HomeMy WebLinkAbout Item #B1 - GENP-0327-2017 (Zoning Regulations Update) Cannabis, Schedule, Director Actions
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 15, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Zoning Regulations Update – Draft White Paper for Cannabis Regulations
Tentative Project Schedule, and Zoning Regulations Director Actions and Use
Permit Requirements
Item #1 - Draft White Paper: Cannabis Regulations
Attached to this memorandum is a draft of the Cannabis White Paper, this white paper is a draft as
it is still under review by staff and additional changes may be made to the document prior to the
final version (Attachment 1).
Staff has been meeting with various stakeholders as well as with the public regarding potential
Cannabis Regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo. A public workshop was held on October
23, 2017 in the Community Room at the San Luis Obispo County Public Library which included
a mediated panel discussion with perspectives on public safety, youth education advocacy, and the
cannabis industry. The questions asked during the panel are the same questions included in the
City’s Open City Hall Survey: https://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/189/Issue_5526. Staff
encourages the Planning Commissioners and members of the public to review and respond to the
questions in the survey.
Information presented during the workshop, as well as links to relevant and related information
can be found at the following websites:
Informational Presentation
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=17202
City Website for more information on Cannabis Regulations
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/cannabis
PCBusinessItem1 - 1
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 2
Item #2 - Tentative Schedule for Zoning Regulations Update
A tentative schedule has been provided by MIG to identify the upcoming work efforts for the
Zoning Regulations Update (Attachment 2). The schedule is also available on the City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-
zoning/zoning/zoning-regulations-update.
Item #3 - Overview of Director Action and Use Permit Requirements
The Zoning Regulations include several sections and references to discretionary review procedures
for various project types that are not included in Table 9 (Uses Allowed per Zone). Staff has
identified approximately 94 references to additional review procedures that have been organized
in the following table by projects subject to Director’s Action/Approval, Administrative Use
Permits, and Planning Commission Use Permits.
This list has been provided as part of this memorandum to inform the Planning Commission (PC)
that some of these items may be re-evaluated or re-organized as part of the Zoning Regulations
Update for ease of navigation intended to provide simplicity and transparency for the public, staff,
and users of the regulations. At this time no action is necessary by the PC, additional review of
these sections will be provided upon review of the draft regulations from MIG at future meetings.
ID# Section Number Director Action/Approval
1 17.08.010C.1 Temporary real estate sales office in Tract
2 17.08.020 Sales of Christmas trees and other agricultural products.
3 17.08.072E.3 Mixed-use hours of operation
4 17.14.020D Exceptions for non-conforming historic structures
5 17.14.020E.1 Conforming additions to non-conforming structures
6 17.16.020D.9 Tandem parking for residences
7 17.16.040 Satellite antennae height exceptions
8 17.16.050F Fence height exceptions
9 17.16.060G Bicycle & motorcycle parking reductions
10 17.16.060H.7f Downtown residential parking reductions
11 17.16.060J Parking requirements for non-listed uses
12 17.16.060*L.2b Parking requirements for large additions to non-conforming uses
13 17.16.070B Parking and driveway design exceptions
14 17.16.090 Exceptions to outdoor screening requirements
15 17.21.020D.2 Guest quarters
16 17.22.010C Interpretation of use listing
17 17.23.040F Baseball field light intensity
18 17.23.060 Temporary lighting
19 17.23.080 Accent lighting
PCBusinessItem1 - 2
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 3
20 17.23.080 Upgrades to outdoor lights advertising signs (billboards)
21 17.36.030B Uses allowed by public school tenant permit
22 17.57.040B Interpretation of use listing (AOZ)
23 17.61.030 Requests for reasonable accommodations
24 17.98.080 Public art on private property
ID# Section Number Administrative Use Permit
25 17.08.010 Temporary land uses
26 17.08.010C.2b Mobile home as temporary construction office (off-site)
27 17.08.010C.6 Education Conferences in student housing
28 17.08.010C.7 Parades/carnivals on private property
29 17.08.020B Other outdoor sales
30 17.08.040 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcohol
31 17.08.060 Electronic game amusement centers
32 17.08.072F Mixed-use project subject to use permits
33 17.08.080 Unmanned public utility structures
34 17.08.090B.1 Home occupation that is opposed by neighbors
35 17.08.100B.2 Day care facilities for 7 to 12 clients
36 17.08.100B.3 Day care facilities more than 12 clients
37 17.08.100E Exceptions to performance standards for day care facilities
38 17.08.110 Homeless shelters in close proximity to another homeless shelter
39 17.08.140C Exceptions to Homestay parking requirements
40 17.10.020B.2 Replacement of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use
41 17.10.020C Modifications to non-conforming uses
42 17.12.020A Exception for a non-conforming lot merger
43 17.14.020E.2 Setback reductions for minor additions to non-conforming structures
44 17.16.010A.2a Exceptions to density slop calculations
45 17.16.020D.6 Trash enclosures within setbacks subject to ARC approval
46 17.16.020E.2a Discretionary exceptions to yard requirements
47 17.16.025G.4 Discretionary exceptions to creek setback requirements
48 17.16.040 Table 5.5 Building height exceptions for specific zones
49 17.16.060B Shared parking reduction
50 17.16.060C Mixed-use parking reduction
51 17.16.060D Mechanical Parking lifts
52 17.16.060E Trip Reduction Plans
53 17.16.060F Off-site parking requirements
54 17.16.060H.7b Off-site parking requirements for downtown
55 17.16.060L Tandem parking for non-residential development
56 17.16.110E.2 Dish-type satellite antenna exceptions
57 17.16.110F Satellite antenna exceptions in open space
PCBusinessItem1 - 3
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 4
58 17.16.120D Wireless telecommunication facilities
59 17.16.120F.16 Nuisance of telecommunication facilities
60 17.16.120H Revocation of a use permit for telecommunication facilities
61 17.17.050 Exceptions for front yard paving requirements
62 17.22 Notes 1 Residential conversion to non-residential use
63 17.22 Notes 2 Two or more residential dwellings in the R-1 zone
64 17.22 Notes 3 Exceptions to limitations on retail floor area requirements
65 17.22 Notes 6 Parking as a principal use
66 17.22 Notes 10 Exceptions to limitations on grocery store floor area requirements
67 17.23.050 Exceptions to parking lot lights subject to ARC approval
68 17.24.020C 35-foot height exception in the R-1 zone
69 17.34.020C 35-foot height exception in the Office zone
70 17.36.030C Administrative approval for uses associated with Public Schools
71 17.42.020C.2 Building heights greater than 60 feet in downtown
72 17.42.020G Installation of new driveway approaches downtown
73 17.50.100 Amendment of final development plans
74 17.56.010A New uses within the Special Considerations Overlay
75 17.57.040A.2 Exceptions to uses and non-residential density within the AOZ
76 17.72.020B.2 Revocation of Use Permit upon substantiated complaint
77 17.86.050 Downtown housing conversions to non-residential
78 17.93.040 Establishment of a High Occupancy use
ID# Section Number Planning Commission Use Permit
79 17.08.115 Safe parking establishments
80 17.16.030 Exceptions to lot coverage requirements
81 17.16.060H.7f Downtown residential parking reductions
82 17.19.080 Revocation of a PC use permit
83 17.22 Notes 6 Parking as a principal use
84 17.22 Notes 10 Exceptions to limitations on groceries floor area
85 17.36.030D Uses allowed with PC Approval within Public Schools
86 17.40.020I Exception to retail floor area limitations
87 17.42.020C.1f Exceptions to performance standards
88 17.42.020C.2 Exceptions for building height of up to 75 feet in downtown
89 17.42.020J Exception to retail floor area limitations
90 17.50.100B & D Amendment of final development plans
91 17.53.020 Specific areas within Special Focus Overlay
92 17.74.060 Adoption of building setback lines from the public right-of-way
93 17.80.060 General Plan amendments
94 17.86.060 Downtown housing conversions exceptions
PCBusinessItem1 - 4
GENP-0327-2017
Memorandum: Zoning Regulations Update
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft White Paper - Cannabis
2. Tentative Schedule of Zoning Regulation Update
PCBusinessItem1 - 5
White Paper:
Case Studies in Local
Adult‐Use and Medical
Marijuana Regulation
Introduction
In 2016. California voters passed Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalized
marijuana use and possession for adults in the State. The San Luis Obispo City Council passed Ordinance
No. 1633 in March 2017 banning marijuana uses to give City staff time to develop a well-informed
regulatory approach in response to AUMA (now referred to as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act, or MAUCRSA).1 Ordinance No. 1633 reaffirmed the City’s prohibition of all
commercial and industrial recreational marijuana uses, activities, and operations, except as permitted
under state laws. The City Council also directed staff to return to Council with recommended changes to
the City’s Municipal Code after monitoring state and federal developments and conducting public
outreach.2
The states of Colorado, Washington, and Oregon legalized nonmedical adult use and possession of
marijuana in 2012, 2012, and 2014, respectively. As in California, these state laws allow local
jurisdictions to decide what is allowed in their municipalities. Within these states, the cities of Denver,
Seattle, and Portland have enacted relatively more permissive local marijuana legislation than other
cities in their states. This paper examines how these cities—from a zoning perspective—have regulated
adult use and medical marijuana since legalization, the impacts of these regulations, and lessons
learned. While Denver has extensively analyzed the impacts of its land use regulations (among other
impacts), Seattle and Portland have not (in part because Washington only recently legalized adult-use
marijuana); this paper addresses all three cities to the extent information is available. Implications of
these types of regulations as they may apply to the City’s zoning regulations and considerations for San
Luis Obispo are presented at the end of this paper.
While Colorado, Washington, and Oregon can provide important lessons for California cities, it is
important to reiterate that legalizing adult-use marijuana at the state level is still too new to the United
States to draw any lasting or concrete conclusions from. This paper also does not consider the
1 While the State now officially uses the term cannabis, this paper will continue to use the term marijuana since that is the term
used in current City regulations.
2 City of San Luis Obispo. March, 14 2017. “Council Agenda Report: Marijuana Regulation.”
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 6
2 | Page
sustainability, enforcement/inspections, public education and communication, and taxes and local
revenue implications of legalization, although these are important considerations for San Luis Obispo
when considering modifying marijuana-related regulations moving forward.
California Regulatory Framework
The City of San Luis Obispo has a variety of options for regulating adult-use of marijuana based on state
law. Local jurisdictions have complete flexibility to decide whether to allow any type of commercial
marijuana business and outdoor personal cultivation. These can be regulated through local land use,
types of business licenses, environmental regulation, etc. Local jurisdictions cannot ban outright indoor
personal cultivation nor use in private locations. Under state law, cannabis businesses are not allowed to
locate within 600 feet of a school, day care center, or youth center; local jurisdictions can establish
greater distancing requirements. A more detailed explanation of what MAUCRSA makes legal and what
cities are allowed and not allowed to regulate are included in the March 14, 2017 Council Agenda
Report: Marijuana Regulation prepared by City staff.
Two major changes to state regulation in relation to adult-use of marijuana have occurred since staff
prepared the March 2017 Council Agenda Report. On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill
No. 94, which repeals the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) and includes certain
provisions of MCRSA in the licensing provisions of AUMA, all together called the Medicinal and Adult-
Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (as noted above, MAUCRSA). The bill lays out 20 types of
business licenses which fall into six categories: cultivation, manufacturing, laboratory testing, deliveries,
retail sales, and distribution. In addition, microbusiness that vertically integrate one or more activities
are permitted. Each category is either A, for adult-use, or M, for medical cannabis activity. MAUCRSA
also changes building and fire safety standards for marijuana cultivators and how the state determines
whether an application is compliant with local authorization. 3
Assembly Bill 133, signed September 16, 2017, allows marijuana businesses with different license types
to operate at a single location. The bill also changes some marijuana business definitions and again how
the State determines whether an application is compliant with local authorization.4
3 California Senate Bill 94 Cannabis: medicinal and adult use. 2017.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94
4 California Assembly Bill 133, Committee on Budget. Cannabis Regulation. 2017.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB133.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 7
3 | Page
Case Study: Denver, Colorado
Colorado Regulatory Framework
Colorado voters legalized medical marijuana in 2000, but was it was not widely commercially available
until 2010. In 2012, Amendment 64 legalized adult (21 and older) use and possession of marijuana, as
well as the retail sale, cultivation, and testing of marijuana. As in California, Colorado law allows local
jurisdictions to decide what marijuana businesses to allow in their jurisdictions. In addition, they can
impose place/time and land use restrictions on marijuana businesses.5 As of October 2016, only 21% of
local jurisdictions in Colorado allowed both medical and retail marijuana facilities.6
Denver Regulatory Framework
The City of Denver primarily regulates marijuana businesses using licensing laws. Marijuana businesses
are not specifically addressed in zoning regulations. Instead, zoning regulations align the business type
with a land use category (see Figure 1). Denver requires marijuana business owners to get a zoning use
permit when submitting an application for a license.
Figure 1: Denver’s marijuana business license types and corresponding zoning land uses.
Impacts
In general, recreational marijuana stores in Colorado are concentrated in Denver. The stores in Denver
account for 37% of stores statewide even though Denver houses only 12% of the state’s population.7 As
of October 2016, 1,091 marijuana business licenses had been issued for 481 locations, with medical
5 Pramuk, Clare. December 2016. “Issue Brief: Marijuana Regulation in Colorado.” A Legislative Council Staff Publication.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/16-36_issue_brief_on_marijuana_law.pdf
6 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
7 Denver Office of Children’s Affairs. October 2016. “Youth Prevention and Education.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 8
4 | Page
grow making up the highest proportion at 35% and retail grow and medical storefront coming in close in
second place at close to 18% (see Figure 2).8
Figure 2: Active Denver marijuana business licenses by type, October 2016
Impact: Geographic Distribution
In October 2016, the Denver Office of Economic Development identified two major geographic patterns
in marijuana business locations: 1) a significant portion of marijuana retail businesses are located in low-
to moderate-income neighborhoods and 2) marijuana cultivation business “grows” are concentrated in
industrial/warehouse districts9 in the northern and western portions of the City, possibly because of
existing zoning restrictions and where warehouses in the City are available.10 Error! Reference source
not found. shows a map of marijuana businesses as of October 2016.
Because of these concentrations of marijuana businesses and because few new medical marijuana cards
were being issued, the Denver City Council adopted Bill 16-0912, “The Cap Bill,” in April 2016. The Cap
Bill set an upper limit on the number of distinct marijuana cultivation and sales locations, halted all new
medical marijuana and sales licenses, and prohibited marijuana businesses within 1,000 feet of a school
or residential district. In addition to other procedural recommendations, the bill also requires marijuana
license applicants to notify neighborhoods if they are moving to or locating in a “saturated”
neighborhood. 11
8 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
9 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
10 Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-
Safety.pdf.
11 City and County of Denver. April 18, 2016. “Ordinance No. 16-0291.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/723/documents/ORD%2016-0291%2005.01.16.pdf; City and
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 9
5 | Page
Figure 3: Map of Denver marijuana facilities and low to modern income residential areas, October 2016.
Impact: Real Estate Market
While several factors have influenced the Denver real estate market since recreational marijuana use
legalization, including a recovering economy and urban revitalization, the Denver Office of Economic
Development believes that marijuana businesses have represented a “significant share of new
commercial leases since legalization.” Since legalization, commercial lease values have doubled and
leases have increased at least 50% or more. The properties used by marijuana businesses are typically
Class “B” and “C” buildings.12
County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf; City and
County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
12 Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-
Safety.pdf.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 10
6 | Page
Impact: Economic Outcomes
As of October 2016, marijuana businesses accounted for less than 1% of Denver’s employment. Average
annual wages in the cannabis industry are a little less than half of Denver’s average as a whole ($34,000
compared to $65,200). In 2016, annual cannabis sales in the City were approximately $500 million,
which on average is $125,000 per employee. Retail marijuana sales make up 55% of total and 70% of tax
revenue from marijuana.13
Figure 4: Marijuana sale revenue in Denver, 2014 – 2016.14
Impact: Crime
Overall, while marijuana-related and marijuana industry-related crimes in Denver increased slightly
between 2012 and 2016, these crimes as a percentage of crime overall in the City decreased. In 2016,
these crimes made up less than 1% of crime overall in the City. Burglaries or attempted burglaries made
up the largest portion of marijuana industry-related crimes at 78% in 2016. Only three reported violent
crimes out of 209 crimes were related to the licensed marijuana industry in 2016.15
The City of Denver issued more tickets for public consumption and fewer for possession of marijuana
between 2012 and 2016, although combined these tickets have decreased (see Figure 5). Driving under
the influence of marijuana has more than doubled since 2013, but only from 33 to 73, but still makes up
less than 3% of DUI and DUIDs in Denver in 2015.16
13 Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-
Safety.pdf.
14 City and County of Denver. 2017. “The Denver Collaborative Approach: Leading the Way in Municipal Marijuana
Management.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/782/documents/Collaborative_Approach_PDF.pdf.
15 City and County of Denver. 2017. “The Denver Collaborative Approach: Leading the Way in Municipal Marijuana
Management.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/782/documents/Collaborative_Approach_PDF.pdf.
16 City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Measuring the Impacts.” https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Measuring-the-Impacts.pdf.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 11
7 | Page
Figure 5: Public consumption and possession tickets issued from 2012 to 2016 in Denver.
Impact: Environment
The primary environmental impacts of marijuana businesses in Denver have been an increase in
electricity use, especially used for marijuana cultivation, and complaints of odor from cultivation and
manufacturing facilities. Because cultivation and manufacturing facilities are concentrated in the north
and west areas of the City, the odor issue is more prominent in those areas. Marijuana is the fourth
most complained about odor in Denver (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Denver odor concerns by source
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 12
8 | Page
To address these odor complaints, in May 2016 Denver passed an odor ordinance that considers odor to
be a public health nuisance under air pollution regulations. It requires the industry types that generate
the most odor complaints—which includes marijuana cultivation and manufacturing businesses—as well
as businesses/households that receive a certain number of complaints, to adopt an “Odor Control
Plan.”17
Lessons Learned
1. Be aware of possible regulatory gaps. Some marijuana uses are not a commercial business but
may need additional regulation, such as caregiver grows, home grows, collectives, and home
extractions.
2. Consider that the marijuana industry, relatively new in the U.S., is evolving. Zoning code policies
or interpretations can be used to fill gaps in policies until more comprehensive approaches are
adopted.
3. Consider possible unintended consequences of impact in low-income neighborhoods or similar
locations where barriers to entry are low.
4. Consider implementing stricter regulations first, then loosening as time goes on.
5. Be aware of potential over-concentration of marijuana-related uses, similar to concerns
associated with liquor establishments.
6. Regulating marijuana uses strictly by business license and not specific zoning regulatory controls
can lead to the over-concentration and odor concerns experienced in Denver. Also, unless a
control procedure is in place, the burden of ensuring adequate distance from schools and parks
(and other identified sensitive uses) might fall to the Finance Department rather that the
Community Development Department.
Case Study: Seattle, Washington
Washington Regulatory Framework
In 2011, the state of Washington legalized use, cultivation, and processing of medical marijuana. In
2012, the state legalized recreational marijuana, requiring all businesses to locate outside of a 1,000-
foot buffer around schools, recreation areas, and public transit centers, and restricting advertising and
signage. In 2015, the state combined the recreational and medical marijuana legislation and allowed
local regulators to reduce buffer zones to between 100 and 1,000 feet.18
17 Denver Department of Environmental Health. October 2016. “Community Health & Safety.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Community-Health-
Safety.pdf
18 City of Seattle, Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation. October 2016. “National Roundtable: City of Seattle Cannabis
Legislation.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/National-Roundtable.pdf.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 13
9 | Page
Seattle Regulatory Framework
The City of Seattle primarily regulates marijuana businesses using zoning, categorizing the businesses as
retail sales and services, urban farms, food processing, or light manufacturing. All marijuana businesses
are prohibited from the majority of residential and mixed-use zones. In some zones where marijuana
businesses are permitted, they are restricted to 10,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet, depending on
the category in which the business falls.19 Seattle also prohibits marijuana-related businesses from
locating within 1,000 of schools and playgrounds, and between 250 and 500 feet of other recreational
areas, depending on whether the business is a retail or other establishment; lower distances apply in
downtown zones. See Figure 7 for more information.20 In addition, while two retail stores can locate
within 1,000 feet of each other, a third retail store must be more than 1,000 feet from the other two. 21
Figure 7: Seattle marijuana business buffer and dispersion requirements
Impacts
The City of Seattle has 146 licensed marijuana businesses within its boundaries, which represents 11% of
the state’s retail locations and 8% of the state’s producers and processors. Seattle currently does not
have publicly available data on the land use impacts of marijuana legalization.
19 See slide 39 of City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land Use
and Licensing.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf for more information.
20 City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land Use and Licensing.”
Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
21 City of Seattle, Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation. October 2016. “National Roundtable: City of Seattle Cannabis
Legislation.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/National-Roundtable.pdf.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 14
10 | Page
Lessons Learned
1. Consider a variety of marijuana and marijuana-related businesses when creating regulations
(including retailers including delivery services, vending machine operators, testing labs,
transporters, use lounges both private and public, and temporary events).
2. As noted above, anticipate the unexpected, as the industry is new and changing.22
Case Study: Portland, Oregon
Oregon Regulatory Framework
In 1998, Oregon legalized medical marijuana cultivation, possession, and use by doctors, but the state
did not create legalized medical dispensaries and a marijuana registry until 2013. In 2014, the state
legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Since that time, Oregon has been slowly phasing in
recreational marijuana. The state first allowed the sale of recreational marijuana at medical dispensaries
in August 2015. Not until October 2016 did the state began licensing recreational marijuana stores.
Under Oregon law, local regulators have control over marijuana sales. According to state law, marijuana
facilities cannot be at the same address as a liquor store, in an area zoned only for residential use
(excepting private producers), or located within 1,000 feet of a public or secondary school.
Portland Regulatory Framework
The City of Portland regulates marijuana facilities through a series of licensing requirements which fall
into the categories of minimum standards, regulatory compliance, and safety and livability. Each
category of marijuana facilities falls into a distinct Portland zoning code category (see Figure 8). In
addition, marijuana dispensaries and retailers must be outside of a 1,000-foot radius around other
dispensaries and retailers and primary and secondary schools, although there are no restrictions relative
to other marijuana facilities.23 To address community concerns about the possible concentration or
saturation of medical marijuana business, the City put in place the following restrictions to regulate
recreational marijuana:
Restricts marijuana businesses from some zones that are not exclusively residential
Requires security system for marijuana businesses
Requires proof of an air filtration system for marijuana businesses to reduce odors24
22 City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land Use and Licensing.”
Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
23 City of Portland. “Marijuana Policy Program.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/619136
24 City of Portland. “Cannabis Policy Center: Portland Cannabis Business Regulations.”
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/622978
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 15
11 | Page
Figure 8: Portland zoning code use categorization for marijuana facilities
As an aside, the cities of Eugene and Corvallis, both of which are college towns, have virtually no land
use regulations for marijuana facilities. They have focused instead on taxation and revenue generation.
Corvallis prohibit use in public and prohibits homegrown marijuana in public view.
Impacts
As of October 2016, Portland had 80 medical marijuana dispensaries and 16 recreational businesses. The
majority (11) of these recreational businesses are retailers, with two wholesalers and three producers.25
Portland decision-makers have stated their commitment to changing policies based on a changing
marijuana industry and as informed by the City’s Marijuana Policy Oversight Team.26 As legalization is
relatively new in Portland, the land use impacts have not been identified.
Considerations for the Updated Zoning Regulations
The City of San Luis Obispo has wide discretion for allowing various types of marijuana
businesses. Through the public engagement process, staff and decision-makers will learn of
community desires regarding marijuana regulation. From a land use regulatory perspective, the
City will need to determine which types of uses will be permitted in which zones (if at all), and
whether uses will be allowed by right or require a Director-level or Planning Commission-level
Use Permit.
It may be appropriate and probably necessary to have detailed regulations in Title 5 (Licenses,
Permits, and Regulations) of the Municipal Code that complement the Zoning Regulations. In
effect, marijuana-related businesses might have regulations akin to massage establishments in
terms of land use restrictions and business licensing requirements.
Consideration should be given to over-concentration, if this is a community concern.
The City may elect to include buffering requirements from schools, parks, and other defined
sensitive uses that are greater than the 600-foot standard established by MAUCRSA.
25 City of Portland. October 2016. “Marijuana Policy Program.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management
Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
26 City of Portland. “Marijuana Policy Program.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/619136
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 16
12 | Page
Given the cash nature of marijuana businesses due to financial institutions’ unwillingness to
engage in transactions with these businesses, the Police Department may want to weigh in on
security requirements included in the Zoning Regulations. Alternatively, such requirements
could be included in Title 5.
If the City is concerned about on-site consumption at marijuana businesses and patrons leaving
the businesses under the influence, consider prohibiting on-site consumption at sales locations.
An October 1, 2017 editorial in the Los Angeles Times opined that it is disingenuous for cities to
allow marijuana businesses but then severely limit where smoking can occur (e.g., not in public
places, not in cars, not in multifamily housing developments). Given that San Luis Obispo has
well-defined smoking restrictions for tobacco products, the same might apply to marijuana.
(Note that this is not a land use/zoning issue.)
Understand that some marijuana processing/manufacturing activities involve the use of
explosive materials. This needs to be considered when determining where such businesses can
locate.
The City currently prohibits uses or activities that cause persistent offensive odors to emanate
across property or parcel lines in Chapter 8.22 of the Municipal Code. If the City is interested in
allowing commercial marijuana cultivation or manufacturing, it could consider emulating
Denver’s odor ordinance requiring industries that create odor to create an “Odor Control Plan.”
In addition, require an Odor Control Plan for any cultivation or manufacturing, personal or
commercial, that receives more than five odor complaints in a month.
With regard to personal cultivation, if allowed outdoors, the Zoning Regulations need to be clear
regarding location, plant height, etc. so that they can easily be enforced.
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 17
13 | Page
Sources
S.B. 94. California State Legislature, 2017-18 Session, 15 June 2017. “Cannabis: medicinal and adult use.”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94
City of San Luis Obispo. March, 14 2017. “Council Agenda Report: Marijuana Regulation.”
City and County of Denver. April 18, 2016. “Ordinance No. 16-0291.”
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/723/documents/ORD%2016-
0291%2005.01.16.pdf
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal, and Land Use.” Presentation for
the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Measuring the Impacts.” Presentation for the Denver
Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Measuring-the-Impacts.pdf.
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “The Denver Collaborative Approach: Leading the Way in
Municipal Marijuana Management.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium.
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/782/documents/Collaborative_Approach
_PDF.pdf.
City of Portland. “Cannabis Policy Center: Portland Cannabis Business Regulations.”
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/622978
City of Portland. October 2016. “Marijuana Policy Program.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana
Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-
Land-Use.pdf
City of Portland. “Marijuana Policy Program.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/619136
City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative Services. October 2016. “Marijuana Regulation through Land
Use and Licensing.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium.
https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf.
City of Seattle, Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation. October 2016. “National Roundtable: City of
Seattle Cannabis Legislation.” Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium.
https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/National-Roundtable.pdf.
Colorado Department of Public Safety. March 2016. “Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Early Findings,
A Report Pursuant to Senate Bill 13-283.”
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 18
14 | Page
City and County of Denver. October 2016. “Marijuana Licensing, Legal and Land Use.” Presentation for
the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Licensing-Legal-Land-Use.pdf
Denver Department of Environmental Health. October 2016. “Community Health & Safety.”
Presentation for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Community-Health-Safety.pdf
Denver Office of Children’s Affairs. October 2016. “Youth Prevention and Education.” Presentation for
the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Youth-Education-Prevention.pdf
Denver Office of Economic Development. October 2016. “Economic Impacts & Outcomes.” Presentation
for the Denver Marijuana Management Symposium. https://www.dmms2017.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Financial-Impacts-Employee-Safety.pdf.
Pramuk, Clare. December 2016. “Issue Brief: Marijuana Regulation in Colorado.” A Legislative Council
Staff Publication. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/16-36_issue_brief_on_marijuana_law.pdf
State of Oregon. October 2017. “Business Readiness Guidebook for OLCC Marijuana Operations.”
http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/BusinessReadinessGuide_RecreationalMarijuana.p
df
Attachment 1
PCBusinessItem1 - 19
schedule (10-10-17)20172018116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116116Task 1: Project Initiation, Coordination, and Management1.1Project Initiation1.2MIG Team/City Staff Work Sessions (allowance)1.3Project Management1.4Website Assistance - As NeededTask 2: Defining Approaches, Ideas, and Options for Implementing the General Plan and Updating the Zoning Regulations2.1Data Collection, Zoning Regulations Diagnosis, and Outline7/172.2Stakeholder Interviews2.3Community Workshop - Introducing the Update Program6/32.4Issues Papers (5)HousingEdge ConditionsCannabisCAP ImplementationFlexible Density2.5Planning Commission and City Council Study SessionTask 3: Draft Zoning Regulations and Public Review3.1Style Sheet and Format7/173.2Admininstrative Draft (2 drafts)Article 1Article 2Article 3Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8Article 93.3Public Review DraftTask 4: Public Review of the Draft Zoning Regulations and Produce Public Hearing Draft4.1Community Workshops (2)4.2Initial Meeting with ALUC Staff4.3Public Hearing Draft Zoning RegulationsTask 5: CEQA Documentation5.1General Plan EIR Addendum - Assistance to City StaffTask 6: Public Hearings, ALUC Hearings, and Final Zoning Regulations6.1Planning Commission Public Hearings (2)6.2City Council Public Hearings (2) 6.3ALUC Formal Referral Hearing6.4Final Zoning RegulationsMIG TaskCity TaskWorkshop/Study Session/HearingPublic ReviewNovemberMarchDecemberMay JunePROJECT MONTH/DATESMayOctoberAugustJuneJanuary February March AprilJanuary February AprilJuly SeptemberMIG, Inc.San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations Fee ProposalAttachment 2 PCBusinessItem1 - 20