Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes fo
r
November 18
, 2021
Page
1 of
5 P
LANNING
C
OMMISSION
R
EGULAR
M
EETING
M
INUTES
NOVEMBER 18
, 202
1 MEETING CAN BE VIEWED BY CLICKING
HERE
1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 :
30 P.M.
A
.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners
–
Kelley,
Oñate,
Hurtado, Massaro
ABSENT:
Commissioner Huether
STAFF:
Community
Development
–
Vin Smith
,
Mi
chael
Allen
,
Patty Baring
City Attorney’s
O
ffice
–
Sabrina
Wolfson
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. AGENDA
REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS
No changes were made to the Agenda
.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no requests to speak.
5. CONSENT
CALENDAR
A
. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Consideration of Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for
October 21
, 2021
.
Commissioners
Massaro and
Oñate
m
oved and seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as
submitted.
Motio
n
carried:
AYES:
Kelley,
Oñate
, H
u
rtado
,
Massaro
NOES:
ABSENT:
Hu
ether
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
6. CONSENT HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS
A
.
MEDICINAL AND ADULT
-
USE CANNABIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
–
CITYWIDE
Proposal to
amend Napa Municipal Code Section 17.52.275 (Medicinal and adult use cannabis regulation and safety ordinance) to allow retail sales of cannabis to adults who are 21 years of age an d older. With the proposed
amendments, adult
-
use cannabis retailers
will be required to follow a similar approval process as currently established for medicinal cannabis retailers.
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes fo
r
November 18
, 2021
Page
2 of
5 CEQA DETERMINATION:
Th
e Community Development Director has
determined that the Recommended
Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA , pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15060(c).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Forward a
recommendation to the City Council
to adopt an ordinance
amending Napa Municipal Code Section 17.52.275
to allow retail sales of cannabis to adults who are 21
years of age and older
.
Chair
Kelley
summarized the order of actions during public hearing and introduced the item.
Commissioners provided disclosures.
Community Development Director Vincent Smith
presented the Staff Report, provided background
information related to the
amendment
.
The C
ommission had the following questions and comments for Staff:
•
Clarification was requested regarding:
o
Existing language of the ordinance
o
Modification
of
facility
location
requirements for existing medicinal dispensaries
that apply
for the recreational us
e clearance
Mr. Smith responded to Commissioner questions and comments on the following:
•
Clarification regarding:
o
Language changes of the existing ordinance
o
No changes to facility location requirements for existing medicinal dispensaries that apply
for the recreational use clearance
Chair Kelley opened the item for public hearing.
Caity Maple, Vice President of Government Affairs for Perfect Union, spoke in support of the
ordinance
amendment.
Aimee Henry,
a
Napa Cannabis Collective
Owner
,
spoke in support of the ordinance amendment.
After receiving no further requests
to speak, public comment was closed.
Commissioners Hurtado and Oñate moved and seconded to close public hearing.
Motion carried
:
AYES:
Kelley, Oñate,
Hurtado, Massaro
NOES:
ABSENT:
Huether
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
The Commission had the following questions and comments for Staff:
•
Clarification was requested regarding:
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes fo
r
November 18
, 2021
Page
3 of
5 o
Immunity of
c
ommercial
c
annabis
sales
o
Definition of cannabis retailers
o
Impenetra
ble barrier language should be added to the definitions
o
Administrative approval process once ordinance amendment is approved
o
Language clarification regarding business conducted outside the location
o
Extension of security video record retention
o
Moratorium
request
•
Why would new businesses apply for the medicinal clearance?
•
If a youth
-
oriented business closes, does the
eligible area for cannabis
retailer
expand?
•
Are all the clearances bound to the annual review for clearance , or is there a way to extend the
timeframe between reviews?
•
Typo on
F.27 should state two foot candle
•
Why can’t the facilities just sell cannabis without layering
medicinal and adult
-
use
ordinances?
•
Is there a limitation on the number of permits that ca
n be issued?
Mr. Smith responded to Commissioner questions and comments on the following:
•
Clarification regarding:
o
Cannabis, as a federally regulated substance
that undergoes the administrative
review
process
to issue a
clearance that indemnifies the City of the
responsibility if the businesses
are pursued by the federal government
o
In the current process, clearance is granted if the
location meets the distance requirements
from
youth
-
oriented sites and meets the zoning re
quirements
through administrative
approval
o
Existing medicinal
clearances
are eligible to apply for the adult
-
use
clearance
o
It is a business decision for new businesses to apply for the medicinal clearance
o
Existing cannabis businesses are not affected by proposed youth -
oriented businesses
within 600 feet as they
were on the site first
o
The way
the 600 foot radius is
applied is i
f a new cannabis retailer proposes
a business and
there aren’t any youth
-
oriented businesses with
in 600 feet, they
clear that portion of the
requirement to
receive a clearance
o
The annual reviews
allow
the City to monitor
criminal or inappropria
te activity
through the
Police Department
o
The transactions must not occur outside the
operating business establishment
o
There are a number of
existing
medicinal use
clearances
that may benefit from the
differentiation from adult
-
use
, such as costs and produ
cts available
o
There is no limitation on the number of
clearances
that can be issued
o
The ordinance presented to the Commission was first vetted to the City Council for direction
and it was not recommended to change the ordinance,
do away with
medicinal clearances
or impose a moratorium
The Commission asked members of the
coalition the following:
•
Is there a
n advantage or disadvantage to
having two clearances?
•
Has there been projection of business increase when adult use retail is allowed?
•
W
here does the product come from?
•
Why is there a request for a two
-
year deferral?
•
Is there pent
-
up demand?
Ms. Henry states
that
there are some state
designations
that
track sales as medicinal or adult use
and
having two clearances may make it easier to
track
.
Revenue is expected to increase two to three times the
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes fo
r
November 18
, 2021
Page
4 of
5 current sales
. Medicinal
Use
requires a medical recommendation that deter many people to purchase
,
which currently is about 300
-
500 patients.
Napa coalition
products
come from the state of California with
60 -
70 percent or more from within 200 miles.
The two year deferral is to
allow the city
space and
time and
avoid a flood of applicants s
ince Napa does not have a maximum for the number of retailers.
There is pent
-
up d
emand for adult use.
Ms. Maple clarified that
all cities are currently
operating in are
tracking medicinal and adult use sales,
however this is the only City requiring two different clearances.
The Commission discussed and began
deliberation. They made the following questions and comments:
•
Napa needs to
come up to speed to other communities
•
There is a missed
tax benefit
opportunity by not allowing
adult use
•
It is a free marketplace
•
Nuisances should be captured at the annual
review
•
Definition of an impenetrable barrier
needs to be clarified
•
Current dispensaries have paved the way for future dispensaries
•
Is there distance regulation of liquor stores?
•
Is there a maximum number of liquor stores allowed?
•
A
lcoholic Beverage Contro
l (A
BC
)
regulates liquor store permissions near youth
-
oriented sites at
application
•
Is there an option for a 12
-
month deferral program?
•
What is the
unintended consequences to release without the deferral?
•
Would it be helpful for the Commission to provide a recommendation for the moratorium to the City Council?
Mr. Smith responded to Commissioner questions and comments on the following:
•
Clarification regarding:
o
There is no maximum number
of liquor stores allowed
o
Zoning
ordinance regulates where liquor stores
are permitted
•
The Planning Commission can make a recommendation of this ordinance
and
if the City Council so
chose, the Planning Commission would
support
th
e City Council
to
impose a moratorium to new
cannabis
retailers
for a year
•
The Planning Commission is a land
-
use body, agnostic to the success o
f any business in the City
•
There are few caps placed on
businesses within the City
because it doesn’t solve a concentration
issue
•
Impacts of the business in the neighborhood are monitored
•
Staff is not recommending that there is a moratorium
•
The Planning Commission
w
ould make a motion on the current recommendation and if there is a secon
d recommendation, craft th
at
motion
with a second to
forward the recommendation
to the City
Council
Acting Planning Manager Michael Allen provided clarification regarding ABC regulation of liquor stores
. He
noted that the cannabis retailers are limited to
medic
al and light industrial sites within the city.
The City
does
not monitor the financials for other businesses including cannabis , it only grant
s a clearance.
The added
status
report
after a year would not include
cannabis
retailer financial information as the City does not get involved with that.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2