Laserfiche WebLink
8.B. - Page 6 of 48 <br />protect the City's residents and neighborhoods from the negative impacts of clustering, and (iii) the <br />limitation would protect current business from disproportionately negative impacts. These are <br />legitimate governmental purposes which promote the public health, morals, safety, or general <br />welfare of the community. State cannabis law allows local jurisdictions to limit the number of <br />cannabis businesses that can locate in the City, and many jurisdictions have imposed such numerical <br />limitations. <br />There were eight speakers who provided public comment. Speakers included cannabis industry <br />representatives who would like the City to move forward with permitting retail businesses in the city <br />and residents who do not want the City to proceed with permitting retail storefronts in the City. <br />The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council <br />of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Planning Commission supported treating <br />storefront retail cannabis similarly to general retail and permitting this use in the recommended <br />zoning districts in the same manner as other retail uses. During the discussion, the Planning <br />Commission had some input and/or suggestions for City Council consideration. <br />000 sa. ft. threshold in the Industrial Park (IP) and Industrial Restricted (IR) Zonine Districts <br />In addition to the proposed zoning amendments, staff also asked the Planning Commission to provide <br />input on potentially adjusting the minimum 30,000 sq. ft. threshold for retail in the Industrial Park <br />(IP) and Industrial Restricted (IR) zones. The minimum 30,000 sq. ft. threshold already exists for <br />general retail uses and is not a specific regulation for storefront retail cannabis. Staff considers that <br />the original intent of the minimum 30,000 sq. ft. is to provide areas in the City where it may be <br />appropriate for larger scale retail uses with significant parking requirements. <br />Staff recommended to maintain the 30,000 sq. ft. threshold in the IP and IR Zoning Districts. <br />Currently, only 39 parcels citywide could accommodate a 30,000 sq. ft. development due to the <br />maximum FAR in those zoning districts. Lowering the threshold for general retail would affect all IR <br />and IP parcels in the City and would cause a significant change in policy for the industrial zoning <br />districts, which are intended to provide areas for a wide range of industrial uses. <br />Removing this threshold specifically for storefront retail cannabis would be counter to the argument <br />that storefront retail cannabis is similar to general retail. Industrial zoning districts would not have <br />the same visibility or the same number of suitable retail spaces. <br />The Planning Commission discussed the threshold and recommended that the 30,000 sq. ft. limit be <br />maintained for this process. The Commission suggested that it could be an amendment for future <br />consideration, but more data and research would be needed to understand impacts and implications. <br />According to the City Attorney's Office, a General Plan Amendment would be required to make this <br />change. Planning staff estimates that a General Plan Amendment process would take approximately <br />12 to 18 months to complete and would need to be placed on a separate planning timeline. <br />Updated Retail Cannabis Map <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.ore <br />479 <br />