Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/15/2018 Item 6, Kean From:Andrew Kean < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Additional Concerns Regarding the Cannabis Regulations, 2nd Reading Dear San Luis Obispo City Council- My name is Andrew Kean and I live on High Street in San Luis Obispo. I am writing today regarding the second reading of the City’s Cannabis Regulations. I previously wrote you on May 1, but I have further thoughts now that I better understand more of the details. My comments can probably be categorized as “a day late and a dollar short”, but I have had trouble sleeping as I ponder this subject, so I feel the need to send one last email. In general, I would like to communicate displeasure with the City’s process which has resulted in the intersection of Higuera and High Streets as a likely future home of a cannabis retail store. I feel that inconsistent logic has been applied, resulting in an unfair outcome to residents of my neighborhood. I realize that the cannabis overlays have yet to be finalized, so I am asking the City Council to not allow a cannabis retail storefront (or microbusiness with public retail component) in the Mid-Higuera neighborhood. Here are the many reasons for my opinion: 1) The intersection of Higuera and High is the location of the Mathews Mobile Home Park, where many middle and lower income residents of San Luis Obispo reside. The City Council has indicated they support additional affordable housing in the City, but inclusion of this mobile home park inside any cannabis overlay will have the opposite effect. There has been much attention to the fact that land values will go up (and may have already gone up according to public testimony) as these cannabis regulations have been developed. No doubt, if the land under these homes is available as part of this “land-grab”, it will result in the displacement of these families from their homes. 2) Also, related to the Mathews Mobile Home Park is that fact that all residents of San Luis Obispo deserve to be treated equally. The fact that the Mathews Mobile Home Park is zoned C-R-MU should not reduce the respect these people deserve. It is rather arbitrary that the Village Mobile Home Park (near South and Beebee) is zoned R-4, so those residents won’t be displaced by cannabis businesses, but the Mathews residents may be displaced or have to deal with one of these businesses right next door. So even residents of nearby Mobile Home parks are not being treated equally. The City’s Planning Commission expressed concern about retail cannabis businesses near homes. That is why they asked for a 300 foot buffer from people’s homes. If the city truly respects ALL residents of San Luis Obispo, this buffer should be applied to all residents, regardless of zoning designation. Please treat the less affluent the same as you would treat the wealthy of our City. 3) The placement of a cannabis retail store anywhere near the intersection of High and Higuera is inconsistent with the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. This plan is about improving the quality of life and attractiveness of this neighborhood. The Planning Commission eliminated consideration of Community Commercial zoning areas for retail cannabis stores because of concern about safety, attractiveness, and proximity to homes. For context, I believe that Big5 still sells firearms in the Marigold Center. The Planning Commission’s logic implies that a cannabis retail storefront is a greater threat to our community than firearms sales. If Cannabis businesses are inappropriate for Community Commercial zones, then they are definitely in conflict with the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. 4) Also, the Mid-Higuera Enhancement plan calls for the development of new parks and additional access to Open Space along San Luis Creek. This area is also the future termination of the Bob Jones Bicycle Trail, where hopefully many families will choose to recreate. The Planning Commission has asked for 1000 foot buffers from schools and parks. At one south end of the Plan Area is Eto Park. At the north end of the Plan Area is City open space with opens onto Higuera. 1 Per the Planning Commission’s request, if 1000 foot buffers are applied to both of these, it eliminates the entire Mid- Higuera Overlay from consideration of retail storefronts. 5) The new regulations require retail storefronts be situation on “arterial streets.” It is not clear if this term is used precisely or casually. According to the City’s Street Classification Diagram, Broad Street is a Highway, not an arterial street. If I am understanding the new cannabis regulations correctly, I believe no retail storefronts would be allowed on Broad (despite the planned overlay). This will make it even more likely for a retail storefront to go very close to homes in my neighborhood. It is also unclear if “Residential Arterial” would be included in “arterial streets.” I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this language could be tightened up to better reflect the wishes of the City Council and Planning Commission. And I have one brief comment about the city’s plan for non-retail cannabis businesses. Buffers were used to identify areas of the city for further consideration for cannabis businesses (like my neighborhood near High and Higuera). But then buffers were abandoned for all non-retail storefront cannabis businesses. To be fair to all residents, the City should re-evaluate available areas for cannabis businesses city-wide, without any buffers. Large parts of the City are available for these businesses now that the buffers have been abandoned. The buffers limited the businesses to just a handful of locations, so this is unfair to the residents in those areas. The correct and fair thing (now that buffers are not used for non-retail storefront businesses) would be to go back and find all of the qualifying areas. If the City is serious about maximizing the areas of the City available to these businesses (to avoid the “land-grab” effect discussed in your meetings), it is imperative that this re-evaluation occur. Some of the early research performed by your staff demonstrated that Cannabis businesses in other cities can accidentally get limited to less-affluent parts of a community. I worry that the same thing is occurring here. I live near multiple mobile home parks, and High Street is home to several HASLO public housing apartment buildings. It sure feels that our neighborhood is not getting the same treatment as other, more affluent, parts of our City. Sorry for the long letter and thank you for your time. Andrew Kean 2