HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/2025 Item 7a, Pyle
Jeff Pyle <
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Gomez, Ivana; Leveille, Brian; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:Comment regarding Proposed Amendments to Cannabis Zoning in Section 17.86.080
of Municipal Code
City Council Members,
I have been made aware of the proposed changes to the City Code regarding how residential buffers
should influence a Cannabis business location within Cannabis Business Overlay Zones (CBZ). The
legislative intent of the City Council's 300-foot buffer on residential zoning is clear: to provide a safe
buffer of 300 feet to families and residents of SLO, especially to children, in order to "protect the
public health, safety, and welfare... and minimize potential for negative impacts on people,
communities, and the environment..." as the Municipal Code states, regardless of zoning or proximity to
the CBZ.
In line with those clearly stated city and planning goals, the clear intent of several City Council meetings
in 2018 (some quotes shown later), and due to recent changes in the area of the Broad St CBZ, I'm
proposing that additional amendments be made to keep a safe buffer for all SLO residents:
1. Update the Municipal code to protect all residential uses, regardless of zoning, with
language such as "... three hundred feet from a residentially zoned area or any residential use
zoned otherwise".
o There are approximately new 80 condos in the vicinity of Woodbridge/Broad St that are
zoned commercially, as well as 4 homes on Woodbridge Street that are all within the CBZ
but are not protected due to non-conforming zoning. The four houses (including 3 historic
homes built in the 1940s) likely existed before zoning, and the condos were recently built
within the CBZ, but it's unknown why none of them are zoned residentially since they are all
used as such.
o During the City Council Meeting on 9/4/2018, more general language like "residential uses"
was used several times, clearly indicating that residences were clearly the focus of this
buffer, not zoning:
"...the Commission pulled back the CBZ boundary off of Orcutt Road in the Duncan-
McMillan CBZ because of the proximity of residential uses."
2. Move the Broad St CBZ northern border ~2-3 blocks further south to provide a safe buffer
as originally intended for all the residences across from Broad St that are currently within
300 ft of the CBZ. These homes are zoned residential and were previously effectively separated
by Broad Street but are now connected with a pedestrian crossing and City designated Bike
Boulevard. This proposed change would restore the intent of the buffer and would restore the
buffer intent to approximately 80 residences:
o ~20 homes across Broad St that are now connected closely to the CBZ by the pedestrian
crossing at Woodbridge/Broad intersection.This crossing did not exist when the CBZ was
originally discussed and defined, but it clearly provides access to the CBZ and negates the
1
original assertion that Broad Street creates the same effect as a buffer in this portion of the
CBZ). I have personally seen many families and children cross Broad Street at the
pedestrian crossing each day.
o The 4 houses within the zone on Woodbridge street would be protected, regardless of
zoning
o ~100 new condos built would be protected, regardless of zoning (these did not exist when
the CBZ buffer was determined)
o ~40 condos/apartments on Emily St.
o The 5/1/2018 City Council Meeting discussed features which effectively provide a buffer,
but the rationale no longer holds true for the northern end of the Broad Street CBZ due to
the pedestrian crossing:
"Where buffers extend into an overlay zone area, there is typically another barrier
such as a major roadway, the railroad tracks, topographical changes, or other
features that provide the same effect as a buffer... Broad Street itself acts as a
significant physical barrier and provides the functional equivalent of a buffer based
on distance."
o Also, during the CIty Council Meeting on 9/4/2018, modifications were made to several
CBZ's in order to provide an additional buffer to residents within or nearby the zoning,
clearly indicating intent to provide a buffer to residences by modifying the CBZ:
"The Planning Commission carefully reviewed and discussed each of the proposed
CBZs. Modifications were made to the Higuera Commerce Park CBZ to pull the zone
boundary back from Prado Road due to residential land uses across Prado... the
Commission pulled back the CBZ boundary off of Orcutt Road in the Duncan-McMillan
CBZ because of the proximity of residential uses."
Please consider the original legislative intent of the CBZ buffer, and enact these two amendments to
Section 17.86.080 of the City Code to give a safe buffer for all residents of SLO.
-Jeff
2