HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/2018 Item 10, Blakely
Christian, Kevin
From:daniel@blakelyappraisals.com
Sent: 26 AM
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Codron, Michael; Cohen, Rachel
Subject:Cannabis Operator Permit
Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,
After the recent October 16, 2018 city council meeting, I would offer some suggestions and changes to
issues that came up during the discussion of Item 20 - City of San Luis Obispo Commercial Cannabis
Business Operator Permit Evaluation Criteria.
1. Evaluation Criteria 2.0 - Record of compliant current or previous business operations.
a. I suggest that the description for item 2.0 be modified to include California in the first
sentence to read-
1. Applicant has previous record of operating a compliant California commercial
cannabis and/or other commercial business.
2. I am suggesting this change to encourage in-state applicants
2. Evaluation Criteria 3.0 Local Experience
a. In the introductory paragraph to this section delete the words “immediately preceding the
date of the application” from the sentence “Majority of applicant’s primary principals
reside in the County of San Luis obispo and the person(s)s has been residing at a primary
residence within San Luis Obispo County immediately preceding the date of the
application.”
1. The spirit of this section is to legitimately encourage local businesses. The
problem is that many applicants have lived in the county for many years and have
recently had to leave to find employment and other opportunities. These
applicants see this business opportunity as a chance to return to their home and
existing families in San Luis Obispo. By eliminating the language requiring
immediate residence you open up opportunities for reentry into the San Luis
Obispo community.
b. Choosing 5 or more years seems arbitrary and if you really want to encourage local
applicants committed to this community the number of years should be raised to 10 or
more.
3. Evaluation Criteria 7.0 Control of business location
a. An ongoing issue that your criteria and your staff’s direction is creating is that the owners
of a very limited number of properties are becoming the defacto parties that have become
the first screeners of applications. Some property owners are requiring a $200,000 non-
refundable deposit just to partner with a retail sales operation. This would be $200,000
1
before you would even know if you are chosen through the city’s evaluation process.
This does not encourage small local business people to move forward.
b. In the three zones the city has established for Cannabis Retail there are less than 10 sites
that are available for this use. This has created a huge windfall for property owners and
makes it difficult for a small business person to enter this market. In some cases, deep
pocket outside investors are the only ones who can partner with some local property
owners to move applications forward. In other cases, property owners have entered into
exclusive agreements that further limit property availability for the very folks you are
trying to encourage to get into this business.
c. I understand your staff is looking for applicants that have commitments on a location as
this would speed up the opening of the store but the problem is that this is squeezing
many good viable vendors out of the market place before any applications have been
reviewed.
d. I would suggest you direct your staff to remove the language that would incentivize
applicants that already have a site. Let the applicants get their permits then find a
location. It would be appropriate to put a one-year time limit on this. If the permit holder
cannot get their business sited within one year, then their permit would go to the next in
line applicant.
th
4. Procedurally- Will the November 27 meeting be the final reading on this issue? Or will the
Brown Act require that given all the changes made by the council at the last meeting and any
additional changes they “may” make at the November meeting an additional “final” meeting
will be needed?
5. Given the late date of the November meeting and the complicated application process do you
anticipate extending the application period?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue.
Sincerely,
Daniel Blakely
Blakely Appraisals
Office: 510-567-3031
Cell: 831-239-5464
2