Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/26/2013 - LOCAL ACTION REGARDING AMENDMENT 64DATE: November 26, 2013 STAFF: Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Don Vagge, Police Captain WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Local Action Regarding Amendment 64. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide options for Council to consider regarding recreational marijuana as allowed in Amendment 64. Amendment 64 allows persons 21 years-of-age or older to legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation and to grow up to six marijuana plants. Local jurisdictions have the option to define and regulate home growing and enact local prohibitions on public consumption. Under Amendment 64, Council also has three options in regard to retail operations: (1) adopt an ordinance prohibiting retail marijuana businesses in Fort Collins; (2) refer a retail marijuana prohibition question to the voters; or (3) allow retail marijuana businesses in Fort Collins and impose local restrictions on the time, place, manner and number of retail marijuana operations. Following the July 30, 2013 work session, staff was asked to return for a follow-up work session with more detailed options for regulating recreational marijuana in Fort Collins. Staff was also asked to conduct public outreach on the issue. The City of Fort Collins currently has a ban on all retail marijuana activity through March 31, 2014. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Retail Businesses 1. Does Council prefer to ban retail businesses? Ask the voters to decide in November 2014? Or allow and regulate retail businesses? 2. If Council chooses to allow and regulate retail businesses, which of the options presented does Council support? 3. Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? 4. If Council chooses to allow retail marijuana stores, should there be a limit on the number? Personal Possession and Consumption 5. Does Council support the proposed regulations? 6. Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? Overall 7. Does Council support the proposed next steps? November 26, 2013 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Amendment 64 Amendment 64 was passed by Colorado voters in November 2012. In general, the Amendment allows or requires the following:  People 21 years-of-age or older may legally possess, use, display, purchase, or transport one ounce or less of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation.  Anyone 21 years or older may possess, grow, process, or transport up to six marijuana plants. The cultivation of marijuana must occur in an enclosed, locked space.  The State was required to adopt regulations implementing Amendment 64 by July 1, 2013.  The State was required to establish a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed (similar to alcohol) in a retail environment.  Allows for local governments to opt out of retail marijuana entirely or opt in and enact local regulations. Retail marijuana operations include and are defined as the following: Retail Store May purchase marijuana from cultivation facilities and marijuana products from manufacturing facilities and sell to the public. Manufacturing Facility May purchase marijuana for the manufacture, preparation, and packaging of marijuana products. Products can be sold to retail stores or other manufacturing facilities. May not sell to the public. Testing Facility Entity licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana. Cultivation Facility May cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana for sale to a retail store or manufacturer. May not sell to the public. Council Options With regard to retail marijuana businesses, Amendment 64 allows local governments to opt out entirely, refer the question to the voters, or opt in and enact local regulations. Staff is presenting options for allowing retail businesses to provide a better idea of the regulation options available. Retail Businesses Options Retail Stores: At the State level, licensed medical marijuana centers will have the first option for obtaining retail licenses. The State began accepting applications in October 2013 and will begin issuing licenses in January 2014 for businesses in communities that currently allow retail businesses. Applications from anyone other than a licensed medical marijuana center will not be accepted until July 2014. State rules allow medical marijuana centers to convert entirely to retail or co-locate retail and medical by either:  Having retail and medical in one storefront (prohibits medical sales to anyone under 21 years of age.) November 26, 2013 Page 3  Having complete separation of retail and medical sales (allows medical marijuana sales to medical marijuana patients between 18-21 years of age.) In Fort Collins there are currently 10 licensed medical marijuana centers. There are 4 applications still pending bringing the total potential number of medical marijuana centers to fourteen.  Option One: Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers who wish to convert (whole or in part) to retail in their existing locations. (Potential of 14 stores.)  Option Two: Only allow licensed medical marijuana centers that meet Initiative 301 location requirements to convert. (Potential of 8 stores.)  Option Three: Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers to convert but require they conform to location requirements and allow them to relocate if necessary. (Potential number of stores difficult to predict.) Additional Considerations: In the original regulations (pre-Initiative 301) setbacks to residential zones were included. This requirement is not in the Initiative 301 setbacks. This is a requirement that could be added for conversion to retail. Original regulations also required a 1000 foot separation between businesses. This was also not included in Initiative 301 and could be an additional consideration. If retail stores are only allowed through the conversion of licensed medical marijuana centers (now and into the future), staff has concluded that option one (or option 2) could potentially result in fewer overall stores (although in non-conforming locations) than option three. November 26, 2013 Page 4 Chart of Existing or Pending Licensed Medical Marijuana Centers Outside 1000 feet Outside 500 feet Within Permitted Zone? Schools CSU Public Playground Child Care Worship Public Park, Pool, Rec Fac. Halfway House, Rehab Ctr. Conforms to 301? 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 7 Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 13 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Manufacturing and Cultivation Facilities These types of activities are currently regulated by both the State and local medical marijuana regulations. In previous regulations (pre-Initiative 301) the City required that any cultivation or manufacturing facility within the City had to be associated with a local medical marijuana business. The intent of this regulation was to prevent people and businesses from outside our community locating here strictly for the purpose of cultivating marijuana and manufacturing marijuana infused products. This is an option that could be included in new regulations. Testing Facility These facilities would be considered a research laboratory by our current Land Use Code definitions. Staff does not anticipate the need for additional regulations since these facilities will not be growing, manufacturing, or selling any marijuana. The quantities on-site should also be minimal. Public Engagement On October 10, 2013, City staff in collaboration with the Center for Public Deliberation hosted a Community Issues Forum. One of the discussion topics was retail marijuana. Those who attended participated in both small table dialogues and individual clicker responses. Responses to two main questions are as follows: 1. Choose, regardless of your vote, what aspects, if any, of Amendment 64 do you support? (Choose all that apply) (multiple choice) Percent* The decriminalization of possession of less than an ounce for adults over 21 78% Allowing local municipalities to choose to ban or regulate marijuana businesses 71% Collecting additional taxes for schools 69% Allowing retail marijuana businesses 63% Other 12% November 26, 2013 Page 5 2. Choose one, if you had to choose right now: Percent* I want Fort Collins to allow and regulate retail businesses 71% I want Fort Collins to ban retail businesses 18% I want this issue to go back on the ballot for local voters to decide next fall 10% 100% Question number one was also asked on Idea Lab with similar results. Forum participant concerns were categorized and then prioritized as follows: Which concerns are most relevant to you? (Top 3 in order) (multiple choice) 1st place votes Misinformation 13 Providing Fair/Exemplary Regulations 9 Youth Access 4 Ban would lead to black market 4 Potential Ban 3 Quality of Community/Neighborhoods 2 Not Enough Regulations/Costly Regulations 1 Going to Referendum 0 Potential for Abuse 0 The full summary report of all table deliberations is included as an attachment. Staff also worked with the Triple Bottom Line team and an interdepartmental training group to conduct a Triple Bottom Line Analysis on retail marijuana. The map and the synopsis are included an attachment. The synopsis demonstrates that this issue is largely a social/values issue with very little historical data, research, or best practices to draw from. Marijuana Growing and Personal Use Amendment 64 allows adults 21 years of age and older to grow six plants “provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly and publicly, and is not made available for sale,” however, the law does not define these terms. Municipalities may consider better defining what constitutes an “enclosed, locked space” and “open and publicly” in their municipal codes. Growing Fort Collins currently allows medical marijuana patients and caregivers to grow up to 12 plants in single- family detached residences. Growing is prohibited in multifamily residences for health and safety reasons. Staff has begun drafting an ordinance that would include the following:  No cultivation in two-family, multifamily, or single-family attached dwellings.  Cultivation could not occur in the open or be perceptible from the outside of a property.  The use and storage of compressed, flammable gases would be prohibited, as would all high- intensity lighting.  The 12 plant limit would remain in place. Additional options seen in other communities could include a square footage limitation. Staff did consider the option of allowing growing in out-buildings since this could be safer than in a residence, however, the opportunity for an out-building grow to be an attractive nuisance was considered a greater risk. November 26, 2013 Page 6 Possession and Consumption Amendment 64 allows adults 21 and over to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. It prohibits “open and public” use of marijuana. Staff is considering local language which would better define open and public consumption to help with enforcement and allow violations to be written into our local municipal court which would allow for the implementation of a local fine schedule. This language could address consumption on private property that is viewable from public property, like a front porch. Other communities are also considering prohibitions on displaying or transferring marijuana on public property. This is something Fort Collins could also include. Next Steps Staff is currently scheduled for another work session on February 11, 2014 should it be necessary. If Council moves forward with regulations, staff will bring forward ordinances in the February-March timeframe to ensure regulations and processes are in place prior to the expiration of the temporary ban on March 31, 2014. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Retail Businesses 1. Does Council prefer to ban retail businesses? Ask the voters to decide in November 2014? Or allow and regulate retail businesses? 2. If Council chooses to allow and regulate, which of the following regulations does Council support? Retail Stores  Option One: Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers who wish to convert (whole or in part) to retail in their existing locations.  Option Two: Only allow licensed medical marijuana centers that meet Initiative 301 location requirements to convert.  Option Three: Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers to convert but require they conform to location requirements and allow them to relocate if necessary.  Add setbacks to residential zones?  Add 1000 foot separation between businesses? Manufacturing and Cultivation Facilities  Require that any cultivation or manufacturing facility within the City be associated with a local marijuana business? 3. Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? 4. If Council chooses to allow retail marijuana stores, should there be a limit on the number? Personal Possession and Consumption 5. Does Council support the proposed regulations? Personal Growing  No cultivation in two-family, multifamily, or single-family attached dwellings.  Cultivation could not occur in the open or be perceptible from the outside of a property.  The use and storage of compressed, flammable gases would be prohibited, as would all high-intensity lighting. November 26, 2013 Page 7  No one growing for themselves would be allowed to sell marijuana or possess more than allowed by State law.  The 12 plant limit would remain in place. Personal Consumption  Prohibit displaying or transferring marijuana on public property.  Consider a local ordinance prohibiting open and public consumption.  Consider prohibition on marijuana consumption on private property if visible and obvious from public right of way. 6. Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? Overall 7. Does Council support the proposed next steps? ATTACHMENTS 1. July 30, 2013 Work Session Summary 2. Chart of Municipal Actions 3. Raw Data From Issue Forum 4. Triple Bottom Line Analysis 5. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 Municipality Action Taken on Amendment 64 Medical Marijuana Growing Regulations Incorporation Vote in Favor of Amend. 64 Aurora Ordinance to Comply with Amendment 64 age, grow, and possession provisions; Moratorium on applications until 5/5/2014 prohibited N/A Home Rule Adams 56%; Arapahoe 52.8%; Douglas (45.4%) Berthoud Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores allowed N/A Statutory Town Larimer 54.6%; Weld 50.2% Boulder Evaluating retail marijuana establishments allowed N/A Home Rule 66.1% Broomfield Prohibition of the operation of retail marijuana establishments prohibited N/A 52.8% Carbondale Moratorium on the establishment of any new medical or retail marijuana facility to 12/11/2013 allowed N/A Home Rule 56.8% Castle Rock Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores prohibited N/A Home Rule Town (45.4%) Centennial A moratorium to 09/30/2014 on the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, retail marijuana stores, and marijuana clubs; Ordinance regulating the manner in which marijuana is grown for personal use, prohibiting the operation of certain marijuana enterprises, and prohibiting marijuana on city owned or leased property prohibited N/A Home Rule 52.8% Colorado Springs Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores allowed N/A Home Rule City Denver Moving forward in regulating licensure of retail marijuana establishments allowed Home Rule City Dillon Moratorium on the submission, acceptance or processing of applications and the licensing, permitting, establishment or operation of any retail marijuana establishments to 10/01/2014 prohibited N/A Home Rule 69.2% Eaton Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores Englewood Prohibition of the operation of marijuana establishments, put to a citizen vote for the November 5, 2013 election as an advisory question allowed N/A Home Rule 52.8% Erie Moratorium on the submission, acceptance or processing of applications and the licensing, permitting, establishment or operation of any retail marijuana establishments to 12/31/14 prohibited N/A Statutory Town Boulder 66.1%; Weld 50.2% Estes Park Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores prohibited Statutory Town Evans Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing prohibited Home Rule City ATTACHMENT 2 Municipality Action Taken on Amendment 64 Medical Marijuana Growing Regulations Incorporation Vote in Favor of Amend. 64 facilities and retail marijuana stores Ft. Morgan Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores prohibited N/A Home Rule (42.3%) Garden City Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, or retail marijuana store. allowed Statutory Town Greenwood Village Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, or retail marijuana store or marijuana club; Regulation of the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana; Banned marijuana on sidewalks and public streets prohibited Developing ordinance regarding home growing to address mold & fire concerns Home Rule 52.8% Greeley Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, or retail marijuana store allowed Home Rule 50.2% Gunnison Ordinance to comply with Amendment 64 age, grow, and possession provisions; Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, or retail marijuana store prohibited N/A Home Rule City 67.3% Johnstown Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores prohibited N/A Home Rule Larimer 54.6%; Weld 50.2% Larimer County allowed Lafayette Moratorium on the submission, acceptance or processing of applications and the licensing, permitting, establishment or operation of any recreational marijuana business to 04/01/2014 allowed N/A Home Rule 66.1% Lakewood Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or operation of any new marijuana enterprise to 02/01/2015 N/A Home Rule 53.7% Longmont Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores prohibited N/A Home Rule City Municipality Action Taken on Amendment 64 Medical Marijuana Growing Regulations Incorporation Vote in Favor of Amend. 64 Louisville Moratorium on retail marijuana establishments until 12/31/14 allowed Home Rule 66.1% Lyons Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or operation of any new marijuana enterprise to 10/01/2014; Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or operation of any new business that sells, cultivates, or tests marijuana or any marijuana products, or any marijuana enterprise to 10/01/2014 N/A Statutory Town Northglenn Retail marijuana establishments are allowed but are limited to 3 in order to allow for effective regulatory and law enforcement oversight of their operations and to ensure their lawful and orderly operation, and to regulate the time, place; and manner of the operation of retail marijuana establishments allowed N/A Home Rule Adams 56%; Weld 50.2% Pueblo Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or operation of any new business that sells, cultivates, or tests marijuana or any marijuana products, or any marijuana enterprise to 03/01/2014 Prohibited N/A Steamboat Springs Retail marijuana establishments are allowed but are limited to three licenses in order to allow for effective regulatory and law enforcement oversight of their operations and to ensure their lawful and orderly operation, and to regulate the time, place; and manner of the operation of retail marijuana establishments allowed N/A Home Rule 62.9% Timnath Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores, and marijuana clubs prohibited N/A Home Rule Town Vail Moratorium on the operation of marijuana establishments pursuant to Amendment 64 to 01/21/2014 prohibited N/A Home Rule 66.5% Westminster Prohibition on retail sale, distribution, cultivation and dispensing of recreational marijuana through marijuana establishments and optional premises cultivation operations; Ordinance to comply with Amendment 64 age, grow, and possession provisions prohibited N/A Home Rule Adams 56%; Jefferson 53.7% Wellington Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores prohibited N/A Statutory Town Windsor Prohibition of the operation of any marijuana business enterprise within the meaning of Amendment 64; Prohibition of the establishment and operation of private marijuana clubs prohibited N/A Home Rule Larimer 54.6%;Weld 50.2% 1 Community Issues Forum Raw Data Forum agenda: 6:35 Introduction 6:40 – 6:50 Purpose & goals 6-50-7:20 Session 1: Retail Marijuana – collection of concerns 7:20 – 7:45 Session 2: Bike Plan Update 7:45-8:00 Session 3: Expanded Smoking Regulations 8:00-8:15 Session 4: Downtown Train Noise 8:15-8:50 Session 5: Retail Marijuana – Discussion of Potential Regulations SESSION 1: RETAIL MARIJUANA Before we moved into small group discussions, participants answered two wireless keypad questions to get a sense of the overall opinion of the room. 1.) Regardless of your vote, what aspects, if any, of Amendment 64 do you support? (choose all that apply) (multiple choice) Responses %* (count) The decriminalization of possession of less than an ounce for adults over 21 78% 38 Allowing retail marijuana businesses 63% 31 Allowing local municipalities to choose to ban or regulate marijuana businesses 71% 35 Collecting additional taxes for schools 69% 34 Other 12% 6 100% 178 * Percent of people who chose that option (out of 49 respondents) 2.) Choose one, if you had to choose right now: (multiple choice) Responses (percent) (count) I want Fort Collins to ban retail businesses 18% 9 I want Fort Collins to allow and regulate retail businesses 71% 35 I want this issue to go back on the ballot for local voters to decide next fall 10% 5 100% 49 ATTACHMENT 3 2 INITIAL LIST OF CONCERNS REGARDING MARIJUANA POLICY Facilitators began the small group discussions by quickly going around the table and asking pa participants what concerns they had regarding the opening, regulating, or banning of retail marijuana businesses. Facilitators captured these “primary concerns” at each table on a large piece of paper, which then served as a menu to organize the ongoing discussion. Below are the initial lists that were created at each table: Table 1 Understand amendment 64 Education about influencing youth Daily habitual use when not regulated (with youth) US looking to CO (and WA) as models Factual, non-bias information and education about marijuana False/ negative connotations about marijuana users Mass production Black market when not regulated Table 2 Spotlight on CO and WA, we need to provide good model Availability to minors, DUI prevention needs to be done correctly and economically feasible Addiction problems, tax money treatment programs Drug cartels moving in Many people are uninformed about regulations Needs to truly be treated like alcohol Table 3 Increased usage of minors and more access Regulation sufficient to prevent minors access Proximity to youth communities Have consistent regulations so that business isn’t off/ on again, closure- either do it or not Ensure public understanding of what regulation brings to community/ do for community Keep controlled substances out of hands of minors Advertising/ marketing that targets youth Having access to someone who is able to answer questions about what regulation actually consists of, knowledgeable and cares, will answer questions Regulation of kids (even with parents) walking into/ being exposed to stores/ proximity to marijuana Clear/ transparent regulation Table 4 Marijuana as doorway to other drugs Education for people who do not know about marijuana How to get people to understand marijuana better  not as a gateway drug Pot tourism and relocation to Fort Collins, driving under the influence Aesthetics of signage, Foco as a beautiful place, regulation of signage Use of marijuana will exist, regulated 8 safe vs. hidden, let’s have where we can see it 3 Table 5 Enforcement of age limits Word choice of where the tax is going Possibility of a local ban and local vote on retail sale impact on kids Tax distribution Regulation of retail Discrimination criminal activities Table 6 Rather ban alcohol Other problems Indifferent, education/ enforcement Decriminalization Students smoking in neighborhoods Under-age Smoking in open Table 7 Voting educationally decision made without emotions Will be voted down again once everything has been established Effects of marijuana on students/ youth Education as a whole about the issue The concern of the black market Too many retail stores Not giving through process quick enough from fear Table 8 Regulation over black market Public health concern Too available Becoming a social norm for all ages Addiction and day-to-day functioning Over regulation  encourage decriminalization Quality of community Privacy Misinformation 4 INDIVIDUAL POST-IT NOTES WITH PRIMARY CONCERN After discussing the primary concerns people have as recreational marijuana is allowed and as the City Council considers allowing and regulating or banning retail stores the table each participant was asked to complete the sentence, “I am concerned that….” on a post-it note. Below are the post-it note responses broken down into themes (themes were identified by CPD Associate Director.) Another Referendum Do not ban or send to another vote We will continue to talk and vote, on and on and on I am most concerned that there will be more tax payer funded referendums to clarify an already decided issue Ban = Black market spike Dis-incentivizing criminal activity We over tax it and still have an incentive for the criminal element That the ban on marijuana retail will cause an increase in black market activity Potential for Abuse I am most concerned that people will abuse the legalization of marijuana Vast increase in DUIs Lack of understanding of medical issues that can result from marijuana use by general population Using taxes for addiction counseling Youth Access I am most concerned that if this is put in action, availability to youth will rise Exposure and access of marijuana to youth population and child-prevalent neighborhoods clear public understanding of regulations and laws in effect Sending youth the right message, informed choice, parental guidance, safe practice I am most concerned that youth will have early engagement and their futures will be compromised I am most concerned that children will have an increased access to marijuana with little to no oversight/ punishment for people over 21 Regulation might not be strong enough to prevent/ deter people who abuse the retail by purchasing too much (shopping around to amass a stash) and the selling it to youth Potential Ban Retail stores being banned or delayed A small (loud) group will sway the community or council to ban it, let’s know it and relocate it and tax it I am most concerned about revoking ban marijuana retail Minority voice outweighing majority I am most concerned that the council vote will not be representative of the popular vote My concern is the ability of a minority of people to dictate to the masses majority and take away choice; I think there is a great deal of misinformation regarding this issue I am most concerned that a vocal minority leads the conversation one way or another Not Enough Regulation That city will not have resources to enforce regulations, becomes a nuisance I am concerned over the regulation and enforcement of laws 5 FoCo doesn’t have adequate regulations in place Quality of Life/ Community Most concerned about the quality of life diminishing because of the legalization of pot I will have to move to a neighborhood farther from campus Education of enforcement are not adequately addressed especially with respect to neighborhoods around CSU Reduced quality of life in Fort Collins Quality of community Fair/ Exemplary Regulation I want to make sure that CO does a good job of handling legalization so that other states can look to us as an example, we need to “do this right” and encourage other states to follow, the country is watching I am most concerned that citizens will not know how much regulation will really do for Fort Collins Marijuana coming from drug cartels! I want regulation and taxation Treat like alcohol, banks must let companies make deposits, medicinal valuable post stress (soldiers), can sleep, cancer patients can eat, pain killer Over taxation Misinformation That the public be thoroughly informed about the regulations and nuances in the laws so people don’t unwittingly get into trouble Misinformation about amendment 64 which might increase marijuana use especially in youth I am most concerned that people will have strong opinions with little to no facts or education to support their opinion The process not gathering adequate, factual information from all sides of the argument (no emotional responses) That mis-education will harm education Mis-information and false reports could influence proper results Improper education to the public and youth about marijuana and amendment 64. I am concerned those who are not supportive will twist information to their liking/ advantage Misperception and lack of education/ understanding The city will be influenced by a select few citizens that still think “reefer madness” was factual and not allow for regulation This issue will end up going to the public and some crazy religious self-righteous group will spew rhetoric and scare the shit out of everyone 6 SESSION 5: RETAIL MARIJUANA – DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL REGULATIONS Participants were first provided a summary of the concerns expressed about marijuana as captured during session 1 with the final post it notes, and then organized and themed by CPD associate director Katie Knobloch. Ten themes were captured and reviewed, and then participants reacted to those themes with the clickers. Ginny Sawyer then briefly reviewed the regulations that were part of Initiative 301 for medical marijuana dispensaries as a baseline to consider for potential regulations for retail centers. Which concerns are most relevant to you? (top 3 in order) (multiple choice) Responses 1st place votes Pts. Misinformation 13 50 Providing Fair/Exemplary Regulations 9 46 Quality of Community/Neighborhoods 2 23 Youth Access 4 25 Going to Referendum 0 9 Minority outweighing Majority 1 15 Potential for Abuse 0 8 Potential Ban 3 5 Not Enough Regulations/Costly Regulations 1 6 Ban would lead to black market 4 20 37 107 Participants were then given time in the small groups to react to the concerns and consider potential regulations. They were also given worksheets organized by the key areas of regulation that were reviewed: General regulations  Just be careful that the cost of regulation doesn’t drive “business” back underground…If we allow it and regulate it, there must still be a price market must bear?  Like medical.  Ok, like liquor, in commercial areas, 14 medical centers.  Allow MJ business to sponsor community events and be advertised in those brochures, playbills, flyers, etc.  Sting operations should be consistently held.  Default to state laws.  Sanitation and health regulations for any business selling or making food products (edible). Have a balanced marijuana board in city for planning and public information.  Feel better knowing these regulations are in place.  Should be same as “medical.”  Smoking areas, just smoke in your own home. Location Requirements  Strict Signage Regulations. No giant leaves in day-glow colors.  Not in Old Town.  In all areas of the city.  Not near schools, not in residential areas.  I like the 301 Regulations. 7  Laboratories do not pose risk of division or product so setbacks on zoning should not be as stringent.  I believe that location requirements should be the same as for liquor stores, for retail stores.  Manufacturing should be less regulated if at all. Labs not at all. Cultivation should the same as retail.  Zoning distance requirements away from neighborhoods, childcare, churches, schools, parks, playgrounds. Perhaps even distance between facilities.  Cannot be within 1,000 ft of schools, playground, and religious facilities.  Grandfathering of current MMJ dispensaries at current locations.  Strict enough to limit sales location, larger setbacks will make no location eligible.  Agree with current.  Not w/in 1000ft to school.  Should be the same as “medical” pot stores.  Beware of places where there are a lot of young kids and around preschools. Number Limits  Let the market determine the proper equilibrium.  0 through 2, Fort Collins is a small town, how many would we need.  Maybe per capita limits, but I don’t know how many exactly. No more than medical-allow no competitive preference-if more players want to compete, make them smaller.  As market demands.  Start with current limits, then potentially expand.  At least the 14 allowed now medically to start then not to exceeds the number of under 21 residents/500 (same logic as number of medical dispensaries.)  Let those who were kicked out in 2012 have the first opportunity to re-open. Then allow capitalism to let it grow sometime later.  Distance requirements will naturally limit the number of facilities.  No limits.  Distance requirements are so large, caps not required.  No. Distance setbacks will limit how many come in anyhow. A set number is silly.  Limit to existing stores.  Limit to existing shops.  That may be a good idea, too many weed stores was strange. Other  No cash on premises overnight.  Suggest that a responsible retail marijuana group gets formed.  I would like a more common sense solution to combating DUI’s for Marijuana than blood testing on arbitrary numbers.  Patrons to retail stores only be allowed to buy one ounce in a week.  Need to enforce public smoking prohibition.  Smoking areas, education especially for kids, we need to help them see the impact of use on their brains as opposed to the adult brain. 8 Notes captured at the tables regarding the small-group conversations about potential regulations:  I like the regulated part about the retail stores. All those who were kicked out in 2012 should have the first right to reopen. We should take it in a measured way. There should be no specific number. Demand will dictate how many and where.  I am in favor of limiting the number, but not sure how to determine the number other than supply and demand. Naturally, it will happen and determine the number with how far apart they need to be. The city should not limit the number, but it will naturally happen.  I would like to see a limit, but I'm not sure how to determine that number.  We should start with the okayed medical shops (allow them to do retail until we figure out whether to expand or not). We should then set up precedent similar to the 1 to 500 medical card holders. Maybe we should not exceed adults over 21 divided by 500. There should be no less than 14, but no greater than the residents over 21 divided by 500. Consistency is good, so maybe that would work.  We should allow the market forces to play out. We will not see a whole lot popping up all over. Demand will drop if there are a ton of marijuana stores, so that would force closing of some.  It should be the same as it is for liquor stores.  Out of the businesses produced from marijuana, there should be no worries or regulations for the four types of facilities (labs, retail, etc.) because they are all closed buildings. The regulation of retail stores should be like liquor stores. This could be a problem around CSU campus, though, because it is such a large area and demand may be high there.  Cultivation needs to be regulated. I am worried about the quality with large growing operations.  Distance regulations need to be kept.  Labs should not be taken into the location regulations. I'm not worried about kids coming into labs to take a small amount that is used for testing it. Growing of marijuana needs to be the same regulation as retail, though.  Will there be hours associated with retail stores?  It will be the same as medical. Council can't change that.  What did they decide about edible products like candy, drinks, sweets, etc.?* The packaging has to come out of the sales establishment. It has to be tamper proof and not look like it is marijuana product or appealing to kids in any way. Basically, it has to have invisible packaging. Packaging was a problem before, but the outside of the package now cannot look appealing to a child. Once it is open, there isn't a way to child proof it, but when it is sold, it can't look like it is appealing.  Would we need more regulation of other spots that we haven't covered such as advertising or other areas?  No need to further regulate. It is like telling a baker you can only bake donuts.  Larimer County has already banned manufacturers. They didn't agree with the advertising of pictures of edibles. Will council consider adding advertising back in?  Did they determine an acceptable THC level?  *100 milligrams per serving.  Taxes. The taxes currently in place are not enough to cover the regulation of it. Some of the cost is being unaccounted for. I am worried about the taxes not being enough to pay for everything with enforcement and regulation costs.  It hasn't been studied enough about taxes and costs. I hope some of the voters would look into that before deciding.  There are a lot of banking restrictions for marijuana businesses, right? How are you affected by banking? (question directed to the laboratory owners at the table.)  I just say that I am a laboratory. When they ask more specifically, I say I test organic plant materials. I never use the word marijuana and it usually isn't an issue.  How does that work for retail, though? Or medical retail? 9  There are banking solutions being put together currently to allow banks to take the money and recognize the cash.  Some owners may have had businesses in other industries before, so those sit on top of their marijuana business and then they just always pay in cash. It isn't as much as a safety issue in Fort Collins, but in Denver it can cause issues.  Dispensaries in the communities should be allowed to participate in the community. If they try to do more in advertising than the state suggest, dispensaries should be able to sponsor events, put their names on programs, hang banners at sporting events, and be treated like other businesses. They should be able to sponsor 5Ks or whatever else they want to do for advertising.  You should still give a choice to universities and others whether they want to be sponsored by a marijuana business or not, though. The choice should be up to others.  There should be a responsible marijuana retail group with responsible advertising policies. There is an alcohol retail group that monitors responsible retail policies for them, so if there are marijuana retail stores here, there should be a responsible advertising group for them, too. (much agreement from the table on this thought.)  I think it should have a cap on the number of stores allowed.  Limit it to medical stores ONLY.  Establishments already allowed -- Turn into stores.  Some people don't know what they are doing when they grow.  I don't see a reason for limits... It's legal, so who cares about how many we allow there to be (as long as they are in the zoning limits.)  It's all about perspective.  FoCo would add more regulation.  We are pretty highly regulated already.  We are a model, so we have to get it right.  It would be nice to see how it is done (growing.)  They should come up with a standard testing model that tests harmful things to marijuana (pesticides, herbicides etc.)  Maximum of 2, do we really need more than that?  I mean probably because each patient is registered at one medical dispensary and they can't go anywhere else.  We keep tabs on people so we know that they are not cheating the system. They have it heavily regulated already.  There’s also a capacity each dispensary can provide.  It’s at capacity for medical then they need to figure out a certain percentage they can keep open for recreation so each spot only has a certain amount of recreational capacity as well.  High regulations protect business.  But if there becomes too many regulations than people might get fed up and revert back to the black market and we wouldn't benefit from the tax money.  The number of stores will drive down the cost of marijuana.  But from a business perspective it’s better to have less stores.  It’s easier to watch out for and regulate fewer stores.  There should be a limit by population or no a per capita amount. (Did not know directly what number it should be.)  There would then be less competition for the existing stores: P3 à P4 agreed with this statement and stated the reason for having a per capita amount of recreational stores was because the opposition to recreational marijuana stores may not not want a large amount of marijuana stores. 10  There should not be a limit: the City should let the free market adjust because there is enough regulation already.  There would be 2 spots within Fort Collins for stores to be created à would have to look at recorder and data directly.  What should be the amount of retail marijuana regulation?  Maintain current regulation that 301 already established. Grandfather in existing medical marijuana dispensaries à by Grandfather in that would limit the amount that would be established and P5 agreed.  Participator question: Should retail and medical marijuana stores be the same?  The store would have medical inventory and recreational inventory.  There would be a difference in advertisement: marijuana focused on health for medical themes, and “Get blitzed” over the weekend à this would attract different type of people and there would be a different tax rate for the two.  Focusing on misinformation: is there a difference between medical and retail marijuana.  Input: for misinformation amendment 64 have a wide range of reasons to vote for and City Council wants to have public feedback.  Regulate like alcohol: and even allow alcohol stores to sell it.  Liquor outlets would have an advantage: alcohol and marijuana are not the same: P4 and P3 both agree.  For Marijuana stores: have 1 owner to one store: keep large corporate firms out.  All 4 types of stores should have retail establishment if have cultivation.  No one should have more than one store à there should be a cap on the number of stores a person can own.  Note; there was a good discussion here: I feel as though you should go over what was said to get very detailed account. Very speculative and wide-ranging ideas.  What is the difference between retail and medical? How much can patients buy?  Depends on patient's condition etc.  What kind of balance? How many centers are needed?  Don't think there needs to be a cap. Free enterprise. Already a strict process.  Distance restrictions will dissuade business. Could effectively zone out a cap using zoning regulations.  Use the same regs. Don't want a MJ district.  No monopolies allowed.  State supports vertical integration.  We don't want our property values to decrease as a result.  This round of discussion was one of the more fruitful discussions of the night, there was a tension about regulation details that got many people thinking.  Some participants at the table believed that this issue, since it is so new, must be dealt with slowly, and that the transition between our current system and retail stores must be done slowly and correctly to ensure economic success. They also believed that there shouldn't be more retail stores than medical stores, and that stores should operate under the per-capita system that medical systems currently operate under. There is too much prohibition in place to jump straight into the economy. D.U.I's are still a problem that need to be dealt with.  Others at the table believed that too many laws and regulations on the store-cap are pointless, and that these laws would treat us like irresponsible kids. We are adults that should be able to make our own choices. Other commodities aren't capped. We are the guinea pigs that could lead the way, attracting a great deal of tourism. We should make small barriers to entry into the retail marijuana market, to ensure small-business success. There are close to no car accidents attributed to marijuana intoxication.  But it’s legal across the whole state so maybe Fort Collins wouldn't be the designated spot for marijuana tourism. 11  Lots of other states are ready to jump on legalizing it because it’s about money and business and it has the potential to boast economies.  Politicians look at it as a way to raise money for the state and can say that without actually supporting smoking marijuana.  What do we think about putting a cap on retail stores?  Less concerned about capping it. I don't say this often but let the market take care of it.  If sketchy people try and open up stores they will most likely fail on their own or won't be able to compete with the legit operations.  What if Fort Collins didn't have a store front?  We could manufacture it here but not actually sell it?  I'm not sure how that would work out and not sure if we would benefit from the money it raises without having a storefront.  The nation is watching CO.  We need to model good behavior and figure out what exactly that means for this to work.  Could there be certain zones where marijuana could be smoked?  No, you don't do that with alcohol. Alcohol is only allowed in a designated facility or in the privacy of own home. There can't be marijuana zones.  Should there be a different level of discipline?  Maybe. But what level of penalty would really make them quit?  Extremely Strict enforcement.  The police reaction time is not quick enough after people are reported for smoking weed outside of homes. Not urgent or strict enough.  CSU can discipline for students behavior off campus.  There is a fundamental lack of respect from CSU students for the people living nearby. Residence halls are the number one problem, the students are a nuisance when they leave dorms to come to the neighborhoods to smoke.  The 21 and up law wouldn't even affect the neighborhood situation because the problem is the students that are under 21 in the dorms  The medical use of marijuana was when the issue of students in the neighborhoods became an issue.  Maybe it will evolve to be understood that it is similar to alcohol and is illegal to smoke underage and in public as time goes by.  Once regulations are put in place, will the situation improve?  No because it’s part of CSUs culture. There are new freshman every year, and it will be relayed to them. It will never change.  Colorado is the go-to state for incoming college students due to marijuana legalization.  Dangerous grow ops.  Smoking becomes even more harmful if FoCo ban retail. Final Post It Note: At the end of the event, facilitators asked participants to write down the main thing they wanted to tell Council from the whole evening. (Only marijuana comments included.)  Regulate marijuana retail like alcohol establishments.  Keep up the good work as to bringing issues to your public. Never forget that we the people put you in your job. Regulate and help show we are compassionate.  Marijuana- The city needs to continue taking resident/member input, while increasing education on the topic not only to the general public, but also with the city officials. Make sure that everybody has received the same info.  We must open retail stores ASAP! 12  Back yard grows: detailed regulations.  Regulate it!! Marijuana will always be (?). Let’s decide where it comes from: Cartels or licensed businesses.  Implement now.  Most important thing… the 64 question is important & complex. This level of deliberation & discussion is essential! Thanks!  Marijuana regs: limit ownership of MJ retail outfits to one per natural person (regardless of legal entity) as we do for retail liquor licenses.  This open forum works and should be expanded.  Regulation of marijuana can lead to lack of access to (?) and youths.  Regulate retail marijuana ASAP! It will provide a safe and regulated environment that follows the will of the people that voted in the last election.  Please regulate marijuana sales carefully.  The passing of Amendment 64 is more dangerous than Colorado understands.  Very organized, very hot topics.  Opinions are great, but please stay with the facts. Labs, mdg, grows, and retail are all different and should be treated and regulated differently.  There should be stricter than alcohol regulations/consequences when of age people buying or gifting for children.  Marijuana Regulation: Regarding placing limits on the # of marijuana locations, my worry is that this will result in anti-competitive behavior down the line. Whenever the govt. restricts entry into a market, existing businesses will always fight to keep out competition. We must balance the interest in restricting proliferation with the interest in having a competitive market.  Become better informed about the facts about MJ. Ask yourselves, if not from a retail establishment then where will adults get MJ?  To respect the wishes of the voters and get a system for retail marijuana in place.  I want the council to educate people more about Amendment 64, so that people would understand the regulations and that marijuana use has not been completely legalized.  The most important thing I would want city council to know is the need to look at the facts and decide what is true and what is not.  City council often gets hijacked by a vocal minority on issues despite the large effort staff makes with outreach. All issues discussed tonight are subject to that effect. These typed conversations are crucial to promote understanding of issues & good public discourse… Wish you had chance to have more people involved. These discussions became part of staff’s outreach on individual issues.  Information & education is surrounding what is legal & illegal and what would be allowed with respect to retail & medical marijuana.  Please listen to voters and pass A64.  I think the most important thing would be to realize that when Amendment 64 is put in action there will be a drastic change and there will be backlash no matter what.  Don’t panic re: marijuana – it is a medicine- need to allow. Hemp.  We need to have a community wide convo about legally allow. Thanks. TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS Derived from a TBLAM Brainstorm on Retail Establishments for Recreational Marijuana In Collaboration with the FC Moves Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line (TBL) information from a brainstorming session, and use that information to offer observations, recommendations, and future actions for recreational marijuana establishments in Fort Collins. I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM): A. The TBLAM was well populated by more than 20 participants. B. Common themes appeared across social and economic considerations. 1. Crossing columns was common, indicating excellent depth of discussion and debate. 2. Crossing of rows was uncommon, and would have indicated a potential for conflicting values. C. Environmental feedback was not as heavily populated in the TBLAM as social and economic feedback. D. Beneficial impacts (strengths and opportunities) were nearly identical in social and economic columns. E. Detrimental impacts (limitations and threats) overlapped between social and economic. 1. Numerous social limitations and threats were identified. 2. Conflict may arise from social limitations. II. Conclusions Offered: A. The TBLAM exercise indicates the recreational marijuana topic is a socio-economic challenge. 1. Recreational marijuana appears to be a strongly social issue. 2. Economic impacts tend to be secondary to social issues to the current group. a. Further analysis is needed from an economic standpoint to remove conjecture from the topic. b. More details in the Recommendations section. B. Social issues dominated the discussion. 1. There is clearly a stigma around recreational marijuana for staff and public (as reported by staff.) 2. Serious concern was levied over petty crime and law enforcement impacts of marijuana sales. C. Financial issues were also a primary topic of discussion. 1. Key topics included tax revenue generation potential and energy consumption potential. 2. Secondary topics included the impact of recreational dispensaries on adjacent property values, and on the solar power generation potential that may be created by growing operations. D. More expertise is needed from Environmental Services personnel to explore the benefits and detriments of this issue. III. Recommended Next Steps: A. Law enforcement concerns need to be explored early and in detail. 1. Impacts on petty crime and break-ins must be explored. a. Could use medical marijuana dispensary information as a benchmark. b. Must look to other benchmark communities nationally and globally for a complete analysis. 2. Impacts to law enforcement must be summarized by law enforcement personnel. a. Expected response from State and Federal partners must be known. i. Will recreational marijuana exempt the community from certain types of incident or disaster assistance? ii. How will State and Federal agencies address the narcotics issues when larger crime cases overlap into recreational marijuana? b. Cost of crime management and enforcement management must be quantified. i. Will more police be required? ii. Special training and experience required? iii. Will this divert resources from other law enforcement actions? 3. A clear distinction must be drawn for enforcement protocols for recreational marijuana from established dispensaries, and that which may be acquired on the black market. B. An economic analysis is needed. ATTACHMENT 4 1. Some of the current conjecture of potential economic impacts can be removed with a sound fiscal analysis. 2. Benchmark communities across the nation and the globe should be identified and analyzed. 3. Any limitations in available financial data should be disclosed at the onset. a. These may be an immediate threat to the discussion. b. Not a fatal flaw, but likely a community concern with no reconcilable outcome. C. The community stigma should be evaluated from a Public Relations standpoint. 1. A panel of experts should explore the PR impacts and relate them back to economic impacts. 2. It is recommended a citizen panel (or panels) of stakeholders from various backgrounds be assembled as a focus group to address social issues. a. Focus group feedback must be synthesized into fundamental community indicators. b. These fundamental indicators should be compared against national and global benchmark communities. D. More expertise is needed from Environmental Services personnel to explore the benefits and detriments of this issue Form Completed Sept. 23, 2013 This form is based on research by the City of Olympia and Evergreen State College Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM) Project or Decision: Recreational marijuana – permit retail businesses to open in Fort Collins (retail stores, cultivation, manufacturing, and testing facilities serving retail stores) Evaluated by: TBL Brain-Trust Social Economic Environmental STRENGTHS:  Local sales will provide tax revenue to community – revenue can be applied to the community  Reduces the social detriments of the criminal component associated with MJ  Could decrease the use of alcohol in the community  Community would like to be a leader in inspection and product quality, and in model ordinance implementation STRENGTHS:  Closer than other communities; Shop FC First  Local sales will provide tax revenue to community  Some in the community would like to be a leader in inspection and product quality, and in model ordinance implementation  Selling more power generates revenue at Utilities  Tourism-bringing in outside customers  Could create job opportunities  Could lead to sales of related items STRENGTHS:  Closer than other communities, so no travel necessary  Reduces vehicle miles traveled for customers locally  Additional green plants releasing O2 LIMITATIONS:  Could be construed as a detriment to social structure of the community  Some public health impacts are unknown at this time  Could affect federal support for law enforcement  Risk of targeting business for break-ins  Use of MJ in community could be detrimental to personal image or professional standing  Higher use of water and electricity for growing ops is contrary to the Utility ethos of conservation  Experience in other communities indicates MJ will divert law enforcement resources (from medical MJ)  Some residents and businesses do not want to be near MJ, but may be forced to be = affects property value LIMITATIONS:  Could affect federal funding for certain grants or law enforcement  Risk of targeting business for break-ins  Use of MJ in community could be detrimental to personal image or professional standing  Experience in other communities indicates MJ will divert law enforcement resources (from medical MJ) and may need to divert resources  Some residents and businesses do not want to be near MJ, but may be forced to be = affects property value LIMITATIONS:  Growing MJ requires a substantial volume of water, electricity, and chemicals  Increase vehicle miles traveled for outside customers OPPORTUNITIES: Form Completed Sept. 23, 2013 This form is based on research by the City of Olympia and Evergreen State College THREATS:  Some public health impacts are unknown at this time, others are known to be detrimental  Could lead to illegal sales to underage community members  Could impact reputation and branding of community  Use of MJ in community could be detrimental to personal image or professional standing  Retail sales could lead to smoking ordinance conflicts  Could decrease tourism ops  Some residents and businesses do not want to be near MJ, but may be forced to be = affects property value THREATS:  Could impact reputation and branding of community  Use of MJ in community could be detrimental to personal image or professional standing THREATS:  Growing operations use more water and electricity, inconsistent with Utilities conservation ethos  Improper growing creates mold and fire hazards  Impacts of second hand smoke both for health and nuisance  Creates disposal needs for by-products and packaging NOTES: 1 Ginny Sawyer, Project and Policy Manager Don Vagge, Police Captain Amendment 64 and Local Implications City Council Work Session November 26, 2013 ATTACHMENT 5 2 Direction Sought Retail Businesses • Does Council prefer to: – Ban retail businesses? – Ask the voters to decide in November 2014? – Allow and regulate retail businesses? • If Council chooses to allow and regulate, which of the proposed regulations does Council support? 3 Direction Sought • Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? • If Council chooses to allow retail marijuana stores, should there be a limit on the number? 4 Direction Sought Personal Possession and Consumption • Does Council support the proposed regulations? • Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? 5 Direction Sought Overall • Does Council support the proposed timeline? 6 Background Amendment 64 allows banning, opting in and regulating, or putting question to vote. Four types of retail businesses: Stores, Manufacturing Facilities, Cultivation Facilities, Testing Facilities. Outreach to date shows preference to allow and regulate. 7 Retail Marijuana Stores Option One: Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers who wish to convert (whole or in part) to retail in their existing locations. Option Two: Only allow licensed medical marijuana centers that meet Initiative 301 location requirements to convert. Option Three: Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers to convert but require they conform to location requirements and allow them to relocate if necessary. 8 Additional Considerations • Add setbacks to residential zones? • Add 1000 foot separation between businesses? • Other? 9 Manufacturing and Cultivation • Require that any cultivation or manufacturing facility within the City be associated with a local marijuana business. 10 Testing Facilities • Considered a research laboratory by our current Land Use Code definitions. • Staff does not anticipate the need for additional regulations. • Facilities will not be growing, manufacturing, or selling any marijuana. 11 Outside 1000 feet Outside 500 feet Within Permitted Zone? Schools CSU Public Playground Child Care Worship Public Park, Pool, Rec Fac. Halfway House, Rehab Ctr Conforms to 301? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No ? * No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 Personal Growing • No cultivation in two-family, multifamily, or single- family attached dwellings. • Cultivation could not occur in the open or be perceptible from the outside of a property. • Compressed, flammable gases would be prohibited, as would all high-intensity lighting. • The 12 plant limit would remain in place. 13 Personal Use and Consumption • Prohibit displaying and /or transferring marijuana on public property. • Consider a local ordinance prohibiting open and public consumption. • Consider prohibition on marijuana consumption on private property that is viewable from public right of way. 14 Next Steps • Temporary Ban expires March 31, 2014. • Work Session February 11 (if needed) • Bring ordinances based on direction starting in February. 15 Direction Sought Retail Businesses • Does Council prefer to: – Ban retail businesses? – Ask the voters to decide in November 2014? – Allow and regulate retail businesses? • If Council chooses to allow and regulate, which of the proposed regulations does Council support? 16 Direction Sought Retail Stores 1. Allow licensed medical marijuana centers to convert in their existing locations. 2. Only allow licensed medical marijuana centers that meet 301 location requirements to convert. 3. Allow all licensed medical marijuana centers to convert. Require they conform to location requirements and allow relocation. 17 Direction Sought Retail Stores Additional Considerations: • Add setbacks to residential zones? • Add 1000 foot separation between businesses? • Other? 18 Direction Sought Manufacturing and Cultivation Facilities Require that any cultivation or manufacturing facility within the City be associated with a local marijuana business? 19 Direction Sought • Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? • If Council chooses to allow retail marijuana stores, should there be a limit on the number? 20 Direction Sought Personal Growing No cultivation in two-family, multifamily, or single- family attached dwellings. Cultivation could not occur in the open or be perceptible from the outside of a property. 21 Direction Sought Personal Growing, con’t. The use and storage of compressed, flammable gases would be prohibited, as would all high- intensity lighting. The 12 plant limit would remain in place. • Does Council support the proposed regulations? • Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? 22 Direction Sought Personal Use and Consumption Prohibit displaying and/ or transferring marijuana on public property? Consider a local ordinance prohibiting open and public consumption? 23 Direction Sought Personal Use and Consumption, con’t. Consider prohibition on marijuana consumption on private property that is viewable from the public right of way. • Does Council support the proposed regulations? • Are there additional regulations Council would like staff to pursue? 24 Direction Sought Does Council support the proposed timeline? • Work Session on February 11, 2014 (if needed?) • Regular meetings in February-March, 2014  Public health impacts may be beneficial, but current research has some conflicts  Could impact reputation and branding of community  Could lead people to utilize solar power more extensively  Could increase tourism ops OPPORTUNITIES:  Could impact reputation and branding of community  Experience in other communities indicates MJ will divert law enforcement resources (from medical MJ) which may ultimately create jobs OPPORTUNITIES:  Could lead people to utilize solar power more extensively Loveland Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities and retail marijuana stores prohibited N/A Home Rule City 100% * Percent of people who chose that option (out of 49 respondents)