Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 11 <br /> • remove office park areas because they are also often not suited to small <br /> retail/commercial entities. <br /> Administration: <br /> If the City were to establish regulations to allow medical marijuana distribution <br /> collectives at this time or in the future, an application and review process would need to <br /> be set forth. Staff considered options and would suggest a process similar to Zoning <br /> Administration for considering a Use Permit. However, because of the special nature of <br /> the use, Planning staff would strongly advise that the Police Chief and/or designee act <br /> in tandem with the Zoning Administrator as part of a small review board. A third board <br /> member could be designated from the Community Development Department and/or the <br /> City Manager's office. This combination would provide oversight specifically relevant to <br /> public safety, land use, and the City as a whole. An appeals process would also need to <br /> be established and could involve the Planning Commission and/or simply allow the <br /> decision to be moved to the City Council. <br /> City staff has maintained dialogue with colleagues in several Bay Area jurisdictions to <br /> learn about their experiences with respect to regulation of inedical marijuana distribution <br /> facilities. Some jurisdictions intended to allow the facilities, but determined instead after <br /> significant study, to establish bans. Others have enacted ordinances allowing medical <br /> marijuana distribution facilities. In such cases, these codes include substantial <br /> regulations pertaining to distancing requirements to protect sensitive land uses. Staff <br /> was also advised that codes are most effectively administered if they are very specific <br /> about such distancing criteria as well as security and various design standards. This <br /> input led staff to focus on distancing requirements and land use designations resulting <br /> in the two scenarios presented above. <br /> From this research, staff has also learned that at this time there is likely only legal <br /> facility operating in San Mateo County (e.g. San Carlos does not have any permitted <br /> facilities, nor does San Mateo County; however, one permit application is currently <br /> under review in the North Fair Oaks portion of the County, the City of San Mateo has <br /> one collective in operation at this time.). Colleagues in nearby jurisdictions share the <br /> same assessment as City staff about access to medical marijuana and community <br /> interest in this topic. We have found that delivery of inedical marijuana is available <br /> throughout San Mateo County from facilities in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions to <br /> individuals with medical marijuana cards. Numerous websites have been identified that <br /> provide for delivery. Also, the City does not regulate the growth of inedical marijuana on <br /> private property for personal use which is permitted by state law. <br /> ALTERNATIVES <br /> 1. Adopt the ban with a sunset clause pursuant to the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation thereby establishing an obligation to assess this issue again in two <br /> years. <br /> 2. Adopt the ban with a revised sunset provision to obligate the City to reassess this <br /> issue within a shorter or longer period of time after its enactment. <br />