BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 5, 2024
N.2 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CANNABIS REGULATIONS RELATED TO
RETAIL LOCATION REQUIREMENTS AND BUFFER ZONES
CONTACT: ELIZABETH HAUSE, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER • UPDATED BUFFER MAP
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Seth Berg
To: Zein Obagi; CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; [email protected]; James Light; [email protected]
Subject: Cannabis Selection Process - Property requirement Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:03:01 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
My name is Seth Berg and I’ve been a resident of Redondo Beach for 22 years, a small business owner, a parent of two RBUSD graduates, a former Redondo Beach Green Committee member, a former Historical and Planning Commissioner,
and as
such I have a vested interest in ensuring that if cannabis retail is coming to our community, that it is done right.
I want to express my strong support for our City leaders to require and evaluate property, as part of the cannabis retail selection process.
I lived next to an illegal operation on Aviation, and watched in horror, as kids would park on one side of the street, and run across that dangerous road to visit the dispensary, so it’s clear to me that the biggest concern in bringing retail cannabis to our community, is where they will be located.
From what I understand, the vast majority of cities throughout CA that implement a merit-based approach to cannabis licensing, require property as part of the application process. As such, it is critical that our leaders evaluate the proposed property as part of the overall application process, in conjunction with the selection of the operator - not afterwards.
From my perspective, this is important to the successful implementation of retail cannabis for the following reasons:
·Neighborhood Compatibility: The Council
cannot evaluate neighborhood compatibility without
the site being identified as part of the application.
This section of the grading criteria would need to be
removed without site identification. I believe this
would tie the hands of Council, who should be
empowered to evaluate the totality of the applicant’s
proposal.
·
Informed Community Engagement: The
community deserves the right to voice their support or
opposition at the final stage of the cannabis selection process.
Without the proposed sites of the finalist
applicants being identified, the community will not
have the information they need to effectively voice
their feedback on the applicant.
·
Security: If a property isn’t identified upfront,
I think it would be difficult for the Council to
evaluate the sufficiency of the security protocols
proposed by the applicant.
Clearly a cannabis retailer
wouldn’t have been allowed in the illegal spot I
mentioned before, because of the danger imposed by
people running across Aviation Blvd.
·
Applicant Community Engagement: By
requiring property, the Council can evaluate the level
of community engagement the applicant pursued in
educating their immediate neighbors on their
proposed use, and how they will continue to address
community and neighborhood specific feedback.
·
Process Efficiency: If the operators are
selected before the site, the Council is effectively
kicking the can down the road to the Planning
Commission and City Staff, while tying their hands,
From: Larry Rosolowski
To: CityClerk; James Light; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT -- Cannabis License Property Requirement Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 1:01:21 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
My name is Larry Rosolowski and I am writing to urge our elected officials to require that property be a part of the cannabis retail selection process, and that our City Council evaluate not only the operator, but also their proposed site, when determining which applicant has earned the trust of our community to operate a retail cannabis business in Redondo Beach.
I’ve lived in Redondo Beach for over 20 years, and my family and I really love living here.
Since the voters of Redondo Beach have decided to allow two cannabis dispensaries to be located within our city limits, I feel that it’s critical that we implement their wishes in the best manner possible for our community. It has recently come to my attention that the permit application process does not require applicants to identify the proposed location for their dispensary. I find that to be concerning since the location of these businesses is critical to the safety and well-being of the youth of our community. I strongly encourage the City Council to add to the application process a requirement for applicants to identify their proposed location.
I feel that awarding licenses without knowing the location(s) being considered may saddle the community with unacceptable locations and may lead to conflicts later on, as citizens step up to oppose locations for various reasons. As I’m sure you can imagine, the biggest concern residents have about retail cannabis coming to our community, is where specifically they will be located and how those locations will or won't be compatible with the neighborhood, and how all that impacts our community's most promising residents – our youth. This is beyond just zoning, but rather ensuring the applicant has done the work to engage the community in a meaningful way to ensure the proposed project is not only compatible, but ideally beneficial to the immediate neighborhood in which they seek to locate.
It is the responsibility of our elected officials to evaluate the entirety of the proposed application – both the operator's track record, as well as the site where they seek to locate.
Providing the public the opportunity to understand where specifically a cannabis operator is proposing to locate is and should be a critical component of the overall selection process, NOT something that our elected leaders pass down to the Planning Commission and the City Planning staff. The specific sites are critical, and it needs to be our Elected leaders that evaluate them in conjunction with the operator's track record. NOT in a silo after an operator has already won the permit. The City needs to retain control of this important aspect of this process and give the public the opportunity to weigh in on site specific considerations BEFORE determining which operator will serve our community.
I strongly encourage the City Council to amend their ordinance to make the proposed application procedures include the site-specific location, so that we, the residents, have the opportunity to voice our concerns or support for specific locations prior to the City Council awarding a cannabis retail business permit.
A little background about me… I participated in Leadership Redondo 2010; I’ve been on the Board of AYSO Region 34 for over 15 years; I am a member of the Knights of Columbus Council 1990, a parishioner at St Lawrence Martyr Catholic Church, and a Board Member of the South Bay Outreach Center (a food bank and thrift shop non-profit organization). Whether I agree with this initiative or not is not important since the voters have spoken. It is now our collective duty to implement this in a careful and responsible manner.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Larry Rosolowski