Loading...
04.28.16 MAP Summary 1 MARIJUANA ADVISORY PANEL Thursday, April 28, 2016 Final Meeting Summary Attendance: Panelists: Jean Gonnell, Heath Harmon, Travis Howard, Alana Malone, Andrea Meneghel, Dave Miller, Bill Rigler, Teri Robnett, Jane Theodore, and Andy Tucker City Staff: Mishawn Cook, Kathy Haddock, Sandra Llanes, Bev Bookout, and Susan Richstone Facilitation: Heather Bergman and Jon Denzler Next Steps City Staff with Kate and Alana Review code to identify any items that are duplicative with State regulations or otherwise unnecessary and make a recommendation to the Panel for removal Travis, Heath, Jane, and Andrea Review and refine the list of discussion topics; bring back a list of proposed priorities, including which topics need a specific response or recommendation and which need a broader policy or process proposal. Alana, Jane, Kate, and Andy Identify creative ideas or additions to City code or policy to maintain or improve quality of life, safety of kids/youth, environmental, health justice, etc. Land Use Requirements/Planning for Boulder Susan Richstone from Boulder’s Planning Department provided an overview of the different land use regulation policies that address the marijuana regulations. Certain areas of Boulder have different land use regulations based on the City’s long-term vision for that area. For example, near the University of Colorado policies are in place to limit the number of non-related people living in one house to maintain the lower-density residential feel in that area. In other places, the number of owner’s accessory units (OAUs) and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are capped for similar reasons. Boulder uses a modular zoning system, which means that the City regulates based on the use, form, and intensity of a structure. Certain uses are regulated based on their location within the city and based compatibility of uses and their impacts. For example, industrial production is restricted in traditional neighborhoods and near the University. In terms of similar business categories to marijuana businesses, alcohol is treated differently in residential zones and in commercial zones both in terms of the size of a store and how close that store may be to a residential house or building. There are very few, if any, comparable industries that are regulated like marijuana growers and distributors. Firstly, there are no caps placed on number of other types of stores, but instead the City regulates their proximity to each other and to key community points, such as schools. This is similar to other zoning characteristics, with licensing being limited based on land usage. Secondly, there has been a concerted effort to limit the parallel usage of land space by marijuana industries. Marijuana Zoning Regulations Kathy Haddock from the City Attorney’s Office summarized the current zoning regulations that are specific to marijuana businesses. 2 • Medical marijuana wellness centers and recreational marijuana dispensaries are allowed in zones where “Personal Services” are a use by right. • Grows are allowed in zones where “greenhouse/nursery” or “manufacturing <15,000 square feet” are a use by right. • MIPs and testing facilities are allowed in zones where “manufacturing <15,000 square feet” are a use by right. • All locations that had a license or had filed an application by October 22, 2013, are grandfathered in at their current locations. • Because of the above categories, a grow or MIP supplying product could not be at the same address as sales location that sells the marijuana product. Questions/Answers What is the reasoning behind the additional limitations placed on marijuana businesses that are not faced by other industries? Marijuana businesses have potential community impacts (e.g., odor, safety, etc.) that can affect other businesses, residences or neighborhoods. In addition, some of the regulations do apply to other types of businesses (e.g., the alcohol industry also is regulated regarding distance from schools.) What is the economic impact of these restrictions? Some businesses have left the city due to smell affecting quality of production and noise interfering with daily activities. Would these losses in business be addressed by loosening the regulations placed on marijuana businesses? This is less an issue of zoning but rather of community values and decision making. The zoning code does not have that type of data available outside of enforcement. In addition, the current use of zoning code by the City of Boulder has been to support certain industries or business types and to keep diversity in the community. Due to lack of room to grow and build in the community, decisions have been made to preserve community space. What other industries have these same externalities? How does the City measure these things? This is not an area in which the City collects data, but staff does hear anecdotal evidence after an incident or business decides to move. In addition, businesses have the right to the use of their space within the zoning codes, and therefore they are protected from these externalities through the code. What other industries have intensity caps like those in the marijuana industry? There isn’t a direct analog in the city’s code to the way that marijuana sales and production is regulated. If diversity is a goal of the City through its use of zoning to influence business location and production, what is the tool used to measure this diversity? There is no data available on this. Rather, it is a question of the desired goal of the City. Zoning planning is reflective of that goal. What other industries have similar restrictions in terms of location and building limitations? As with other controlled substances, marijuana cannot be located within five hundred feet of a residential area. A comparable regulation exists regarding accessory units placed on residential neighborhoods. These are capped at 10% in a given area. Another example is food trucks--they must be located within certain distances from brick and mortar restaurants, are restricted to 3 certain zones, cannot be located adjacent to residential, and limited in terms of their proximity to other trucks (density). Why is marijuana regulated based on map distance as opposed to walking distance, which is the policy for alcohol? Alcohol regulations are set by the State. However, the method the State uses isn’t the most intuitive way to measure distance. The methodology used in the Marijuana Regulations is consistent with the way that the city uses to measure distances in other areas of the zoning code. Is the goal to create an equal playing field for Boulder marijuana businesses? Zoning makes no policy decision but instead implements and enforces legislative decisions. Panel Comments and Perspectives • Denver recently changed their code in response to community need; they set a cap on density of stores where there previously was no cap. • This conversation highlights the complexity of the zoning regulations and how difficult it is for members of the panel to feel they have an adequate understanding to engage in an informed discussion about changes to the City code. This is particularly challenging for those outside the marijuana industry. The Panel agreed to table further discussion of zoning, density, and other substantive topics to allow time for a discussion about the broader purpose and approach of the Panel. Purpose of the Panel Several members of the Panel have raised questions about what its true purpose is and how it should approach its work. One key question relates to whether the Panel should start with the City Code and make revisions, or if they should start with the State regulations and revise them to make them more appropriate for the Boulder context. The discussion transitioned into a larger exploration of how the group should proceed with the remaining time available. Panel comments on this topic are summarized below. • Much like the zoning codes were beyond some members of the Panel in terms of technical understanding, so too are the marijuana codes at the local and State level. • In terms of representing the community voice, it may be helpful to broaden the conversation beyond the codes and regulations to consider how all of this affects the residents of Boulder. • The goal of creating an equal playing field may not actually be the goal of the Panel. The Panel is made up of a variety of voices, not just the industry, to ensure a broader perspective and discussion. • State entities have their own rules, which might be different from local ordinances. The state law allows for local communities to adopt policies to meet their own needs and reflect community values. • The focus of the Panel should be on the process since the group may not be able to write new code language for all of the remaining issues. • A key reason for this Panel’s formation was the City’s interest in dealing with the many concerns raised by the marijuana industry at Council meetings in a comprehensive fashion rather than by piecemeal. For this reason, addressing industry’s concerns is important work for the Panel to do. • The marijuana industry is treated differently in the City than other industries. The Panel should focus on the State code and revise that foundation to address Boulder needs. This 4 would eliminate some of the extra regulations that Boulder places upon those businesses in the status quo. • Not all of the State code is applicable for Boulder. State code also includes policies on testing and statewide sales. The Boulder marijuana code is 23 pages, whereas the State regulations are more than 400 pages. • The Panel should focus on the local enforcement of the marijuana code: time, place, and manner. • The Panel should focus on issues that are unique to the Boulder code, like advertising restrictions. • The Panel may not be set up for success to the framing of the conversation and the complexity of the code. • The Panel could request more time from Council to complete its work. In response to a question from the facilitator, most members of the Panel indicated a willingness to continue to work beyond the June 30th deadline if the group is making progress and achieving outcomes. • The Panel should not recommend more discussions or panels to Council; they convened this group to resolve these issues not to delegate them. Next Steps The group agreed to create three small task groups to explore several topics that emerged during the meeting. The groups will self-organize and self-facilitate. They will report back to the full Panel at the next meeting. Names in bold below indicate who will initiate and coordinate the task group meetings. • Discussion Priorities: Review and refine the list of discussion topics; bring back a list of proposed priorities, including which topics need a specific response or recommendation and which need a broader policy or process proposal. Heath, Travis, Andrea, and Jane. • Items to Remove from Boulder Code: Propose items to be removed from Boulder City Code because they are now redundant or otherwise unneeded. Mishawn, Kathy, and Kate. (Alana originally volunteered but is no longer able to join this group.) • Creative Ideas: Propose new, creative ideas for things Boulder could do to maintain or enhance quality of life in Boulder, safety of kids/youth, environmental and health justice, etc. Andy, Alana, Jane, and Kate Future Meetings In response to several questions raised about adjusting the future meeting schedule to accommodate different interests and needs, the group agreed to the following revised meeting schedule. Staff will begin looking for meeting venues immediately. • May 12, 4 pm to 7 pm — 1777 West Conference Room, first floor of Municipal Building (NO CHANGE) • June 1, 9 am to 12 pm — TBD (NEW DATE, TIME, and LOCATION) • June 9, 9 am 12 pm — TBD (NEW TIME, and LOCATION) • June 30, 9 am to 12 pm — TBD (NEW DATE, TIME, and LOCATION)