Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 1 <br />ZONING DISTRICT <br />GENERAL RETAIL <br />SQ. FT. LIMITATIONS <br />Redwood City Downtown (DTTP) <br />Permitted <br />N/A <br />Neighborhood Commercial (CN) <br />Permitted <br />N/A <br />General Commercial (GC) <br />Permitted <br />N/A <br />Industrial Restricted (IR) <br />Conditionally Permitted <br />Greater than 30,000 sq. ft. <br />Light Industrial Incubator (LII) <br />Permitted <br />Conditionally Permitted <br />2,500 sq. ft. or less <br />Greater than 2500 sq. ft. <br />Industrial Park (IP) <br />Conditionally Permitted <br />Greater than 30,000 sq. ft. <br />Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) <br />Permitted <br />N/A <br />Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) <br />Permitted <br />N/A <br />Mixed Use Transitional (MUT) <br />Permitted <br />Conditionally permitted <br />5,000 sq. ft. or less <br />Greater than 5,000 sq. ft. <br />Mixed Use Waterfront (MUW) <br />Permitted <br />N/A <br />Question 4: Should retail storefront cannabis businesses be subject to the same City <br />requirements established for non -storefront retail cannabis businesses? Staff <br />recommends that retail storefront cannabis businesses be subject to the same City <br />requirements established for non -storefront retail cannabis businesses including 600 <br />foot buffers from certain sensitive receptors such as K-12 schools both public and <br />private, commercial daycare centers, and youth facilities. - I agree with the staff <br />recommendation that storefront retailers be held to the same standards as the non - <br />storefront cannabis business. I do however caution that an increase in the busffers <br />will cause the similar real estate problems of eliminating potential property as <br />described above in my response to question 3. <br />Question 5: Should retail storefront cannabis business applications be processed <br />using a merit -based application process conducted by staff, or should the City Council <br />be involved in the final decision or any appeal? Staff recommends a merit -based <br />application process with the application process managed by HdL, with final <br />determination by the City Manager, and any appeals being decided by a hearing <br />officer or law judge (Option 1).- I agree with the staff recommendation. In those cases <br />where cities have made the process political and veered away from the consultant <br />recommendation litigation has ensued. In the interest of fairness and <br />limiting liability exposure staff's recommendation seems to be the most reasonable of <br />all the options. <br />Thank you for taking the time to read my comments regarding staff's <br />recommendations. The fact that I agree with all but one small modification regarding <br />the elimination of the 30,000 sq. ft. minimum on IP Zoning is a testament to the fact <br />that Staff has engaged with all the stake holders including the industry in creating a <br />viable framework to present to the City Council for further direction. If you have any <br />questions or comments I am available by e-mail at seankalirai@yahoo.com or my <br />cellular phone at (408) 313-8081. Finally, I intend on being present (virtually) at the <br />study session if you may have questions at that time. <br />Sincerely, <br />-Sean <br />