AgdaPkt 2020-10-26 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.B. - Page 5 of 48 One area of the discussion focused on the inclusion of downtown as an area where storefront retail cannabis could be located. There were comments on whether storefront retail cannabis would be compatible with and complement other downtown uses. An additional concern was whether the security requirements for a storefront cannabis retail would be inconsistent with the frontage and transparency requirements of the Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP). The goal of "active retail" is to create high foot traffic areas and complement other uses in the Downtown. Cannabis storefront retail establishments typically create increased foot traffic by customers. Also, there was discussion about potential clustering or over -concentration of retail cannabis uses in one location and neighborhood impacts. The Planning Commission suggested that if clustering is a concern, then inclusion of specific regulations in the Zoning Ordinance may be the best way to address the concern. Staff believes clustering concerns will be adequately addressed by limiting the number of cannabis business permits awarded to cannabis storefront retailers to up to six. The Planning Commission also presented concerns on youth access to cannabis storefront retail stores. However, this concern is addressed by existing state regulations which require cannabis retailers to confirm a customer's age and identity prior to entering the retail establishment, and existing City regulations which cannabis businesses have to employ an electronic age verification device prior to selling a customer cannabis or cannabis products. An "electronic age verification device" is capable of quickly and reliably confirming the age of the cardholder of a government issued identification card using computer processes. The Commission also discussed whether retail stores can sell retail goods other than cannabis and cannabis related products. It should be noted that state regulations do not permit the sales of any other items which are not cannabis goods or cannabis accessories other than licensee branded merchandise such as hats, sweaters or t -shirts. Therefore, it distinctly prohibits the sale of tobacco or alcohol on the premises. Furthermore, the Planning Commission discussed concerns that allowing cannabis storefront retail would result in smoking of cannabis in public places or on the business premises. This concern is addressed by state law, which prohibits smoking cannabis in public places, and by the City's smoking ordinance, which prohibits smoking in and around multi -unit residences. The Commission also discussed the possibility of adjusting the 600 ft. buffer based on a specific sensitive use. For example, the buffer could be reduced for a day-care but increased for a park or high school. The rationale was that preschoolers would not be drawn to the cannabis retail but that high school students could be interested in this type of business in a negative way so more of a buffer might be considered. Staff recommends having a uniform 600 -foot buffer for all sensitive receptors which conforms with state default minimum buffer requirements and with City cannabis delivery business buffers. Finally, the Planning Commission also asked about staff's recommendation, supported by Council, to only allow up to six cannabis storefront retailers to locate in the City. This numerical limitation is in the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Staff recommends this limitation because: (i) research indicates the community would be adequately served by up to six cannabis storefront retailers when viewed in relation to the other cannabis retailers in the area, (ii) the limitation would Page 5 of 12 City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.org 478