Memorandum 16-163 Amend HCC 21.62.040 Designating City Planner to Approve All Marijuana Applications

Memorandum 16-163

TO:                       ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:                 CANNABIS ADVISORY COMMISSION

THRU:                 RENEE KRAUSE, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

CC:                       KATIE KOESTER, CITY MANAGER

DATE:                  AUGUST 30, 2016

SUBJECT:         ORDINANCE 16-50, AMENDING TITLE 21.62.040, DESIGNATING THE CITY                                                        PLANNER TO APPROVE ALL MARIJUANA RELATED APPLICATIONS

At the regular meeting on August 25, 2016 the Cannabis Advisory Commission reviewed and approved a draft ordinance providing the City Planner or his/her designee, as the designated authority to review and approve all applications submitted to the City of Homer from the State of Alaska pertaining to marijuana as they relate to city code with the amendment that it be reviewed and approved or denied with or without recommendations within 15 days of receipt of the application.

Following is the excerpt of the meeting minutes that reflects the discussion and motions amending and approving the draft ordinance.

Recommendation:

Review and amend or approve Ordinance 16-50.

NEW BUSINESS

A. Draft ordinance 16-XX, Outlining the Regulatory Responsibilities of the Commission regarding Applications

Correct title according the draft ordinance submitted by the City Attorney: Amending Homer City Code 21.62.040, Currently Entitled Pre-Application Conference” to Authorize the City Planner to Recommend to the State of Alaska that it Deny an Application for a Marijuana Establishment that Does Not Comply with Homer City Code and Authorize the City Planner to Recommend that the State Impose Conditions to Approval When Necessary to Ensure Compliance with the Homer City Code.

There was a bit of confusion to bringing the ordinance to the floor for discussion or making a motion to approve. City Planner Abboud stated he could provide a report on the ordinance. Chair Young yielded the floor.

City Planner Abboud stated that this ordinance was very simple and amended Title 21 putting the applications under his review. Since it is amending Title 21 this will have to go before the Planning Commission for review, Public Hearing and approval before going to Council and he has not finalized the next Planning Commission agenda so he can get it on that for the next meeting.

Commissioner Harris wanted to postpone this ordinance until after the new council is elected.

Commissioner Clark commented that he saw no reason to move this forward that it is pretty straight forward. Commissioner Reynolds agreed and recommended sending this to Planning Commission that everything is so up in the air that there is no reason to withhold action on it now.

Commissioner Harris expressed concerns with expediency in reviewing and approving applications received by the city. City Planner Abboud responded with the time requirement that is already imposed in state regulations regarding local opposition. He did not believe it would take much time to review and resubmit to the state.

Commissioner Harris expressed clarification on her concerns that existing membership on Planning Commission would try to change the rules from the time an application is received and approval. City Planner Abboud noted that under the proposed regulation the Planning Commission would not be involved unless the applicant appealed his decision. He further noted that his recommendations would fall under existing requirements. He further noted that reviewing an application within 10 or 15 days is doable.

Commissioner Harris further explained that she would like to see a date within this ordinance that current regulations as of this date to make sure that no regulations change in the meantime.

Discussion and points made by the commission ensued on the following:

- 10-15 day limit is appropriate

- the application will be coming from the state to the city planner

- to change current city code will require two meetings at the planning commission and two meetings at the city Council level and will also require at least two weeks to get on the agenda.

- lack of public involvement in the zoning changes because they fall under the public’s radar

- notice requirement by the state gives the city the notice required to make changes in building requirements and codes

- preference to have a review board other than the planning commission review an application especially those applications that have been denied

REYNOLDS/YOUNG - MOVED TO AMEND LINE 45 TO ADD WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION.

Discussion ensued in clarification of intent of the motion was to amend the ordinance to provide the 15 day time limit for review and approval with or without recommendations. The intent for the paragraph to read as follows:

b. The City Planner shall be responsible for reviewing all applications filed with the State of Alaska under AS 17.38 for the operation of marijuana establishments in the City of Homer once those applications have been submitted to the city for its review by the State of Alaska. The City Planner or his or her designee, shall recommend to the State of Alaska, WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION, denying an application that does not comply with this code or he or she may recommend approving the application with conditions that, if adopted, will result in compliance with this code.

City Planner Abboud stated that he does have staff available to act in his absence in response to a question by the commission.

Chair Young called for the vote.

VOTE. YES. NON-OBJECTION. UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

Commissioner Reynolds recognized that the City Planning Department has a responsibility to follow and apply the guidelines and regulations that are imposed and she has never seen a bias previously. Commissioner Sarno echoed those sentiments and further stated that City planner Abboud has shown professionalism and believes that any application they received would get a fair hearing.

Commissioner Sarno inquired if any zoning changes were proposed to revise code that affect marijuana businesses would this (Cannabis Advisory) commission get a chance to review these changes before going to Council?

Commissioner Stead responded that they would not, he is not the expert but any proposed changes to zoning falls under the purview of the Planning Commission and there is no requirement to notify this commission. He also stated that to suggest that members of the Planning Commission are nefarious and feels that those acts would be a criminal, he cannot think that the commission in how it acts and works together today would do that, they do their very best to put personal feeling aside and he is a bit affronted at the implication but appreciates it is Commissioner Harris’ personal opinion and she is entitled to her opinion. Commissioner Stead appreciates the other commissioners supportive comments and believes City Planner Abboud does his very best to be fair in his recommendations.

HARRIS/REYNOLDS - MOVED TO AMEND THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL WHEREAS ON LINE 16 THAT STATES CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WILL BE APPROVED ACCORDING TO EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS AS OF THIS MONTH.

Commissioner Reynolds cited that there is no precedent to set a zoning map and regulations in place. She understands that it is confusing but does not think there is a way to lock the zoning into place. Further discussion on the time frame for approval within 15 days and additional limits would be onerous.

VOTE. NO. ROBL, STEAD, YOUNG, SARNO, REYNOLDS, CLARK

VOTE. YES. HARRIS.

Motion failed.

REYNOLDS/ROBL – MOVED TO FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

There was no discussion.

VOTE. YES. CLARK, REYNOLDS, SARNO, YOUNG, STEAD, ROBL.

VOTE. NO. HARRIS.

Motion carried.