Correspondence-#25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the five (5) new retail locations under the proposed ordinance... [T]hose waitlisted... would receive `bonus' points for having been on the Measure BB Waitlist." (p. 9., emphasis added.) The first problem facing us is the thirty-five (35) RSP cap on commercial cannabis retail businesses. Since the additional five (5) retail RSPB are practically allotted to the five (5) people on the Measure BB Waitlist, we would not even be able to obtain a retail RSP and bring our novel ideas for our consumption lounge to the City. This would be unfortunate given that we are homegrown — both as individuals and as an entity — and would create a grassroots consumption lounge that promotes social equity if given the availability of a retail RSP. One proposed solution to this problem would be to increase the number of additional retail RSPB above five (5) so that we could realistically obtain a retail license. This would be in line with comments by Councilmembers Johnathan Hernandez and Jessie Lopez at the July 29, 2022 City Council meeting where they supported adding more than five (5) retail RSPB so that Santa Ana residents can get involved in spearheading the cannabis industry. Another proposed, albeit less effective, solution would be to grant "bonus" points to longtime residents of the City applying for a retail RSP. Furthermore, however, this problem could be eliminated if the problem and proposed solution in the following paragraph were instead tackled in the Cannabis Amendments. We envision our cannabis consumption lounge as a stand-alone lounge without an ancillary cannabis retail business, i.e., a dispensary. We see no need to tie the two types of business models together. Indeed, it is our view that cannabis consumption lounges would realistically thrive (unlike many in other cities) and thus bring in more tax revenue if consumption lounges were not required to be tied to a dispensary. By creating a separate category of permits for consumption lounges we would be able to enact our novel, homegrown and grassroots ideas that are in line with the City's vision. Similarly, we see no need to limit the smoking of cannabis to the indoor portion(s) of a lounge. We could not even find the rationale for such a limitation when outdoor air filtration systems are readily available. Such restrictions would result in patrons not being able to enjoy cannabis in our outdoor portion(s) while enjoying our culinary arts. This would be in line with comments by Mayor Pro Tem Phil Bacerra at the July 29, 2022 City Council meeting where he supported outdoor cannabis -smoking on lounge rooftops. Consequently, a potential solution to these problems would be to (1) create a distinct category of permits for consumption lounges separate from retail storefronts; and (2) eliminate the indoor cannabis -smoking limitation and simply require appropriate air filtration systems. 2. Expanding Commercial Cannabis Business Zoning Under CANAM section 6 (amending SAMC § 40-5), cannabis consumption lounges would be permitted in Zoning Districts M1 and M2, "as [i]ndicated on the Commercial Cannabis Eligible Areas Map...." M1 districts are designated light industrial (SAMC § 41-471) and M2 districts are designated heavy industrial (SAMC § 41-489). Under one of the two proposed 2022 resolutions at issue, the buffer between "commercial cannabis business activity" and "schools, parks, and properties zoned for residential uses" would be reduced from "the 1,000-foot buffer to 600 feet...." (§§ 1(G), 1(I).) Furthermore, according to the Staff Report, "[i]n 2021, the State revised its regulations to completely eliminate the default 600-foot buffer." (p. 10.)