary basis. If Council directs staff to pursue the requested change in operational hours, then an evaluation, including from a safety perspective, would take place before a recommendation is developed. It is possible that this change could start as a pilot program, depending on the evaluation process and outcome. Any staff recommendations regarding extending hours of operations would go to the Planning Commission for review since it would require a change to the City’s Zoning Regulations. 5) Is there any reason why Council could not direct staff to immediately allow medical cannabis users aged 18-20 to access retail storefront businesses? Staff would like to do more public outreach on this requested change, in particular to Cal Poly and Cuesta College, before making a recommendation. And, similar to extending hours of operations for retail storefronts, any recommendation would need to go before the Planning Commission for review since the Zoning Regulations prohibit individuals under the age of twenty -one from being on the premises of any commercial cannabis business. 6) Can a storefront operator apply for a delivery service permit? Currently, the Municipal Code prohibits a retail storefront business from also operating a delivery business out of the same location. 7) Which entities are requesting to allow retail storefronts to also deliver within the City? Both existing retail storefront businesses, Megan’s Organic Market and SLO Cal Roots, as well as the Chamber of Commerce have requested the City allow retail storefronts to also deliver in the City, which would require a change to the Municipal Code. As discussed in the Council Agenda Report, this change would match what other jurisdictions in our region allow with respect to storefronts conducting delivery services.