Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I don't remember seeing that. At this time, I'll call the planning commission meeting of August 20th, 2025 to order. May we have a roll call, please? Commissioner McFale here. Commissioner Bodard here. Commissioner Malikov present. Vice Chair Me here. And Chair Lee present. Thank you.

Would you uh please rise as you are able and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Do we have any changes to the agenda? No changes, chairman.

Okay. And uh I just note for the the other commission members that we don't have minutes from the last meeting, but they will be on our agenda for the next meeting. Uh moving to agenda item number one, public comments. The public is invited to address the planning commission on any matter not on the agenda. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, please wait to be recognized under that item. Except for special circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits the planning commission or staff from responding or taking action on any comments made by the public unless it pertains to an item that appears on the agenda. All speakers should give their name and city of residence and please limit your remarks to three minutes. Do we have any request to speak?

Mr. Chair, we have not received any request to speak slips. Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak? Any me members from the public who would like to speak? I see none.

Thank you. Um moving on to item two, uh public hearing items. And for the uh for the benefit of those at home or in the uh auditorium, I just want to read you this statement. This information is for members of the public attending this meeting or watching at home. The public hearing will proceed as follows. Staff will present the proposed resolution and commission members will ask staff questions related to that presentation. The public hearing will then be opened for public comment. Anyone wishing to comment on this agenda item will be given up to three minutes to speak on the item in question. The public hearing will then be closed. The commission members will then discuss the proposed resolution and may propose a motion to adopt the resolution as presented, propose amendments to it, or reject the resolution. Thank you. And we have a staff report.

Yes. Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. I'm Andrew Firestein, your director of community and economic development, and I have a presentation for you this evening. So, as I lead into this presentation, I just want to preface this with some thoughts and and those thoughts really are we have a complex problem that is in search of a complex solution. And this evening, you are considering a complex solution. Uh we are considering uh amendments to the city's cannabis ordinances across multiple chapters of the code. Ordinarily uh you work in our zoning code but uh for this presentation you are hearing everything and that is to ensure that you are understanding the full context of uh the updates to the city's cannabis regulations. Um this is also a little bit different in the sense that we have regulations today and we have a robust cannabis industry within the community. Uh we have an odor problem and we are working through a solution on that odor problem. Uh as we work through that solution, staff's approach for this presentation and the draft uh ordinance was to look for a balance and that is respecting the needs of residents of the city of Cathedral City while also recognizing that these are existing businesses. Um there are jobs within those businesses and there is an economic impact associated with the cannabis industry. So, the ordinance tonight was prepared with balance in mind, looking for a solution that addresses the core issue, the core problem at hand, while also uh still recognizing, still putting the city in a position where we can say that we're open for business and that we're responsive to the needs of industry. The city has existing ordinances regulating the licensing of medical and adult use cannabis uh and establishing the zoning and land use requirements for cannabis businesses. Uh these were initially adopted in 2017 and were last amended in 2022. U Cathedral City has 59 cannabis

businesses with 97 licenses. [Music] We have seen a large increase in the number of cannabis odor complaints. At the beginning of 2024, we had 38 cannabis odor complaints uh across a 3-month period of time. And then over the remaining 9 months of 2024, uh we received over 900 additional cannabis odor complaints, including 220 in November and 51 in December. Uh that has increased since then. Uh right now we're not in a peak season. A lot of the residents adjacent to uh C4 industry um have um gone back to their primary place of residence. Uh so that has decreased over the summer months, but the cannabis odor still exists in that area. Uh complaints have been reported across the city. I I don't want to um convey that this is strictly a C4 industry, that this is strictly an issue with the date palm drive and Ramon Road area. Uh we have received complaints elsewhere in the city and even as staff as we step out of city hall we recognize that there are cannabis odor issues on the Perez road c cor corridor area. So in response to the cannabis odor complaints uh staff engaged with cannabis enforcement staff in other Coachella Valley cities. Uh we engaged in dialogue and discussion with the department of cannabis control at a state level. We evaluated cannabis odor control regulations in other cities. Uh we also increased our staff training. Uh we we sought to create a cannabis enforcement guide and to initiate inspections of cannabis businesses not just for the purpose of a business license but for uh code enforcement. We developed patrol routes for cannabis odor detection using both our code compliance staff as well as the Cathedral City Police Department. and this was to collect additional

information, additional data on cannabis odor uh complaints and issues across the city. We've also required additional cannabis odor mitigation. Despite these efforts, the complaints continue to come in and our productive patrols continue to identify odor issues. Um, and we've not been able to address that up to this point. This led council to enact a moratorum in January of 2025. Council initially enacted a 45-day initial moratorium on the approval of new cannabis licenses and conditional use permits and the issuance of building permits for the buildout or expansion of new cannabis businesses. Uh they extended this initial moratorium on February 26th, 2025 by 10 months and 15 days. And we're currently in that moratorum period. Since council adopted the moratorum, staff has continued its research. It has evaluated city's zoning, locationational requirements, definitions, standards, and enforcement provisions, fines, and penalties. We've compared this to u many other cities and counties. Uh we've also obtained consultant support. We realized that we got to a point where we've done as much as we can as a staff and we needed to bring in additional subject matter experts to support any measure the city were to develop. We've also launched a cannabis odor control reporting and monitoring pilot program that is uh currently uh in place and we've prepared a comprehensive ordinance amending the city's cannabis regulations including cannabis tax licensing zoning and enforcement. That's the subject of the presentation tonight. So, let's get into this a little bit more. Um, I did mention C4 industry and just to back up a little bit, tonight's presentation is not about C4 industry, although uh it is part of what we're

discussing. Uh, so related specifically to C4 industry. Uh, we have also engaged with another uh consultant on odor emissions. Um, that consultant has helped us understand the odor emissions problem at C4 industry. C4 Industry itself has applied for a building permit to install additional odor control equipment. Uh and that is still in process. Um they have a temporary certificate of occupancy to operate. Uh we've expressed to them that they need to resolve their odor issues um prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. So

director, could I could I just interrupt a second? Of course. I'm not sure if everyone on the commission is familiar with who C4 are. So if you can give a little background and if there are other questions as we go through it's a long presentation. So um please make those uh questions when when they come up

and I encourage that it is a long presentation. We've got about 40 slides and I know you haven't been with us every step of the way as we've gone through this exercise. So want to make sure that I'm going through deliberately so that you have the information you need uh in consideration of the ordinance. So C4 Industry is a large indoor uh cultivator uh located in the vicinity of Day Palm Drive and Raone Road. Um this is a facility with over 200,000 square ft of cultivation space. Um they began construction some years back but uh began u bringing online their grow areas in 2024. And it was as their grow areas were coming online, as we were issuing temporary certificates of occupancy for those incrementally that we started to see those odor complaints coming in in the vicinity of Day Palm Drive and Ramon Road. So, um, beyond C4 industry, um, some of the other actions that we've taken and I I think this is reflective of, uh, the increased accountability that we've placed on the industry. We're looking to them to, uh, really be responsible for their business, be responsible for the odors they're generating. um we're expecting them to operate under the code and as we've um put code in a more primary role as as code has taken on a more direct role with the enforcement of our cannabis regulations we have taken action and I think that's important to call out uh tonight as well uh we have led the revocation of a conditional use permit on Kylie Road uh this was for repeated code violations and illegal activity at that site uh there was ample reason to support the revocation of that conditional use permit. Uh we have also performed an inspection of a property that had a conditional use permit and previously had uh licenses for cannabis cultivation, but at the time we received a a complaint about it. There was no um cannabis license for cultivation uh in

effect at the time. So we received a complaint that there may be activity occurring within that space. code compliance conducted an initial inspection, observed that there was in fact activity there that was turned over to the Cathedral City Police Department and the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force serve search warrants uh for that property and another uh property seizing over 10,000 cannabis plants. So, uh another action that that's been taken to just increase accountability within the space. Uh in the last one, this is a more traditional code compliance case, but um you know, up until this point when we've done inspections for annual renewal of a business license, uh it it's been led by each division. So, you know, planning might go out look at uh specific conditions related to their perview. Fire might go out and look at uh specific conditions related to their purview. Uh this is an example where code uh led uh a multi-division uh inspection uh with planning, building, fire, even Riverside County, and there were multiple violations of our cannabis regulations detected. Uh they led an effort to use the enforcement provisions in our code to issue citations and to take corrective action. So that is still an open case, but I share it with you tonight in the sense that we are looking to increase accountability So getting into our current cannabis regulations, cannabis uses may be permitted as a conditional use in our planned community commercial PCC, commercial business park, CBP2 and light industrial zoning districts. That's our regulation as it stands today. As you know, the PCC zoning district is the most common commercial zoning district in the city. This is typified by retail uses and shopping areas throughout the city. Day Palm Drive, Raone Road. U those are typically zoned PCC. CBP2 and I1 zoning districts. Those are generally clustered around Perez Road. Those are

the business parks and industrial parks within the city. This table was presented to you in November of last year by staff. Uh gives you a sense of where uh all of these uses are permitted. U the mu mu n those are also shown on the slide. That's the north city specific plan. There was uh an amendment to the north city specific plan to allow cannabis uses there. Uh we have not addressed that in this ordinance. Uh that is something that we would potentially want to consider through an amendment to that specific plan. Notwithstanding uh the north city specific plan. Uh this gives you a sense of uh the uses and and where they're permitted. I would call attention to cultivation being permitted within the PCC zoning district. That's one of the changes that we'll uh discuss tonight. SCS engineers, I'll introduce them in a moment. Uh they are present this evening and available for uh questions on odor science, on um odor control plans, really any of the technical information that's in the report they conducted for the city. Uh they produced several graphics that I have uh on these slides. This was also in your report. gives you a sense of the dispersion of cannabis uses today within the city. Uh so on this slide, uh these are all of the cannabis businesses that exist in the city today. And as we proceed through these, uh you'll see where we have uh cultivation and cultivation is principally clustered on the uh Perez Road corridor. Uh the exceptions to that there is one on Day Palm Drive and we also have and I apologize it's not shown on here C4 industry at Dayal and Raone. Continuing through this um dispensaries these are uh dispersed uh across the city. You do have a few uh closer to Vistacino and Day Palm Drive. Some on

Raone Road uh and then others uh concentrated around Palm Canyon and the Perez Road corridor. distribution only. Uh there are licenses for that um along Perez Road corridor and also along Palm Canyon and you do have one on Raone Road. Manufacturing, not much manufacturing u in the city, just the licenses you see there. and micro business. Micro business is a uh state license uh that uh combines uh three or more um this could be dispensary, could be cultivation, could be manufacturing. It's three or more license types. That's a specific state license. And then we have the testing labs. Not many testing labs within the city either. So, continuing on with a review of the city's current regulations, uh we do have separation requirements and those separation requirements are shown on this slide. Uh you have in this column schools, daycare centers and youth centers. Uh that's 600 ft that is set by the state. Uh then we have uh residential zones. Uh 250 ft from dispensaries and 300 ft for cultivation, manufacturing and distribution sites. Uh, and then resort residential. Resort residential. Um, this includes many neighborhoods, perhaps more than we might think at first. This includes Desert Princess Outdoor Resort Palm Springs, Desert Shadows RV Resort, Cathedral Canyon Country Club, Canyon Shores, Date Palm Country Club, Cathedral Palms RV RV Resort, and the District uh just to name some. So we have a separation requirement between dispensaries and resort residential but we do not have a separation requirement between cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and resort residential in

the code today. And there are instances where we have uh sites adjacent to resort residential. The most prominent is outdoor resort Palm Springs where we've realized the conflict with C4 industry, but that's not the only one. Uh we do have other areas where we have cannabis uses that are adjacent to Resort Residential. Um the most prominent example of that is the Cathedral Palms RV RV Resort. Uh that is adjacent to Kylie Road and some of the uses on Kylie Road and there are others too that are in close proximity. Um, this is an area where we have seen some of the conflict where we have residents, even those that are here seasonally, that are in close proximity to cultivation uses. I

I might be jumping ahead, but tell me if I am. The amphitheater, that's the MXC zone, right? Correct. Yes. So h how far would a cultivation facility have to be across the street in the MBP the the industrial CBP2

the CB2 would the amphitheater be one of those disqualifying land uses? No, that that is not one of the land uses today that is uh that has a separation requirement. Could the Again, I don't know if I'm jumping ahead, but could the the amphitheater be considered a place where children go? I'm I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Could the amphitheater that we we have be considered a place where children frequent? potentially. I I I would say that if we were to consider a separation requirement from the amphitheater, we may want to define that uh a little bit more specifically. U and and that's something I think we can get to. Uh I I would suggest let's continue with the presentation and as the the planning commission gets to a point of deliberation, that may be something for the planning commission to discuss. So, continuing, this is the condition of approval that I'm sure you've seen as as you've processed a conditional use permit for cannabis use. Um, this defines a no odor standard at the property line and we do require cannabis businesses today to provide an odor control system. What's lacking though is a verification step. So this is required during the entitlement process but we have no means of verifying how effective that system is in mitigating the cannabis odor generated by the use. Typically uh those systems are included as a mechanical sheet in a building permit plan set and they're reviewed against the California building code for compliance with building code standards. But today no one is reviewing the equipment for its effectiveness to mitigate cannabis odor. So, we have a standard no odor at the property line. We have a requirement that they're providing an odor control system, but we don't have a verification step. And and we'll get to how we propose to change that here in the presentation. Stepping into title 13, this is our enforcement provisions in the code. Um, we have a standard here as well that has no odor at the property line. It is a public nuisance to cause or permit persistent cannabis odors that are offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity and

which adversely impact or unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of property. Uh and this is at the property line. So that is the standard that we have in the code. What we don't have is sufficient detail on how we are to enforce a cannabis odor violation. Right now it is a $100 citation and I'll share with you now that is not effective um in in terms of deterring u violations of this section of code as well. You know we don't have a very good process on what do we do when we detect cannabis odors. U we could you know lead into an investigation as we do with any other case but the challenge with cannabis odors it's transitory. um when we get a complaint, by the time we send a code officer out to inspect it, maybe days later, we're not detecting that odor. Um so there are challenges with the enforcement section of code. It's insufficient. It's inadequate as it's currently written. And and we'll share with you as we get into the presentation how we propose to address that. So we have conducted research in other cities. Um we we looked at the Department of Cannabis Control first and foremost and this really is recognizing that we have a large indoor cultivation facility with C4 industry. So our initial thought is who else is like us? Is there anyone else out here in the state of California that we can model? Is there another city or county that has a similar size facility that we could look at that we could see that has sensible regulations that we could adapt here in Cathedral City? So, we did research with the DCC and looked at just how many other large indoor cannabis cultivation facilities there were in the state. And what we found, there are seven. Five in Oakland, one in Richmond, and ours in Cathedral City. And ours is the only purposebuilt facility. Uh the others were adaptive reuse older industrial buildings. Um,

they're also not in areas where they're in close proximity to residential, uh, to an RV resort. Ours is different in that sense. I would add too that C4 industry is probably the largest of all of those. Uh, we were not able to determine exactly how large those other facilities are, but looking at uh, aerial photographs, um, all but one of those are distinctly smaller than C4 industry. So, we're exceptional in that sense. Um, we then looked at all cities across the state that permit indoor cannabis cultivation. And the thought there was, okay, well, maybe someone else, even if they don't have a large indoor cannabis cultivation use, has regulations that we could look at. So, we looked at u all other California cities and counties, found 84 permit indoor cannabis cultivation. U staff looked at 84 uh codes and regulations. um that was cursory. Uh the intent there was to see, you know, what which codes were modern, which codes had something of interest, uh which codes had something that potentially could be uh utilized here in Cathedral City. And we narrowed that down to 15 cities and three counties to research further. As we got into that more, we came up with uh set of seven zoning questions, uh four enforcement questions that we use to probe all of those codes. And that research is in your packet that was part of the April 23rd uh staff report to city council. I won't go into it in much depth because what we found was there's nothing out there that we can directly adapt and model. Uh we are in a certain sense leading this solution and that's an instance where you know we we need to innovate, we need to create um there are ideas that we can take from other cities. We did look intensely at Palm Springs, at Desert Hot Springs, and

Coachella, for instance. Those were some of the better codes and and we did look at some of the better ideas in those other codes, too. But, uh, the solution you have is a compilation of those best ideas and as well, um, putting forward ideas that make sense in Cathedral City. After the presentation on April 23rd to city council, um we did u go under contract with SCS engineers to provide additional support to the city. Um they are subject matter experts and they are represented here tonight. Uh so we we do have SCS engineers available to answer questions you may have on cannabis odors, odor science, odor control plans beyond those that city staff can answer. As part of our contract, uh we asked them to take the work that we did um looking at the the regulatory review, looking at those best practices, uh to take that further and that they've identified um odor control technologies that they've identified best practices that we were able to integrate into the draft ordinance that you have. They also worked with us to build out an odor control permitting process. uh there are checklists in the report that we intend to use as part of the implementation and we will continue to work with them uh on uh training um post adoption of an ordinance. So getting into the content of the report appendix A that this is an in-depth assessment of uh odor cannabis odors. I won't go any further than what's on this slide. I mentioned they are industry experts and and they are available to answer uh more specific questions you may have on cannabis odors. In the report they evaluated different cannabis uses and the odor generating potential of those uses. You'll see that cultivation is a high

odor generating use. Uh when uh beyond that we have u consumption lounges that are also a high odor generating use uh whereas dispensaries are a low odor generating use and this is important in the sense that there's not a one-sizefits-all solution. Our code today the conditional use uh permit condition of approval um that is sort of a one-sizefits-all approach. uh you're required to provide an odor control system and there's no uh odor to be detected at the property line. We apply that to every cup that we see. What we know though is that not all uses are the same that that the odor generating load is different by cannabis use and a more adaptive solution is needed. That's where SCS engineers has recommended an odor control plan process. So the contents of an odor control plan are specific to the use. Um the odor control plan itself identifies the odor emmitting activities processes method. It identifies the odor emmitting activities as part of the use together with the processes methods used for odor control and complaint management. There are checklists for each of these odor control plans. So there is a different checklist for cultivation than there is for allows than there is for a dispensary. So, it's not a one-sizefits-all approach, but it's intended to be calibrated to the impacts of that particular use, and it gives flexibility. It gives the designer the ability to choose what equipment goes into that facility to mitigate the odor to result in no odor at the property line.

Sorry, just a quick question. Did you say there weren't any testing labs? We do have testing. Yes. Oh, okay. Because it's not So, we're not concerned about the testing labs at all. It is. I know. I thought there was one on Raone and near the bowling alley. Two testing. I I have to go back and look at the map, but but we're we're not doing um any sort of reg uh there's no checklist for testing. Are we less concerned just because the odor possibility is less? So, they would still be required to do an odor control plan. I apologize if there's not a checklist in there. That's fine. I just wanted to

um the the contents for that would be geared to the use itself. So that is a low odor generating use uh and it would go through a less ownorous process. Really the the expectations are more for a cultivator uh they would be required to to put more information into that. In all likelihood they would be putting in more equipment u than a dispensary or some of those low generating uses.

Okay. Thanks. So this is a sample of what that uh um checklist template looks like. This one is for um a cultivation or a manufacturing use. So you get a sense of uh what is asked or what is required as part of that. Um you've got the u uh odor control system design, administrative controls. Really those are uh processes, engineering controls. This is equipment. Uh and beyond that you've got uh your maintenance requirements and staff training. So, uh, as we get into this further, you'll see that this really serves as the foundation for the system that the business is proposing to mitigate the cannabis odor. And it's also what we use from an enforcement standpoint to ensure that we're maintaining accountability. So, that conversation when we get into the enforcement slide starts with let's pull out the odor control plan. Let's see what's working, what's not working. Uh, and that gives us the tool to have a more intelligent conversation about odor control and enforcement. So SCES has recommended to the city uh a technology agnostic and performance-based approach. Uh so we're not leading with the solution, but we're providing the designer the flexibility to choose what is suitable for that particular business. And again, our standard is no odor at the property line. So as long that's our goal, no odor at the property line. And it's the designer's responsibility to uh select equipment to design a system that achieves that. uh that encourages or ensures um flexibility uh and as well a code that is resilient as technology changes as there's um new technology coming out u that that we're not locked in to outnoted outdated technologies. Um table one in the report does provide an overview of um multiple odor control technologies and SCS engineers can get into that in more depth than staff. So from here I want to pivot and get into

the contents of the proposed ordinance. So we've got five sections to step through and that starts with zoning regulations getting into odor control plans uh and then some of the other sections for you. So we are proposing to remove cultivation as a conditional use within the PCC zoning district. Um, we are one of the few, if not the only city that I could find that allows cultivation in a commercial zoning district like this. And, you know, if we had to go had the opportunity to go back in time, I think this is something we would reconsider. Uh, in the sense that PCC is in close proximity to residential areas. Uh, it's in close proximity to sensitive receptors. And we know now that uh, allowing cultivation in the PCC zoning district has created conflict. We can't change that. That cup has been approved. That's an existing entitlement. Um, working through that, enforcing that, that's a separate issue than what we're discussing tonight. But removing cultivation as a conditional use within PCC ensures that that we're not doing that again. um existing cultivation within the PCC that would remain as a legal non-conforming use and cultivation would remain a conditional use within the CBP2 and I1 zoning districts.

Could you just expand on that? Um C4 would become nonconforming. They can still operate, but what are the legal implications for non-conformance? So, so a legal non-conforming use means that they can continue to operate uh until that use is abandoned uh which essentially is it's discontinued for a period of 90 days or longer. Uh at that point um that use would be deemed extinguished. It also limits their ability to expand uh the use. And if C4 were to sell that property to another company, would

they could yes, someone could um take ownership of that, they could acquire the license and continue to operate so long as it were not abandoned. And even though they're a non-conforming use, later in your presentation, I I I read you're going to go into the noise odor control. um mechanisms for existing and new. Yes. And they will not be exempt from that even though they're a non-conforming use. So they'll have a time frame that they need to comply regardless of being a non-conforming use.

Correct. And I will address that here in a couple of slides. So we are also proposing to add a 300 ft separation requirement between cultivation, manufacturing, distribution sites and any property zoned resort residential. This is creating an equivalency between resort residential and residential for that use. Um so new uses that are coming in they would be required to meet that standard. Um anything that

Okay, I have a question on this one. Um so the resort residential not only is something where people live but we have schools um such as the king school that are in the resort residential. So would they have to follow the resort residential rule or the distance from a school? Well in that case the school would require a 600t buffer. So that would be the greater the more restrictive buffer. So if you're a school in the our our district then whatever the distance or or something if you're if you're in two different classes

it would be the whatever one has the largest distance is the one you would have to follow. Yes. So for instance if somebody wanted to open one near the king school um I don't know if I'm not supposed to mention their name but I'm concerned. Um then it would have to be 600 ft not 300 which is the RR requirement. Correct. And that 600t requirement from a school exists in the code today. So that is not being changed. And that would also be 600 from any public school.

School has a a specific definition but yes um schools, daycare centers, youth centers that is a 600 foot separation requirement today. And that is not changing. And then okay, I'll wait till we get to places of worship.

Okay. So, continuing on, um, we're also proposing modifications to the standard conditions of approval and and really this is a simplification of the condition of approval to require an odor control plan and to eliminate redundant language. Um this does um refer to title five and the specific odor control plan requirements uh where there are specific uh submittal and content requirements for an odor control plan. So uh there's a simplification of the conditional use permit condition of approval. Stepping into odor control plans. So this is within title 5. This is proposed as a new section of the cannabis licensing code. review of an odor control plan. This is intended to evaluate its effectiveness to mitigate cannabis odor. So that the gap that I mentioned earlier uh where we don't have the ability to verify whether an odor control system is designed appropriately to mitigate those cannabis odors, this is intended to fill that gap. The standard remains no odor at the property line. the uh cannabis license renewal regulations. They are also proposed to be modified to require existing businesses to obtain approval of an odor control plan as a requirement of their local license renewal beginning January 1st, 2026. So, this will apply to new businesses going forward and then retroactively to existing businesses as they're going through a renewal process. If there is additionally required odor control equipment uh through the review of that odor control plan, that cannabis business would have up to 6 months to install that cannabis odor control equipment uh or by December 31st, 2026. So, this is intended to be phased in over the course of 2026. Uh there is an important note here though, and we'll see this when we get into title 13 and

the enforcement section. uh if we get a a verified cannabis odor complaint against a business and they have not yet completed that odor control plan um they would be required to submit an odor control plan within 30 days as opposed to the phased implementation. So uh for businesses that are operating as usual where there's not a a cannabis odor complaint where there's not an issue with cannabis odors uh they would simply be required to submit that odor control plan as part of their license renewal. where we are having odor issues where there are verified cannabis odor complaints that would be accelerated.

Can I ask a question here? Um this was a question I had sent to you in advance too. Um so it says the review of an odor control plan is proposed to evaluate its effectiveness to mitigate cannabis odors. Who is evaluating the plan? Do we have the technical expertise inhouse or are they is a consultant staying on hand to I mean how do we know that it's could be viable at work?

I I appreciate that. So as the ordinance goes forward to city council, it will be presented with two companion resolutions. Uh one of those resolutions will be setting fines and we'll touch on that in a moment. Uh the other is setting fees and that fee is intended to be um a cost recovery for uh fees incurred by the city for the review of an odor control plan. Uh we intend to contract out all but the um dispensaries that the retail dispensaries. Uh we do not have that expertise on city staff to review those. So the way that we've structured the the schedule uh the fee that is charged to us by the consultant uh we would recapture that through the fee. Uh we're also building in four hours of staff time. Uh this is for the processing of the odor control plan as well as to conduct inspections. It's our intent to conduct um regular annual inspections led by code compliance to verify uh the performance of the odor control equipment and systems that are in place. Uh so we'll have checklists for our staff. They'll be trained to conduct the inspections. That's part of our contract with SCS engineers. Okay. But we we intend to refer out the review of the odor control plan. Thank you for clarifying that.

Is that firm here tonight? They are. Yes. And are they I think I know who they are. Um I'm just guessing. Um but um I I assume they're a local firm then so that when there's an issue that they can address it in a timely manner rather than coming from Escandida. They have an office in Santa Maria. Santa Maria El Centro. Santa Maria El Centro. Um they've been very responsive though and but there's no office here.

There's no office here at the Coachella Valley. The odor control plans are an entirely electronic submitt. Uh so that would be received through our CSS portal like any other application and we would be able to send the plans to them electronically. Uh so I don't see an issue with with their ability to process or or be responsive to the review of an odor control plan. They don't need to go do an inspection. They just need to review the plans and this is wrong. Send it back to staff in a blue blue blue beam. Blue beam. Um send it back to them in blue beam and say this is what needs to be fixed. Yes. Okay. So then the local presence isn't a

I don't see local presence as a necessity. Uh we'll get into this in a coming slide, but um we can request uh a cannabis business to conduct an odor assessment. Uh if there is some debate over uh the presence of cannabis odors at the property line, the intensity of cannabis odors, we can request an odor assessment. That though would be conducted by the business, not necessarily the city. Uh and in that case, the business would select a qualified firm to perform that odor assessment. Um, and that would require someone to be on site in all likelihood.

I think, you know, I agree with Vice Chair me in that in the past, we've never really had somebody that had that expertise, just like we really don't have anybody that can measure photometrics. Um um you know we want somebody here in this position that can measure the and deal with the odor the the details of odor control so that we don't ever run into this problem again.

Yeah. I mean I guess my question just to follow up with what you you guys have just been discussing is so the the business submits a plan. They say we're going to put in ABC control systems. It goes to the expert. the expert says this looks good. How when someone from code compliance goes out to review what's actually been put in, do they have the expertise to go, oh this complex system, that's what I'm seeing here.

We will get training so that we know what we're looking at when we conduct inspections. Yes. Um so getting into the enforcement provisions, um shared with you where we're starting from. Uh so so we have language that uh declares um persistent cannabis odors uh offensive to individuals of normal sensitivity. Um it goes on that's a nuisance violation of the code today. So we are maintaining that standard while also establishing an enforcement process centered on an odor control plan and best way to illustrate that is through a graphic. Uh so we have essentially three paths. There's cannabis odor. So we detect cannabis odor. we get cannabis odor complaint that's been verified. There's three paths that we can go on the top. This is with an approved odor control plan and this is where we want to operate. This is where we want to be. So, we've worked with a business, they've submitted, they've received approval of a cannabis odor control plan, they've installed odor control equipment, they're doing things right. If we detect cannabis odor in that instance, this starts with a written warning. So, we're working to inform and educate that cannabis business that there's an issue, that there's a problem. At that point, it's on the cannabis business to take corrective action. So, we're giving them 10 days to investigate, evaluate, and to respond to um that written warning and to let us know what's going on. We can grant additional time as may be needed um to conduct for them to implement additional corrective actions. At some point, we'll conduct a reinspection and see, are there still cannabis odors detected at that property line? If there are, then we're looking at a potential citation. And I mentioned to you that there is a uh fine resolution going to city council. Uh right now, we are uh estimating that that fine in this first tier would be a $1,000 fine. So, we're giving the business the opportunity to correct the problem before we go out and do a reinspection. And we are intending to work cooperatively uh with the

cannabis business in this position using that odor control plan as really the foundation for that discussion. Use the odor control plan to identify what you should be doing. Is something wrong? Correct it, and let's do a reinspection. Just just to clarify there, you said so they have 10 days to take corrective action, but then you said at some point in the future, we do reinspection. Shouldn't it be day 10? It can be. We can also grant additional time. Um, for instance, if they needed to install additional cannabis odor uh equipment, if if they were um in need of a part and that part had a a lead time, we have the ability in this case to grant them additional time before we do that uh reinspection. So, did it say that specifically in the

It is specific in in the ordinance. Yes, that there's discretion 10 days or if they have applied for additional time. Correct. There is language in there that grants the ability for code staff to grant additional time. There is discretion built in. Okay. Um

when when it gets to citation, where do they go um for the citation? Because I found in my experience over the years that judges do not care about code enforcement. They don't care about fences. They don't care about odors. They don't care about those kinds of things and they just think that there's more important things for them to be doing than this. So when it gets to the citation, do we have our own board that deals with it and that has that kind of administrative remedy to replace what a useless judge would do? Sorry. Um or if there's any judges listening, sorry, but it's true. Um because I found that once it gets in any I found that once a court a a code enforcement issue gets into the court system that that there's very little interest by the judges in correcting it or providing fines no matter how ownorous it is to the people around them. So, so we're going to have our own group that will do the own enforcement and the own in their own bail schedule for what those fines will be. So, we have a code enforcement staff today. Uh, this would be managed by our code enforcement staff. Uh we are proposing a fine resolution and part of what you see in the ordinance is a consolidation of administrative fines across multiple sections of code and that that standardizes the the admin fines within the code and it also allows the city council to adopt greater fines by resolution. That's our intent here is to adopt a greater fine by resolution. $1,000 in this first tier. We're about to get into that second tier. That's a $5,000 fine. Uh so the intent here is to allow code compliance to um issue that citation $1,000 $5,000. Uh there is an

appeal process. That appeal process would go through a hearing officer and there would be additional uh remedies beyond the hearing officer. I I do want to mention that we have Brandon Sanchez here tonight. Uh Brandon worked closely with us on uh the ordinance uh and uh for for legal issues for enforcement uh questions. Uh Brandon is a subject matter expert and can assist us in that sense. It sounds good that we can keep it in house rather than it getting bogged down in a twisted judicial system that really doesn't care about code enforcement

and and I can speak to the process. So again, hi Brandon Sanchez with Burke Williams and Sorenson. And uh I'm a code enforcement attorney. This is uh cannabis attorney. This is what I do. And once a fine is issued, you're talking about the court process. How it would end up in court is first there is uh an administrative appeal. So a hearing officer uh supplied by the um vendor that processes the citations uh would act as the hearing officer. and hear the appeal. And uh typically, you know, in most cases, those fines are upheld. And then once that administrative layer of appeal is complete, uh the individual or company would have uh 20 days to appeal to the superior court. And it's kind of a condensed civil process. So, it's not a full-blown trial or anything like that. It's it's happens on a shorter time frame and the judge in that situation is just sort of calling balls and strikes whether or not there was a code violation or not. They don't typically reduce the fines or wave the fines. They're just hearing evidence and determining whether or not there was a violation of the code. And if it's upheld, then the fine is final at that point. So there's kind of a two-step process. The first is in-house sort of with the hearing officer. Thank you.

So, getting into the second tier, uh, so, so we we covered a business that has an approved odor control plan. Um, for those businesses that do not have an approved odor control plan or they've failed to comply or maintain an odor control plan, they go into this tier. Now, we recognize before December 31st, 2026, um there may be businesses out there that don't have an odor control plan because they haven't been required to submit one yet. Uh so, in that case where we have cannabis odor, that business would be required uh to submit an odor control plan within 30 days. Uh if they do not, then we're looking at a citation. If they do, then we're going to move up into that first tier. below that.

Sorry, th those businesses would actually only be ones that were renewing their license late in the year. So, they got to have it in place by the time they do their renewal in 2026. Yes. The the in the ordinary course, a cannabis business would be required to submit an odor control plan as a condition of that license renewal over the course of 2026. Now, uh, for those where we receive a cannabis odor complaint, uh, we are going to accelerate that process. And that's the process I I just described where, um, we receive a cannabis odor complaint, they don't have an odor control plan yet. U, that would trigger them to submit an odor control plan within 30 days. If they do not, then we're looking at a citation process.

I just wanted to be clear that businesses can't wait until December next year to submit their plan. Yes. Part of the renewal. Yes. Yes. Doesn't the Thank you. Doesn't the trigger you just mentioned of a complaint speeding things up, does that not invite the public to make complaints to speed things up?

It it could uh we would ensure that's a verified complaint. So, this is a direct observation by city staff. This is a verified complaint uh from the public, but um there are cases where we know in fact I would say C4 industry, you know, it's it's likely that they would be one of the first to uh be required to submit an odor control plan. we know there is an odor issue still at C4 industry. This will require them to um comply to submit that odor control plan sooner than their license renewal date. So has there is some you have to do some evaluation. It's a valid complaint. People are just not going to say it's a complaint and then there then they have to work. There is a there is a process to verify it's a real complaint. So that's good.

Yes. So, notwithstanding those businesses that have not yet submitted an odor control plan, um it may be the case that a business has an odor control plan, has has failed to follow the maintenance schedule, has failed to comply with it. Um that can happen as well. Uh in that case, that business would have 30 days to fully comply with the requirements of chapters 5.88 and 9.108 uh before uh citation. And you'll see on the the right there, three or more citations uh may constitute a finding of good cause for license revocation or denial. And that's important. We we have the language for good cause in the code today. Um but what this is saying is that cannabis odor issues unabated failure to comply with an odor control plan could potentially escalate to revocation, suspension of a license, or or the denial of a license renewal. um that's a pretty big threat. We we don't mean to use it unless unless we have to, but our goal here is to maintain accountability. Our goal here is to put in meaningful enforcement provisions between the fines and the penalties uh that direct action that compel action. So the last tier, this is unlicensed activity. Um this is clearly a case where it's not allowed by the cannabis license, not allowed by the CUP. That's a citation and can lead to good cause for license revocation or denial. would I don't know if you can answer this but you know like SQA judges go through cha squa judges go through training so that when a squa case comes not any judge can just take it has to be a judge that's been trained for SQA and that actually understands it is there training for this that a judge can have a reasonable

knowledge of this for how this works.

So, at the hearing officer level, probably not. Uh, these hearing officers are typically uh retired lawyers or semi-retired lawyers who hear a broad base of types of appeals from parking citations to other kinds of code enforcement. So, and for numerous cities. So they get a broad base of experience, but uh there aren't a lot of cities doing odor enforcement in this way. So I suspect they don't get uh training on it, which would sort of be at that point the the the task of the code enforcement officer. uh they're defending the appeal to kind of lay the groundwork and help educate the hearing officer or or our job if it was in court to help educate the judge.

Really, this comes down to does the evidence support the action? If we issued a citation, we need to have the evidence to back up. So, getting into some of the sections that perhaps are less of an interest to you, but really round out the presentation and the changes that are presented through this ordinance. Um, a couple of bullet points here on cannabis taxes. Uh, so this ordinance would require that local cannabis taxes must be current for all licenses held by a lency prior to renewing a cannabis license. As well, dispensaries must be operational for at least one month prior to the renewal of a dispensary license. Uh and there was the elimination of a double penalty on delinquent cannabis tax payments and an addition of code language authorizing tax payment arrangement agreements. Uh all of those were uh directed by the finance department. So there's a slide in here on what's not in your draft ordinance and this is just as important as what is in the draft ordinance. Uh so our consultant has recommended a thousand foot buffer from residential areas and I think in a case where we didn't have industry presence already in the community um this would be something that we would be advocating as staff staff is not recommending increasing the residential buffer from 300 ft to 1,000 ft from the standpoint that we have robust industry that we have uh industry already here today and this could create uh nonconformities and the same with uh the separation requirement of 500 ft between licensed businesses. Uh as I mentioned at the onset of our presentation, staff is recommending a balanced approach and we believe the recommendation to remove cultivation from the PCC uh to add the separation requirement for resort residential in the same way as residential. Um that uh

together with the odor control plan achieves our goal of mitigating cannabis odor and increasing accountability uh without going so far as to increase the number of nonconformities within the city. You mentioned that eventually there would be uh discussion of the north city area north of the 10 um because these uses might be allowed up there and currently there is no residential up there. Could this thousand foot buffer be put in place up there since just we'd be starting from scratch?

So, it's my thought that that would be a separate uh discussion as part of an amendment to the north city specific plan that was not considered as part of this ordinance. Okay. Um because that was a separate ordinance uh directing an amendment specifically to the north city specific plan. So, as we look at amendments to the north city specific plan, that may be an item of consideration how we want to make changes or make modifications to the north city specific plan on cannabis uses. Okay.

Would the separation between two cannabis businesses would that be measured from doortodoor, property line to property line, or how would that be measured? I I don't know that we got to the point of measuring that uh since it's not currently measured in the code. Uh that could either be from property lip line, property line. That's the easiest measurement. Um alternately, we could look at um the the measurement from the the uh building itself or where the cannabis business is operating within a multi-tenant building. Uh we could look at that measurement, but we did not uh look at that further as we're not recommending a separation requirement between businesses. I can't speak for the attorneys, but I think that it would well, I guess there's pluses and minuses from it being from the property line to property line or from being doortodoor. So, um that I guess that's something you'll work out.

Yeah. And again, we're not recommending a separation requirement. So that's not in your ordinance and therefore we did not um work out the definition of what that would mean. We're not recommending it. So wait, so then this slide, this is what's not in the ordinance. So there's not a,000 foot buffer. There is not a,000 foot buffer. There is a 300t buffer. We're not recommending the,000 ft. The consultant recommended a an increase from 300 ft to 1,000 ft. staff does not recommend that because it would create additional non-conformities. So there's no separation requirement between

there is no separation requirement today. Uh the consultant has recommended it. Staff is not recommending it from the standpoint that it would create nonconformities.

And if we wanted to add that in where where would we do that? you could add that and I think that's part of the deliberation with the planning commission tonight. Um, you have the ability to make recommendations even additions or modifications to the proposed ordinance that's before you this evening. Uh, so staff to sum up this slide, these are some of the additional changes that you could make. Um, there are many other changes or modifications you could make. These in particular, they were recommended by our consultant. They're in the report. uh staff's concern here was that it would create u nonconformities without contributing to our goal. Our goal is to mitigate cannabis odors and we believe the uh elimination of cultivation in PCC, the uh addition of a 300t buffer from resort residential and the requirement to provide or produce an odor control plan that that will address the core issue that we're having today. So I think the the way that the 300 ft buffer is expressed, doesn't that say from from the building of the of the um cultivator to the property line?

Yeah, give me a second here. So for schools, daycare centers, and youth centers, it's measured from the nearest property line of the parcel where that use is located. Uh setbacks from residential areas, those are different. uh that is measured to the nearest point of any legally permitted structure uh located in a residential zone and there's some exceptions to that. So we've got it both ways. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you.

So there are other considerations uh just to put a couple out there. Uh so staff is recommending the elimination of cultivation in the PCC zoning district. Um you could also look at a cap on total canopy space instead. um a limit of 10,000 square feet, for instance, that would still create nonconformities. There still would be businesses that are made a nonconformity. Um but it would allow cultivation up to a small indoor cultivation license. It would also support cannabis micro businesses. Um there are more than one. There are multiple cultivation businesses today in the PCC zoning district. Uh those are identified in your packet. Um those would become legal non-conforming uses, all of them. Uh this change potentially would allow some of them to remain um conforming uses. The last bullet point on here um this is not addressed in the ordinance either, but it is something else to consider. AB1775 grants authority to jurisdictions that allow cannabis lounges to allow retail food and beverage sales and live entertainment, including the sale of ticketed events. Um we did not contemplate this as part of the ordinance. Uh we're looking to address odor issues directly. Um, but this is new legislation that uh could allow the city to u permit lounges in a different way and uh uh we wanted to be sure that we were sharing that information. Does

that include alcoholic beverages?

Yes. So in terms of public outreach and engagement um we have made considered efforts to share and push this information out to the community. The SCS engineers report, a draft ordinance, and a summary member were all published on the city's website in July. Uh we also have an email distribution group of individuals that have submitted u cannabis odor complaints to the city. It was pushed out to that email distribution group. We have shared this with the Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance Network, CVAN, and all email contacts associated with a local cannabis license. In your packet, you have uh the comments that we've received as a result of this outreach process. Uh there was one additional comment submitted on Monday that was printed out and shared with uh all of you.

Did you get any feedback from the cannabis businesses since I think everything I saw in the packet was from residents?

Not so much. Um although I would say we did meet with CVCAN and the CVCAN our discussion uh really centered around cannabis micro businesses and AB1775. Uh and then uh we had a cannabis task force meeting on Monday and the cannabis task force that is comprised of residents along with industry representatives and and we did get a 51 uh recommendation from the cannabis task force to carry the ordinance forward to city council. So, closing out staff's presentation and again, we have SCS engineers on standby for any uh technical questions you may have on odor science, odor control plans, anything along those lines. uh along with uh our legal counsel staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution before you this evening recommending that the city council approve an ordinance amending the Cathedral City Municipal Code, including the zoning ordinance uh to amend the cannabis tax uh licensing, permitting, and zoning and enforcement regulations related to cannabis uses and to amend various sections of the municipal code relating to administrative fines contained in titles 1 35 8 9 11 and 14. And with that, I'll close out my presentation.

Thank you. Um before you go though, uh I I'd like to check first of all that there are no further questions for staff, but also um we haven't really involved the SCS representative. Um so I'd also like to check with people. They don't have questions for them. As a matter of fact, I do have one question for them. Um and uh but let me check with everybody else first. Um Commissioner Bernard, I'm good. Okay. Uh, Malikov,

well, I'm not sure. Um, I have a bunch of questions that I wrote out and I'm not I I'm not sure whether I should go through each one of them or that's up to you. I I I definitely have questions and some suggestions as to what I'd like to see. So, I think we could wait for the suggestions for our our commission discussion. But if there are specific questions on the ordinance itself or the presentation from staff, then we should do those now.

Okay. Um, do you want me to go? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. So if I get into recommendations, you just cut me off. Yes, I will. My gavvel. Yes. Um if you look at um section one to 5.88025 um is there a limit on cultivation based on the volume of the product? No. There may be a minor cultivation at the back of a dispensary and major like the one on Ramon Road.

No, it's it's not tied to product. Um although there are uh size limitations imposed by the dcc for the license type but not um volume of product. So, so the cultivation is cultivation whether it's one plant or 100 for the state the department of cannabis control. It it depends on um the size of the cultivation site itself. So there there are some thresholds and I apologize I don't have a table for those. Oh okay. So it's not the size of the plants or the number of plants it's the size of the floor area. Yes.

Okay. I I I understand that. Um, so in also in section one um it says that the licensed professional engineer or certified hygienist would be the one that would approve the control plan, but wouldn't the final wouldn't the buck stop at the de development services director?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that, please? I'm looking at the definition of odor control plan under section one. Yes. Would it doesn't have any mention of the development services director. Wouldn't the last place to approve an odor control plan be that person?

So odor control plan in section one that is a definition and really what that is attempting to say is that that is a plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer or certified industrial hygienist. Um so the development services director would not be developing or preparing that plan. So it would be the it would be the applicant using a licensed professional engineer or a certified industrial hygienist. Yes. Okay. Someone like them.

Then in section two, authorization for the local licensing authority. Would wouldn't that come from the city manager and their designate? Or again, would that be from the the appointed engineer?

So section two, this is um it's distinct from section one, but in in this case, the proposal is to eliminate redundant language. There's no need to say and community development director as the local licensing authority means the city manager uh which also means the city manager's design. So that could mean uh any design of the city manager acting as the local licensing authority. So it could be anybody designated by city staff by the city manager. Yes.

By the Okay. Um section three a change of ownership. It says um the local licensing authority shall approve the change in ownership unless there's good cause to deny the change. That seemed a little vague to me. Shouldn't it be like good cause such as felony conviction, fraud? Um, so child endangerment

in this case, good cause is already defined in the code and the only change here is to add or designate to the chief of police. So there is a def a robust definition of good cause and what good cause means in the definition. So that's not a vague definition. It is not. Where where where do you find that definition? I apologize. I don't have the full code printed, but that is me on that. It is in uh title 5. We can pull that up. The what? That is in title 5. It's currently in the licensing code and we can pull that up. Could one one of staff could somebody email that to me or something? I I think we can pull it up here in the meeting if Okay. We just have a moment. Yeah. Just give me a second and we'll pull it up. If you wanted to continue with your questions, I'll just interject. I can't hear you. I'm sorry.

Oh, I just said that. We'll pull it up the definition for you. Yeah. Right now. Yeah. And so if you continue with your questions, I'll kind of interject after. Um, continuing with the the good cause, what about bad actions from previous facilities in Cathedral City? So, I guess that's part of what you're looking for, right? That's covered in the definition of good cause.

I actually have it if you're ready for it. So it says for purposes of denying an initial local license, for suspending or revoking a local license, or for denying a local license. And it means one of nine different characteristics that you could have. It ranges from knowingly making false statements, rep misrepresentations, material omissions to criminal history of the applicant or the lency, lack of good moral character, um, you know, prohibited from holding a license under state law. Um, so there's nine different criteria. It it could even be, you know, if you're operating history,

then that could be an umbrella to just about anything. Penal code. Correct. Okay, I like that. Okay, good. Um, what about on um did it include financial irregularities? No. So if you so fraud is is is in the penal code, but financial if if if you had financial irregularities in a previous application, that wouldn't be a reason to deny.

Well, usually the municipal code, you know, judges and courts defer to our interpretation of that. So if that were to come up, you know, we would look at how this code had been implemented in the past and also possibly consider how it should be implemented and how to proceed in the future. It might just be a call to our office where, you know, Brandon kind of looks into, you know, what we have to do to show that financially would mean good cause under our code, but we would just have to gather that evidence and we'll work with staff to kind of determine what the best recommendation moving forward is.

And could I just interrupt just a second? Um, so we're looking at amendments to the ordinance, but the ordinance itself is already approved and the good clause that that ordinance has been approved previously. Yes.

So this may be a case where there needs to be a further amendment at some point, but I'm not sure that bears on what we're discussing here today. Um on um so on section O under section five, wouldn't we want to get the cell phone number also because seems like the landline numbers are disappearing quickly.

You know, on all the city applications now it says cell phone number rather than just a landline number. Right. I think that's something that we can clarify in the implementation of the ordinance.

Okay. insert that. Can I answer insert that? Vice chair me asked that. We answered that earlier. Um so suggestions that we're not getting into. Um so I'll leave that off. And in section 11, what what circumstances could include a cessation of operations? 11 um under section B that's been crossed out. a cessation of operations. I'm sorry, I'm not tracking you. Um I I was I guess that's a suggestion. So to come back to So this this section 17, the size of the flower or the cannabis, it's

meaningless. It's the area that it sits in. which we talked about. It's defining cannabis but the the the size of the cannabis isn't the issue.

Right? So the prior discussion was whether uh there is a a limit on the volume of plants or or if there's some other control and we discussed that the state licenses are are directed based on uh the the square footage of the cultivation operation. This is in this section we have a definition of cannabis uh and and there's some other definitions that are added. These are separate. Okay. Um there is a definition on cannabis cultivation space uh on page 18 I believe that is also in section 17. So

section 20 um B um I ran into this with my HOA but it wasn't my fault for the record. Um, but I I had an electronic check returned. Um, is that the same thing as an NSF if a regular check is returned? So, I think the intent with this change, this is existing language and what is in bold, any additional banking fees or charges. uh that is to recover costs incurred by the city for an insufficient fund. Yes.

So the electronic would be included. Okay, that's it. The rest of my my um suggestions when we get to the I think we'll get to those. Commissioner McFale.

Okay. Um I I guess uh sign of a good presentation is you answered a lot of my questions, but I still have one or two. But I wanted to uh really congratulate the staff on the thorough thorough thorough thoroughess of the process you've gone through to produce this. I think it's a great piece of work and the consultants report was very uh understandable for a lay person like me. So congratulations all around on that. Um I do have one or two comments and questions and clarifications which I've already alerted uh our uh planning director to and I want to thank uh Mr. Roachcha for very promptly getting back to me on some acreage uh questions so you know where I'm headed. Um the report talks about where um cultivation is allowed. And of course we're we're proposing in this ordinance to remove cultivation from PCC. And I I guess I didn't realize until you made it clear in the presentation because I was going to say, well, isn't cultivation also allowed in MUN and MU? But that's north city. There's nothing there. So it's really only happening in PCC. and it's also allowed in CB2 and I1. So, MU is not really part of this. Um, so that changes the figures of the the acreages I was thinking about because in reality I was saying, oh well PCC accounts for 22% of where you can do cultivation, but that includes that MU which is irrelevant really. So PCC cultivation acreage is actually 46% of where they're allowed. So that's quite substantial. So, we're talking about eliminating it from uh a zoning that accounts for 46% of where it's allowed. That's this is a big step and um that that's fine, but it is large. And what

it did make me think about was if we're removing cultivation from 46% of the land where it's allowed, doesn't that mean in the future where it is still allowed to be in I1 and um CB2, CBP2, future cultivation will become more concentrated because we're we will only be able to do it in a on a smaller land area. And so that brought me to the thought of one of the consultants recommendations which we'll probably talk in uh potential amendments or discussion and you can hit me over the head with the gavvel at this point. Um, if we're concentrating cultivation for the future in a couple of zonings and taking away a substantial um, area, should we maybe consider for the future for cultivation and maybe other types of cannabis use for new facilities some kind of spacing requirement? Because they're they can only now they will only now be approved in less area than they are now. So that that's just a comment question. I hope you got the gist of that.

Sure. So my initial response to that is and I understand the analysis. I understand um how you arrived at 46%. And when you look at u the totality of the PCC zoning district across the city, it is vast. There is a lot of land that is zoned PCC. And I think you you see that on this slide. It's um really those areas in in that sort of pink color. Uh so there is a lot of PCC zone land. We also don't have a lot of cultivation today in the PCC zone district. Um I I believe there are five today in the PCC zone district. And I apologize this is really showing cultivation only licenses but uh you have five existing today. Um it's not prevalent. It's not common. Uh most of the cultivation uses are clustered around the Perez road corridor because they prefer to be in that CBP2 or I1 zoning district based on the floor plate. Those are larger floor plate. They don't have uh as close proximity to sensitive use of sensitive receptors and they're more ideally suited for uh cultivation. Um it frankly most existing uh commercial spaces are are not designed for cultivation. it's not uh something that would be easy to to convert to to cultivation. So,

um I I think the the thought that we're going to see an overconentration of cultivation in CBP2 and I1 because we're pushing it out of PCC. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that. Uh, I think right now we don't have much in the PCC and eliminating cultivation of the PCC really would prevent a a perpetuation of the problem that we saw with with C4 industry. We don't want to see that replicate. We don't want to see that use come into a similar commercial space in close proximity to sensitive receptors.

Although future cultivation will only be able to be in um I1 and CBPB2. So correct, there's a potential if there was more cultivation. That's just my point. Um I guess you you answered uh comm um chair Lee on this and I've kind of forgotten the answer about multiple nonconformities and you know if if this were to happen at this the wave of a wand we will have a number of businesses that are in some kind of nonconformity and what what does that practically mean for those business? We're not going to shut them down or anything. So, what does it actually mean?

They can continue doing what they're doing today. Um, they will need to comply with the odor control plan requirement. Uh, so they'll need to comply with new regulation, but that would limit their ability to expand. For instance, if there were were a cultivator that had uh 10,000t building and they wished to expand by 5,000 ft, if they were a legal non-conforming use, they could not do that. But they could carry on. they could continue their operations uh as it were approved as it stood today. They could also sell transfer that license. Um there wouldn't be an issue there. If it is abandoned for 90 days or more, that's when the use would need to uh either discontinue or come into compliance with the code. Right.

It's sort of like a grandfathering in a to in a way a little bit of grandfathering.

It's the technical term for that. Yes. Um, so I mean we'll talk about that in just I'm not going to get hidden hit by the gabble, so I'll stop there. Uh, let's see what else do I have. Uh just a little you mentioned in the report um there was potential for complaints regarding cultivation uses in a multi-tenant building. Um I'm not sure if we have we ever had a situation where there's been complaints in a multi-tenant business. I have not seen that here in this city, but I I have in other cities. And this is not specific to cannabis, but I have seen odor issues between tenant spaces. And I I think that is a a reality. It's a possibility if it's not mitigated or controlled. And I think in a case where you're dealing with a a high odor generating use such as cultivation, um that increases the the possibility of conflict um in a multi-tenant building. in my HOA the um there's legislation actually that covers this not just for cannabis but for cigarettes that it's something to do with um indoor clean air that you can't what you do inside your unit in a multiple family unit can affect the unit above you or below you or beside you you know where the air flows and so I think we're on the right track with that in that, you know, you can't you can't disturb or disrupt somebody else's airflow.

Just one one last point. Uh, appendix C talking about Oh, this is for the um consultant report. So, it's maybe one or both of you can answer this. Um, it's talking about public um engagement um and building relationships with communities. So I I think you mentioned in the report in in your presentation that SCS would be al would be contracted to do engagement. Was would I was I I think that's meant to include their attendance at the cannabis task force meeting uh at the meeting tonight and and city council. So um we we did contract with them to participate in these processes.

Okay. because I I was wondering what the outreach plan would be and obviously there's it's no surprise there's specific communities that we should obviously be outreach outreach uh making outreach about these regulations they seem to know already but I was wondering we'd had meetings with specific communities and also um are we going to be contacting businesses when this is passed to say here are the new rules and be prepared to follow them and here's a timeline for you following them

yes there will be outreach and communication. You know, it's not our intent to catch anyone by surprise. Uh we've attempted to share this, get this out as as much as we can, uh including to residents and to businesses. Uh and as we continue to move forward as as council takes action on this, uh we will be sharing information that that u gets into the implementation schedule, the phased implementation, what businesses should expect as they're getting into their license renewal in the upcoming year. Thank you. Okay, Vice Chair,

I will try to be quick. Um, just want you to clarify some things both for us and for anybody who might be watching. So, um, if I'm an existing cannabis business right now, I'm not a new business, so I don't have to submit a odor control plan until I'm within the time of my permit and CUP renewal. Correct. Not COP renewal, but the local cannabis license renewal.

Okay. So, that's an annual renewal. If my if this gets passed in two weeks and my license renews next week, I basically have a whole year where I do not have to put together a odor plan un until or unless someone complains about odor. Is that correct?

Yes. This would commence January 1st, 2026. And the intent there is we're giving businesses enough time to anticipate and to react to this. um staff did not want to um implement this starting November, December. We wanted to at least uh be able to communicate to businesses that there are new expectations while reserving the possibility that if there is an odor complaint and that we needed to accelerate that that we could. So, the phased implementation is intended to uh give as much advanced notice as we can and that is together with the requirement that if there is additional equipment needed um per their odor control plan that they would have 6 months or or December 31st, 2026 to install that. That that's to allow the businesses to anticipate capital expenditures and to be able to make uh the improvements that potentially could be required through an odor control plan.

Okay. So what about the businesses that are clearly not complying now and who are the somewhat the genesis of this whole process? They're basically going to have the people who are having problems with them now are going to have to suffer until January 1 and then another 30 days for the because the it doesn't come into effect until January 1 and then they have not for those businesses. So, for that type of business where there is an odor issue, once the ordinance takes effect, um if we have a cannabis odor issue with that business and they do not have an odor control plan, which they wouldn't until they're getting their license renewed, right, uh they would have 30 days to submit an odor control plan.

Okay. But I thought you said it won't take effect until January 1. That's for um existing businesses. that's the uh schedule to um submit or or require an odor control plan for them on that ordinary schedule. Now, for those businesses where um we have an odor control complaint, they don't have an odor control plan, it would accelerate that where we they would have 30 days to submit it independent of the required that January 1 date that's tied to the license renewal

for new. Okay, got it. Thank you. All right, that makes more sense. Um, I noticed that in reading through what the other cities are doing, Palm Springs seems to have a pretty high uh, citation amount. And so I wanted you to clarify what our citation amounts are going to be. Um, and then the other thing is that Palm Springs seems to have a much stricter ability to just shut people down in saying that if the odor can't be mitigated within 7 days, the use must ceased until effective odor control measures are in place. And I'm wondering is that something you considered and if you thought it was not a good idea, why?

Sure. So complex answer and uh I'll give part of the answer and I'll turn this over to our legal counsel to give the other part of the answer. So, um, 1,000 and 5,000, those are the fine amounts that we're looking at. Uh, for the fine resolution, it would be a,000 for the first tier, uh, 5,000 for that second tier. And again, the first tier, that's where a business has an odor control plan. Uh, we're working with them cooperatively, uh, giving them a written warning, giving them a chance to make corrective action or take corrective action before we do the reinspection. That's a $1,000 citation in that case. that second tier where a business does not have an odor control plan where they're failing to maintain it, failing to comply with it, that could lead to a $5,000 citation in that case. And then along with that, we have u the potential for a finding of good cause for the revocation or suspension of a license uh or or the uh u denial of a license renewal. Um we did take a close look at the city of Palm Springs and their language. They are different than us and I think that's important in a certain sense. They don't have a lot of cultivation. They did have one issue that they had to go through uh enforcement and they did push a business out of the city of Palm Springs, but um they have not had to use some of that language that's in the code because they don't have the same odor generating uses. They they don't have a strong cultivation presence in their city. Uh much of what they have is also been pushed out into a green zone. So, um,

but they have lounges and I have seen a lot of complaints online about the lounges and even though we don't have lounges now, we may have lounges in the future. And so, I'm just thinking, you know, and I guess there's two ways of looking at it. They don't have the kind of uses that cause a problem, which is why they haven't had to issue the fines. I read it as they haven't had to issue the fines because people are following the rules because of the fines. And so I'm just concerned that we don't have enough teeth in here, that it's too much carrot and not enough stick. Um I know we're trying to be balanced, but when you had that timeline of all the things that have to happen before a citation is issued and then it has to be three citations before they lose their license, that's a multi-week, if not multi-month cycle that has to go through. And meanwhile, people who are complaining are living with the nuisance odor. So, I'm just wondering if we're, you know, $5,000 is a big fine. Not saying it's small, but if you're making millions of dollars a year growing cannabis, $5,000 may not be that much. If you get fined, that you know, you know what I'm saying? I'm just

I do. And there are reasons that we opted for those fine amounts. And I think that's a good segue for our legal counsel, right? So, the fines are something important there, but they're only one lever you can pull. Uh another aspect um that got talked about earlier was modifications to the plan. So you know there's also the option to require resubmitt or and make that plan more ownorous. And I think the the focus is really on corrective action. Okay.

And the fines are there. Uh you hope you never use them. Uh and at the end of the day, what is really going to compel compliance is uh the threat of revocation of the license. And you know, because like you said, you know, fines theoretically can be paid and you know, the activity is profitable. It can be a cost of doing business. Uh but taking action against the license and potentially making that illegal business, that's what is basically the biggest uh uh you you're talking about the carrot and the stick. That's the biggest stick that any city has in its uh arsenal. As for the fine amount, there's it's a contested issue in the law right now, the permissible amount of the fine. So, there's a charter city argument that charter cities have greater leeway to impose higher fines. And there's actually a case uh pending with our office and with the city over the short-term rentals and the permissible amount of fines in the in that context. So, we may get more clarity uh in the near future. uh but this is a safe fine amount and but as I'm sure you've seen you know Palm Springs and other charter cities uh in the desert here have have gone higher so it is feasibly an option. Uh one thing we did here in addition to you know setting up this odor control plan u framework was also to clean up the administrative citation process. Uh, and so previously, I don't know if you saw I don't know which section of the ordinance it is, but there's there was fine authorities scattered in like 40 different places in the code, and those are all consolidated now into one chapter and the fine amounts are going to be set by resolution. So they're rather than having to do an ordinance

with the first reading, the second reading, 30 days enforcable after that, um, by setting the fines by resolution, it'll be easier to adjust them. If they need to go up, that will be council's, uh, job. What about the idea of of terminating the use until there's compliance? I mean, I guess you can't stop growing, right? You'd have to remove all the plants. That's more for like a lounge or something like that, uninforceable standard. Okay.

Um I I think what we've constructed is a solution that um directs corrective action that that seeks corrective action and and provides reasonable periods of time either for a cannabis business with an approved odor control plan. Open that up, look at it, determine what needs to change or what needs to be modified. Um there is language in here that that directs amendments to an odor control plan as well. Uh so so it puts them on a track to take the action needed to reduce the odor at the property line where it's not detectable at the property line. That second tier uh it it's 30 days to submit an odor control plan if you don't have an odor control plan and that leads into citations uh immediately. So I think those periods of time were really intended to provide uh a reasonable period of time for a business to take the action that is directed in the code.

Okay. And just curious, I know you said that there really wasn't like a gold standard out there for this kind of thing as of yet. It I may be wrong, but I feel like I remember just being aware that there are some cities that have odor control plants for fast food restaurants when it comes to grease smells and other types of businesses. Is was that something that was looked at at all? So I am aware of one city here in the Coachella Valley that had an issue with grease and and odor from that. Vastly different odors and vastly different sizes of business. So I'm not sure that it's there's nothing to be learned from comparison. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um thank you. I had one question for SCS. if you could find the slide um where you are um not going to adopt the some of the suggestions from SCS and so I I just wanted to ask them um I don't know who our representative is okay so in the report you you have suggested certain distances and the question I had was simple The answer may not be. Um, how did you come to those distances? Was there empirical data that supported them? Um, were they just guesses on other other ordinances you'd seen somewhere else? How did you come to those numbers that the staff here are feeling are not appropriate for our situation? Okay.

Uh, first of all, good evening, chairly, uh, commissioners. Um, so these are all observations that were Could you could you give us your name as well?

Oh, I'm Armanado. I'm part of SCS. Um, I was part of the team that helped develop this report. Um, these recommendations are based off of on the- field experience. So, we've done projects where we're working with green houses and we do gradient studies or um basically creating a worst case scenario where vents are closed um early in the morning there's an inversion layer where there's a heat cap um keeping all the odors close to the basically to the city level um and taking samples at multiple points. So 100 ft, 200 feet, 300 ft up to 1,000. And what we found is 1,000 was roughly the point where we did multiple studies where we saw that there was no odor detected. So this was also worst case scenario. This wasn't with um extensive uh filtration systems incorporated into the um grows. So that's not to say that it's impossible. We also have worked with facilities that share fence lines with residents with schools and there is zero odor detected at the fence line. So our recommendation is just a recommendation based on uh capital input required to get to those levels. Obviously the ones who share fence lines with the schools and residents had to make that capital intensive investment not only for the procurement of the filtration systems but also just the ongoing energy consumption. So it's a consideration it's a recommendation. Uh Andrew referenced it throughout the the presentation but every city is different. Um, so while you would like to create this kind of

perfect situation where you can have these buffers and can have 1,000 ft from the nearest residents, sometimes it's just kind of how the city is laid out. So, so if I can summarize what you're telling me, I think you're saying there's no magic formula. We can't just put some numbers in and it spits out the exact distance we need. So um you adapt that to the situation you are in in that city. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

And so this is something that's considered with the OAPS or the um odor control plans. So the closer you are to a sensitive receptor uh the more stringent the plans have to be. Great. Thank you. That helped a lot. Yes, certainly.

I had one question for you. Um, so looking through the uh the systems and products that can be used for odor control, you've got this very nice how it works, pros and cons table here for all the possible things. And I understand that the city, it makes sense to me that we would be system agnostic and we would let people innovate and choose what works best for them. Um, however, I was struck by the fact that almost every single one of these things has to me what seemed like pretty harmful side effects. Toxins being released into the air, dangerous exhaust gas, high temperatures, chemicals, um, you know, things that could can cause side effects if used around people, extremely costic, uh, you know, all of these things have potentially pretty bad side effects. So, um, my question is twofold. One, since we're not going to be telling people what to do and we're going to allow people to do essentially what they think is best, who is liable if one of these systems that they install is actually harmful to the general population or the people who live around it? Is it us because we required them to install a system, but we didn't confirm it wasn't harmful to the people who live around it? Are they liable if they release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere or something that's costic or they cause an explosion? One of these things said something about very high temperatures that can be explosive. Um that's one question. And then the second question is is since we aren't going to require any separation between uh businesses of that might be have competing systems. How do we know that there's not going to be interaction between these systems? So one is releasing one gas, one is releasing

another gas. You know, I think of like, you know, ammonia and bleach, right? You can't mix it together. So what is the oversight of, if we're being platform agnostic, what is the oversight of this stuff that they're putting in?

That's a great question. Um so what we provided was an exhaustive list of different technologies but we have vetted a number of these technologies and we know for the most part what works and in what situations they work. So we wanted to provide the full scope as far as things that are byproducts of these technologies. Um that might be a little out of my pay grade as far as like who's liable for certain things. Um I don't know. Have you ever had situations where things have been worse than the odor? Cuz like some of these things to me seem potentially worse than the odor.

Yeah. So that's stuff that's come with experience. So we have been able to see like if certain machines that are uh using UV at certain wavelengths produce ozone which can be harmful. And we are aware of these things and these are things that are pretty visible when we're doing the the review of the plans. Um able to look at the specs of the machinery. Uh just have that knowledge of whether or not this would be sufficient technology to uh cover certain things. And I mean it's it's a great question, but we do have a more refined list of technologies that we recommend.

Okay. So if I can interject just for a moment and perhaps provide a little bit of assistance answering this question. It's the business that is retaining a designer either the uh engineer or the the industrial hygienist that is preparing that design. And as with any other design that is submitted to the city, it's the responsibility of the designer that's proposing that system. So the designer would be liable if something exploded.

They're responsible for the design. And this is no different than any other uh design that gets submitted to our building division for review. We review it for conformance to the code. But it is the responsibility of the designer uh to ensure that that's safe that that it conforms complies with the code. So that that liability that uh uh responsibility lies with the designer that submitted the application. I believe we're also either banning or discouraging certain types just the one and I the the phase whatever it's called the vapor phase yes vapor phase

systems so another element here in I think we're getting uh down into a technical level that that perhaps we don't need to tonight but some of the systems are financially infeasible and are not practical um I I think they're identified in here to be exhaustive and to be complete in terms of the identification of the realm of possibility for these systems. The approach that we are recommending is performance-based and is meant to grant flexibility. In all likelihood, most cultivators are going to choose carbon scrubbers. They're going to choose one of the uh simpler solutions that are identified in the table and not some of those that uh you've identified.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay. No other questions for staff or SCS? Great. In which case, I'll open um the public hearing public comments. Is there any member of the public who wishes to um comment? I would like to note that we did receive a public comment. So, we received written comment for this item from Scott McDonald. Copies have been made available to the commission and written copies were available at the front entrance to chambers.

Okay. Thank you. Um no other person present wishing to comment then I'll close public comments. Um thank you and um before we move on I'm looking at the time and I think some members here might appreciate a five minute um break before we do that. So when does

when do we get into the land use issues of talking about suggestions of different separations? We're we're going to so now that we've finished the public comment, we will now have a session in which we discuss our thoughts and any amendments that we want to see. Yep. And we'll do that after a 5m minute break. Thanks again. No, it's just I'm sure that if I go down further, I'm going to be like below the computer.

Thank you so much. I'm so used to putting my feet on it and I was like, "Oh, I lost this. That's so much better. [Music] [Music] So the establishment

Yeah, it does from And if you say federal So all the going places, you know, playlist basically just like this guy.

Yeah. Thank you.

Oh, very cool.

No, I just excited. The the US price is $3,000. How much engine? Um, of course, you can't tell because it's wind, right? Um, they say up to about 30,000,

I think. So, you come back and I don't know what that be. Oh man, someone called like and I was like doesn't seem like it. I didn't leave a message, but once I heard the phone ring a second time, like immediately I was like, "Oh [ __ ] maybe it's like my husband and there's like an emergency." Cuz normally someone's not going to immediately call you back. But it wasn't. 25 all the time.

Yeah. And no one ever leaves a message. This is the thing. And that's how you although I I got a phone for my work. Well, I took my old phone and I got a new number for it. And I got a new phone for personal use. So I made the old phone. They were fine. And that number currently belongs to someone who has blanca something or other who was apparently looking for a job as a medical technician. So I don't it's gotten better now. But for the first like two months it was like 50 texts a day

20 calls a day from recruiters. we're calling why is she not and I kept thinking like okay now it's been like 6 months like why is she not updated her resume with like a new number unless it's just like her stuff's like I don't know job sites or something but like I kept getting calls from the same people and eventually I would just enter be like this is no longer her number can you update your records and that seemed to help her but I was like oh my god Blanca Kamacho and I even like put it online next door I was like if anybody knows Blanca she must be local at 760. So I was like, if anyone knows Blanca Kamacho, she is getting many I know. And I was like, she's getting many calls for nurse technician jobs. People really like her resume, but she's not getting the uh people are not getting in touch with her because she is not at this number.

Doing well. You don't seem to be doing well tonight. What do you mean? technically exceeded making sense though, right? Mostly just about average for the course. Oh, okay. I don't want to not make sense. It's fine. You followed. No, you just my best. I get very tired these days.

I couldn't go to conference.

Oh, right. Okay. Um I'll call this session um back to order. And now um having finished that part of this meeting, uh we need to proceed to a discussion amongst ourselves um with three possible um outcomes. we um approve a clean um adoption of the recommendation from staff. We amend that or we reject um for simply for the purposes of discussion. Um I am going to propose a clean u motion. Um if that's seconded then we'll just proceed to discussion and with the potential to amend. So um

second I haven't done it yet. You did it. But anyway, allow me. Um, I move that we adopt the resolution detailed in the staff report dated August 20, excuse me, August 20th, 2025 and entitled Planning Commission Resolution number PC uh 2025-02. Do I have a second? Second.

Thank you. And so we'll move to discussion of that motion. And um there were a number of different things that I think were clearly coming up in in the discussion. Um I think we will start probably with uh um be useful to divide it up and say the land east issues. Discuss those first and then the municipal code issues. That's fine with me. See, this is what discussion is all about. Yeah, there guide we won't be bouncing.

I was trying to list out the the areas that people seem to be concerned about and I was going to take those at the time.

Um, and I I I think the first issue I heard was related to the use of open space such as the amphitheater. Okay, I can um most of my issues I I don't have many comments on the administration that we went through, but for the land use I do. Um so I think that there should be some more separations than what we currently have. So, one of them I believe that the amphitheater has kids that frequent it and there'll be children's performances and I think there should be a separation from that. Um, in addition, I think that there should I disagree with not doing a separation from residential. Um, I don't know that it should be 1,000 ft, but I think 500 would be suitable so that residences aren't bothered by these odors or the operations. Um, I think that there should be a separation between the different businesses um, at least two to 300 ft measured property to property. Um, the next one I had was, um, we already mentioned child daycare, but I think adult daycare should be included. Um, I think the proper name for that now is family daycare. Um, place of worship. Um, I don't know how that got dropped out. it was in the original ordinance years and years and years ago and it got dropped out and I just don't think that it bel those two uses belong together and I felt really bad um when we had glory to God and we had the cultivation the the whatever

that place is um it's a retail it's it's a dispensary and I I felt really bad and I was like I kept on saying to them, I think I was the chair at the time, we can only go with what the code says, whether we agree with it or not. But I really think that there should be something in the code that separates places of worship, which would also include a Sunday school which kids would frequent. So I don't know that we need to have a special definition for Sunday school, but place of worship would be all inclusive. Just out of curious, can you explain why a place of worship Why? Yeah. Why specifically?

Because I think a place of worship is where you know regardless of what your particular um faith is that you should be free of that kind of kind of um use which could be a nuisance to your ability to concentrate and pray and meditate and do what you do inside of a place of worship. So that's why I think that there should be a clear separation between the two. Plus, I also think it's where children go. Okay. Um, so let's stay with those points and we'll see if we can uh Can I just Can I I had two more?

Are they related to that point? Go ahead. Well, I also think that there should be a distance requirement from social service agencies and parks, public, private, and that's everything. Okay. Um Okay. Well, uh debate on that question. May I ask a point of clarification? Yes.

So, um I to understand this goes to you to both of you. Um the ordinances from property line to property line. Um if there if the if the buffer was zoned was 100 ft. If there was any kind of odor issue, it would be a problem no matter how far the buffer is. Correct. I mean it is a zero. We're at a pretty much a zero tolerance. No odor at all. Right. So, so if there so the buffer zone is sort of secondary if I'm understanding properly. So the the uh ordinance will require no order at the property line.

Mhm. So we're not looking for establishing a certain level of odor that's permitted. Right. Um so yes, so whether it's 300 ft or 1,000 square feet, it's no order. So I think you're you're missing the point. It's okay.

It's also not just to do with odors, but it's also a chance to make sure that the land uses are that are contiguous are are are good land uses to go together. So, I think where children congregate isn't where these land uses should be. And I think that people should be free from not just the odors, but the activities that come from these places at a place of worship or at a public park. Um, and and I think it's more than just the odor. So again, point of clarification, one of the big growing trends in places of worship is um uh churches that are legal entities that doa and mushrooms and other marijuana ceremonies and stuff like that. So I think you're speaking of a very traditional place of worship, maybe a Christian base, but

Well, no. I just asked the attorney about the establishment clause and cool you could clarification you want to go into that

right so under state law the there's no special protection for cannabis religious uses for example or any other narcotic or or illegal substance for that matter. So sometimes you see this issue come up with, you know, cannabis churches trying to claim exemption from local licensing or local zoning regulations and at the end of the day those arguments don't prevail. There's a an exception under federal law uh under the Religious Reformation Act. Uh I'm butchering that. I know it's known short as Rufra. uh and so you see that with uh things like Iawaska for for tribes uh but not on the local level.

So let me just bring this back because I there's there's a lot of scope in this whole issue of just about various drug use and so on. But our issue tonight is the ordinance that addresses the the licenses that the city issues for um cannabis production or retail. That's what we're really looking at. We are looking at the at the we are being asked to make changes to the uh the distance that as well. So I think he's bringing it up under that. No, no, I I I just want to get into a discussion about whether religious orders can use cannabis or Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So, so you know, we're just looking at what affects the ordinance at this point. I mean, I think it makes sense to say uh cannabis is a substance. It's an it's a here in California a legal substance. It's really no different under the law here than alcohol. And there are already usually zoning laws that you can't have bars a certain number of feet from a school or a child care center. It seems to me that cannabis should be if especially when it comes to retail should be basically the same as those things. I don't think usually that's because you don't want children to develop a substance abuse problem or be exposed to to substances that they're not able to buy. I think if you're going to expand that beyond children, then I think we're getting into a much bigger thing where you could make a claim that anybody shouldn't have to be exposed to something that they may not agree with. And so I think, you know, to start adding on all these other business or or use types doesn't really make sense. I think children is a very clear-cut thing. It's already in the in the law. We should just treat it the same way we treat it as alcohol.

And it can be considered a gateway a gateway drug. Um I I know that might be a dated dated um term, but I I think that these uses would be legitimate to have as as a normal distance requirement. And nine times out of 10, if you look at other jurisdictions, they're going to have these. So they don't. So let me bring in uh Commissioner McFale.

I think I concur with uh Vice Chair me on that specific issue because I think if I I think we should treat it like other other industries, other um uses such as alcohol. I think that's a that's a pretty good example that the state has decided, people have decided that cannabis is akin to things like that. And I I don't think we we should I think we should treat it in a similar way. And I I think if we added on the various things that we're talking about there, there's not going to be anywhere left for this business to locate in. I mean whe that might that's not our intention but if you if you don't want it near this and that and this and that we're not going to be left with much. So I I'm not I'm I don't want to open the can of worms of this use versus that use being protected so to speak, but I am interested in a general discussion about separation between cannabis businesses when we get to that

and yes and we'll move on to that. But let me just add my view on on the list of other places. Um this is this is not really a new discussion and it has come up in many discussions about ordinances for cannabis in the city and the general feeling has been the the view expressed by vice chair and commissioner McFale that the you know the state already has set limits on on certain things like you know scores for example um and to expand that list out would make it very impractical in terms of enforcement in um to actually find a place where a business which is otherwise legal could actually operate in the city. You know, it would have to be not near Panorama Park and not near a school uh well, not near um a church of which we have many and not near an adult center, not near the senior center. I'm running out of places where I could actually put a business. So I I think it would be unwise for us to look to amend this ordinance in order to address that problem. It may be something that should be brought forward at another time to say there is a a finding we can create a finding that says that there is a reason to do that. But I don't think we're there at this point. What if we took out the adult daycare? Um, and aren't shouldn't we have children in mind? I

Yeah, but children could be everywhere. They can be at a grocery store. They can be at the bank with their parents. I mean, children go everywhere that adults do. So, we can't we can't say any place a child might be. you can't have a I mean the whole idea is that it's it's a potentially luring them in to you know not luring them in but somehow making them think that they should do drugs right but I mean they're not doing that if the kids in a grocery store I don't know I just and that that thinking isn't as somebody who works in the rehab industry that that thinking isn't modern thinking just

so you're not thinking that any any of these uses could be ones that should have separation between cannabis uses or from a place of worship um or separation between the businesses. I don't separation between the businesses I think is a different conversation. I think we're all talking about the first part which is just if if it's a place where primarily adults go like the adult if it's an adult daycare what is the problem with there being a cannabis re dispensary nearby there's no negative impact from that dispensary right or a house of worship I don't understand why that would be any different

because there's no negative impact if we're saying this it's not the odor what is the negative negative impact. Well, I think the the negative impact is the the you know, that's why whenever you have one of these uses that come in that's going to be by a place of worship, you get the place of worship that objects because of the people that are going to be there, the odors, um the activities, um possible crime. I I think that it it would be our responsibility to ensure that the land uses are compatible.

I I I don't think any evidence bears that out in our city. We've been doing this for a number of years now. And actually crime rates are not really related to the the um the dispensaries or retail businesses. And you know, I don't think that so there's no support for any of these uses that endanger children to to

Well, I the only one I might support would be if you wanted to say outdoor recreational spaces that had athletic fields or something like that, which maybe would include the amphitheater, maybe parks like Panorama or Century. Typically those parks are in residential areas so they're unlikely to be near that kind of a use to near a commercial area where this kind of business would go in anyway. Um I think you could make the case that it's those places are predominantly for children but even that I think is a bit of a stretch

and and I think at this point in this discussion we could not create a finding that says that we've heard evidence there is a negative impact on those children. We don't need a finding. We need to be able to we need to be able to justify why we're making an amendment. So if if we want to make an amendment, we need some objective evidence that says yes, children would be harmed if we didn't do this.

No, I I I remember many places of worship coming in and they had these places coming in next to them and being very upset. I I understand that and it it is an an issue and there may be a case to look at a future amendment to the ordinance that says, you know, there's a a disallowed list of of places, but I don't think that relates to the ordinance that we're considering tonight. Well, I I don't see this going anywhere then. I I um little surprised. Um Okay. I you can move on to your other issue though which is the separation.

Yes. I think if you're good with that the separation between uses. Okay. Yeah. The separation between individual locations. Yeah. The separation between locations. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. And that becomes a difficult issue too just because we don't have many places and these businesses already exist. So, take um Perez and uh what Cathedral Canyon. Um there's two dispensaries right around the corner from each other. We would one of those dispensaries would have to be declared illegal and moved. Well, they would both have to be. You can't say one is oning and the other one isn't. You

or do you do some grandfathering like if you exist now stay future future businesses that come in must obey x00. That's one of our only we have as a city very few industrial commercial areas and we're already removing it which I agree with with the PCC but to remove it out of an industrial area that is an industrial area. I don't understand the reasoning why we need separation. Now, if we're talking about dispensaries,

that's what I'm saying. As far as a business that is a cannabis business and another cannabis business in an area that is made for industrial type of work, which would be our I I 9 or whatever they are. Um, I don't understand why we would want to necessarily have that separation. That area is made for that. If it was a, I don't know, a box company, would we have would we want to say, "Oh, well, one box company can't be next to the other box company." What about in the commercial areas? So, like on Raone, next to the bowling alley, there's a dispensary that also has a lounge. That's a PCC. Lounge in that place. Now, that's a PCC, isn't it?

A lounge. Dispensaries are allowed. And lounges are allowed in PCC, right? Because they're low and there's a lab testing facility in the same building by the bowling alley. Right. So I'm just saying if if the question is should we force all cannabis businesses to have some separation between them? Are we only saying cultivation or are we saying all cannabis businesses we should be it should be the one proposal is the used to be an arts district where there were a lot of resale shops and restaurants and now they're all gone. They all went to other cities and now it's just cannabis and automotive. A lot of automotive, a lot of automotive, right?

Still, it's a majority cannabis and a lot of the larger tile businesses and home decoration businesses left the city because of this. And um I think that's why we should have a separation. Um, are you inspiration of specific types of cannabis business or are you saying all cannabis business? I think I think if we held it to the notion of odor, which is the issue, the idea that the closer certain cannabis businesses are together, that must produce more odor and it would be less of an impact if they were further apart.

I I think that's the the crux of what we're trying to discuss today. And this slide that we have up on the screen I is instructive in that because um there were larger distances suggested by SCS but we just heard that there's no empirical data for those distances. So um and Danny may I also say that that was that thousand ft was without correct me if you will um the thousand ft that was suggested that was not adapted was also without any other odor mitigation. Correct.

Yes. So that thousand ft on its own without any kind of rectification of fixing the problem but we are requiring quite a lot of solutions to fix the problem regardless I mean in a very real way regardless of the space. It's it's more than I mean our ordinance is to fix the odor issue, but it's also to fix any other kind of land use issue that we have. I didn't I didn't understand it as a land I'm not sure that was ever the intention because the the the reason the reason

they do that, isn't it? But the reason the city put um uh this whole process in motion was because of the the serious complaints and they are serious complaints of um odor issues in the city. Now, I said it before, but I I I'll repeat. You know, adopting this amendment, which fixes that specific problem which the city asks or the city council asked us to address by um suspending the the business licenses. Um that doesn't preclude the city coming back and considering other issues which may be more appropriate. What is is tonight supposed to be just about odor and not about cannabis in general?

I I think that's asking Steph.

That's essentially the the case here because the ordinance we're looking at or the the parts of the ordinances that we're looking at specifically address just that part. Did you want to comment, director? you have a multi-tiered response and yes, this is to address cannabis odor and there were other issues included within the ordinance that were related to this. Uh everything that is uh recommended is related to the odor issue. Now if there are other uh mechanical issues with the code u this is an opportunity to address those and you see that in some of the other sections uh within licensing within the cannabis tax uh that the admin finds we have taken an opportunity to clean up other items. So if there are items that the planning commission wishes to include, I think this discussion on the separation requirements is relevant. You know, this is an opportunity to address that. And if there are additional buffers uh that you would like to see, this is an opportunity to do that. Um I think here though, we're looking for consensus from the planning commission to make a recommendation to the city council. So uh I think this is a good discussion and if there is consensus on some particular recommendations, we will carry that forward to city council. Could we if we didn't address any of these issues tonight, would we be address could we address them through the steering committee?

Those that are under Title 9, yes. That are related to land use. Yes. Um I I think if this is reasonably related to the presentation and the discussion, you know, I think that tonight is a good opportunity to advance those recommendations where there is consensus with the council with with the planning commission. Um, so I think if it's related to the discussion, this is your aren't the location issues I'm talking about all under title N? Yes. So then theoretically, if nothing happened tonight with this, we could address it through the zoning.

It it's another opportunity. I I would say this is a a great opportunity in the sense that we're talking about cannabis in general and it's an opportunity for the the commission to u develop consensus and to provide direction to city council on cannabis. the the zoning ordinance update. Yes, that's another avenue that is a a much broader discussion and I think this this opportunity this discussion tonight is is a focused opportunity on cannabis.

I I my concern is that I I feel like this uh agenda item is before us because a lot of people have been negatively affected by the odor. And so I and they have been waiting uh almost a year for the city to respond and implement something. So I want to make sure that we don't potentially derail doing something about that urgent issue tonight in order to open up talking about other things that could be addressed right now. If we can address other things as part of this, great. But I just don't want to see us say, "Oh, it's 11:00. We're going to have to punt this to another meeting." and leave without taking action on the core issue.

I agree with you. I I just think that we have the opportunity to protect children and protect people that don't want to be bothered by this. And I think that's just as important. Um I agree with you on protecting children and I think the the ordinance already does that and we could easily add some additional language to it. Um, I am concerned about what I'm perceiving, and I could be wrong, so correct me, but what I'm perceiving to be a moral concern about cannabis businesses versus a evidence-based uh concern. So, I think if there was evidence, if we had the CCPD here saying we have an increase in crime around dispensaries or um there's been robberies near cultivation places and we have an actual factual concern that those businesses bring negative elements to surrounding organizations and businesses. That's one thing. We don't have any of that evidence in front of us. Nothing indicates that. And so I'm just concerned that we're essentially disparaging these businesses by saying that it's negative for them just inherently to be near a house of worship or an adult daycare or any other kind of business. It seems like there's a moral judgment happening there.

If I may,

I just want to interject at this point and I I think this this is a good point. We have received a lot of complaints. Those complaints though are coming from residential areas. We have not received complaints since I've been here. Notwithstanding the the one public hearing on a particular land use case. We've not received complaints from places of worship from uh anyone using a park about the proximity of that place of worship that that park to a cannabis use. U the complaints that we received the cannabis odor complaints those are coming from residential areas. Um vice chair me is correct. These are serious issues. These are serious complaints. Those have come from residential areas. We're not receiving those from other businesses. We're not receiving those from u other uh places within our business and industrial parks. They're coming from residential areas. And I I think there hasn't been evidence that I can remember being presented by the police on any criminal activity or any unusual criminal activity associated with um particularly the retail spaces. it's unlikely that there would be any related to the the um cultivation um spaces. So I I I don't think there is an increase in crime. Um I I think that the children are already covered to the extent that um the state has already considered that. Um so again I I I'm agreeing with vice chair. I I don't really see an overwhelming case here to deal with that at this point. Okay.

Um just checking my list of of the issues that were raised. Um vice chair had an issue to do with uh 7-day suspension of um of licenses or or the the work at the facility. I think

well just Yeah. So I guess my concern is even though we don't have any current uses where the use could be shut down in the meantime, we could in the future like the lounge that does exist and like future lounges. So it seems to me that we should be not just thinking about the uses we have now, but the uses that we could have in the future. And we may want to have something in there that does allow the city to say, you know, you're operating a lounge, the odor is going on too much. you you have to close and you can't have people smoking in your lounge until the odor is resolved. Okay. Thoughts on that? Commissioner McFale?

Um could you just go over that one more time?

Yeah. So it' be more like what Palm Springs has. So, Palm Springs has a something in their ordinance, which I've lost now because I have it. Um, that basically said that, you know, if after if they got a complaint, they gave them a certain I think it was 7 days to correct and they hadn't corrected in 7 days that they needed to cease the use that was causing the odor until it the odor situation was rectified. So that wouldn't be practical, let's say, for cultivation, but it could be practical for manufacturing, it could be practical for distribution, and it could be practical for a lounge. Um, pretty much cultivation is the only thing it couldn't. And so I'm just thinking to the future if we do end up with a bunch of lounges that that might be something we want to have as a

vice chair me, if I may just kind of chime in really quick. So, I know that part of the issue that like just is a red flag for me personally is the idea that you do have to provide due process once certain licenses, permits are issued, right? So, I know you were talking about, you know, that first citation, that second citation, the third citation, that's all like due process and an opportunity to correct. Um, I know that Palm Springs and other, you know, municipalities might take a harsher view on that, but really, you know, our recommendation with going forward is consistent with at least the case law. And you know, when you think about suspension of a cup or suspension of a license, you know, they have to have an opportunity to be heard before you just say you're shut down. Even if it's for only 7 days, they have vested rights that are included with issuance of that permit, with issuance of that license.

So if a bar was serving children, um, so that's criminal at that point. So it's different. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So, at that point, you're talking penal code, the police can absolutely come in and there's just different ways to address something like that. And, you know, I'm just talking about in terms of, you know, just that general idea that Palm Springs is going to say, "Hey, yeah, your odor is out of control. Like, you have 7 days as of like right now. You have a week to fix it." Um, or we're shutting you down completely. you know, the argument can be made that you're interfering with that business and those vested rights that were asserted to that business when they issued that license, when they issued that cup. Um, so it's just a little bit of litigation that we worry about, but it is something that, you know, maybe we can keep an eye on as far as consideration in the future because you do want every ordinance, you do want it to be effective, right? You do want to be able to have remedies available to you when people do not follow what is in our municipal code.

I I've expressed in other meetings that that I prefer the word shall quite often to may. I don't like may very much because it's too vague. But um if we were to do anything with this, may might be the right word um to say that u uh the the department may order a 7-day secession of business. You use the word may. The difference between shall and may is may is optional. Shall Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So, and I don't know if you Don't you want it to be mandatory?

I mean, I don't know if they took this if this is just the writing of the person who pulled this information together from um from our staff or if this is what their code actually says, but it says if the odor cannot be mitigated within 7 days, the use must cease until effective odor control measures are in place. That's after they have been given a first given a written warning and then given 7 days to modify their odor control plan to mitigate odor issues. I'm not saying we should necessarily do this. It just seems to me like they have a little bit more

teeth. Yeah. And it just seems like this issue has been going on for so long. And I to be honest when I read this ordinance overall, I was a little underwhelmed. I felt like for the severity of the problem, the time this has been going on, the number of people who have complained, I felt like a little let down. Like I didn't think it was strong enough. And so what I'm just trying to get to is if I'm a member of the public and I'm one of those people who submitted one of those 900 complaints that you guys have received and I've been on that email list and I read the public comment that was submitted. Am I going to be feel that this is strong enough? And so I'm just looking for ways to try on the public behalf to make this a little bit stronger.

So I I wonder if we well I guess we don't have any statistics as to whether or not Palm Springs has ever successfully used that. Um, and it sounds like from legal advice that if Palm Springs did try to do that, then that that operator would have a right of appeal which would suspend that notice. Yeah. Is that correct?

I can speak that. So, yes, I haven't seen their ordinance, but typically when you have uh local regulatory licenses like cannabis licenses or massage permits, those sorts of things, when there's a provision for immediate suspension and you have to stop operations right away, the way you provide due process is providing a subsequent you can appeal it. You get a subsequent hearing on whether or not that suspension was uh appropriate. And as part of that process, as soon as you file the appeal, the suspension is stayed. So essentially, you can

so essentially nothing would actually change during the period of the appeal or the Yeah. So you can accomplish that policy goal of providing for a uh an immediate suspension, but if they appeal, then it's it's put on put on put on hold. So I think I have sympathy for the concept. Yeah. Okay. you've explained it.

Yeah. And if I may, we can always, you know, add this as part of the staff report if there's just, you know, consensus as far as maybe investigating something that we can do and like what liabilities might be associated with that because, you know, we can make a recommendation as far as your legal, right? But if city council does see this as important enough to say, hey, yeah, we are willing to take that risk, that's up to them, right? The the other example I'm thinking of would be um like restaurants when they get citations for cockroaches or rodents or whatever, right? Sometimes it's just a warning and they can continue on and then they get reinspected. Sometimes they're actually shut down. That's not criminal. It's still a right.

No, but it's health and safety code. So, it's still state law. Okay.

So, yeah, there are just certain thresholds. But no, and I understand what you're saying because you would think that the businesses, you know, as we're treating cannabis similar to like alcohol or any other business, you would think that those kind of thresholds would probably exist by now with odor. So, I think that that's what we're trying to do. Um, but if it is, like I said, if I get a majority of city of the commission to kind of indicate, hey, you know, part of this is we would like to see something, you know, maybe a little more immediate as a remedy for the city to consider like we can include that information for um, city council and then we can look into maybe the liabilities associated with the different options, including maybe something because I'm sure that they have seen the the Palm Springs ordinance as well, and they might have the same question and concern. concern that you do.

Thank you. So, so far we've uh we've discussed um the land use issues um including schools and religion um the separation distancing. Did we put that to bed separation?

I I think we did but if there is more discussion then let's go down to that. I yeah I I wasn't quite sure where we said okay we're we're we're not going to consider that and if we are that are not that's fine but I I do think given that the engineers the SCS engineers report itself recommended separation and this is all in the lens of odor control it it seems to make sense at least for and I don't know whether this causes all sorts of comp complications the issue of future businesses not not affecting current ones who will be non-con and forming slashgrandfathered in but if a a new and maybe it's they also have in their table and I don't know how scientific this is you know that I think it was like cultivation is like a very high odor risk and manufacturing was high and I can't remember what all the different categories were if we accept those categorizations we could say if you are moderate to high odor then one of these distance things kicks in for a new business.

Roy, I I I kind of take exception that it's just about odor because it's not. It's it's it's about the cannabis ordinance and how it should be reflected in Cathedral City. And I I think that odor and what the people at resorts have been going through is horrendous. And I agree with our vice chair that we need to take care of that. But I also think that it's other things that need to be addressed also. So you can't just say this is about odors.

Well, I I'm basing my question or my idea in this report which was focused on odor as a as an issue as a finding for us to address that the engineers report addressed as well. So as a point of clarification again the same idea but that 500 ft between licensed businesses to you guys uh was that without any odor mitigation no scrubbers no nothing that was was essentially creating a worst case so with the implementation I'm sorry could you come up and speak to the mic just if anybody is online M

so in that study it was creating that worst case scenario. Um so with the implementation um with the air filtration systems installed it is very possible to be closer in proximity to these residents. However that would require uh air filtration systems up to a certain standard. So to be clear, the 500 ft was without correct mitigation. Okay. So yeah, so if these systems were in place, we might not be recommending a we may not need 500 ft, right?

Each each um lency has to have a a mitigation plan. I can live with that. So yeah. Um okay. Were there any other items that I haven't mentioned that anybody needed to discuss? Would it be the vice chair? Yes. So, on one of the slides where you talked about other things that we could consider, one of them was potentially limiting the maximum size of a cultivation facility. Um, and what struck me was in your presentation when you said that you looked around the state for other ones and you could not find any that were of the size of ours that were indoor that were built for purpose-built,

right? which made me immediately write down maybe it's too big and maybe we should look at limiting it and then you said maybe we should look at limiting it. So I think you had said we could look at something like 10,000 square ft which would still encompass the micro businesses um but would maybe not have as big of a problem with wouldn't be as big of an expense for them. Wouldn't be as big of a deal for them to limit odor. Is that what you were getting at? So yes, um in our survey of other cities and counties, there are some that limit the size of of uh cultivation. Um we did see that we don't have a a uh a maximum limit on cultivation size. I think what we have right now, we have cultivation in our PCC zoning district, our commercial zoning district. We didn't see that really anywhere else either. Um but uh the suggestion in the staff report was that in lie of removing cultivation as a conditional use in the PCC zone district altogether uh right now you've got five uh cultivation businesses in the PCC zoning district including uh the large indoor cultivation use near Day Palm Drive and Raone Road. So in lie of removing that altogether uh you could look at putting a cap on cultivation within the PCC zoning district itself. Um, so a cap of 10,000 square feet of total canopy space, for instance, that would still allow uh those cannabis micro businesses uh would still allow the small indoor cultivation licenses uh and those that are below that threshold uh to operate through a conditional use in the PCC zoning district. So that is an alternative to striking cultivation as a conditional use in the PCC zone district itself.

What about just limiting it period anywhere? I'm sorry. What about just limiting the size in any zoning? That's a possibility. Okay. Because I didn't realize you were suggesting in lie of

Yes, that was suggested as an alternative recognizing that we do have other cultivation businesses in the PCC zone district. They haven't gotten a lot of attention. We haven't spent a lot of time talking about them, but there are uh four others other than the one that uh we're all abundantly aware of. Uh there are others that uh have been operating without complaints, without issue. Uh and as well there is a thought that cannabis micro businesses for instance um the small indoor cultivation businesses uh perhaps there is an argument to support those and the continuation of those in the PCC zoning district. So we put that out as an alternative.

So I I would suggest that um I I don't really like the idea of making you know smaller facilities available in PCC. So I think I think I think we should keep that. Yes. I wasn't suggesting replacing it,

right? But um I think if I understand it correctly, um we're also not equipped or or at this point capable of putting forward an amendment that says the limit shall be 15,000 square ft or whatever. We don't have any real information to base that on. So, um what we might do though is to have um a an item in the staff report going to council saying that we recommend that um the department look at establishing an upper limit for the size of a cultivation center. Would that work?

If we don't include it in the motion, I don't think it'll go anywhere. I mean, I I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with it, but Commissioner McFale wanted a note about stop. Yeah, I I would like something more concrete from recent experience. I would agree with that. Based on that experience, y that that didn't go anywhere, right?

I I I would think that if you want an upper limit, it needs to be more specific so that it doesn't get lost the way the stop sign did. So I I I can see the I can see that point. Yeah. I mean, you know, we know that things haven't necessarily gone to council after we've talked about them. They have not appeared in the staff report. So um I I'm not sure how we move forward to an exact did it as an option as an alternative which means some analysis was done by staff. Correct. Even if we were be considering it as a separate amendment, you did some analysis on that. You came up with that number some way.

10,000 square feet. Yes. It was based on the Department of Cannabis Control licenses and and that actually is a a suggestion for the commission. U I mentioned the uh large indoor cultivation uh license that there's only uh seven of those across the state. Um you've got five in Oakland, one in Richmond, and ours here. That's 22,000 square feet. Do you have any idea what the average size of those cultivation centers are? I mean, I know the limits and it goes up to 22,000 ft.

In our research of other cities, um those that capped cultivation um 22,000 ft. They they limited large indoor cultivation. So, they allowed cultivation for any license type up to the large indoor cultivation and they capped it so that a large indoor cultivation license could not be supported. So that that's a uh a number at least large indoor cultivation. Uh that's 22,000 square ft as defined by the dcc. So that that could be a sensible compromise I think to to go with the state licensing to say that we would take that size and nothing bigger in future uh applications.

So So what you're saying is is that the upper limit would be 100,000 square feet. 10,000? No. No. No. Um can you can you remind us of the of the different sizes? If I understand the discussion with the commission now um the thought is um you know the staff recommendation was eliminating it from the PCC but the thought may be do we want to put a maximum limit on cultivation size in all zone districts not just PCC but in all zone districts. Right. So is that correct? I thought we were still on board with eliminating eliminating it from the PCC. Oh, we we are.

Yeah. So, eliminating it from the PCC. From PCC and I understand the discussion is that there also may be a desire to limit the size of a cultivation license. And what I am suggesting perhaps is that you tie this to the DCC license types and

the large indoor cultivation license type that's 22,000 square feet or more. Um, other cities that have limited uh, cultivation have chosen to limit it consistent with the DCC uh, definitions. So, 22,000 square ft. Uh, that would allow anything less than that and it would uh, preclude any future large indoor cultivation licenses. This the C4 one though, how big is that? Much larger. That's it's 200 200,000. Just wanted to make sure because I was that that's what prompted me to say. Okay.

Right. Right. So, so I would I'd be um willing to entertain an amendment to say that um we want in all uh no no production in in PCC as stated, but then to tie the Apple limit for a um uh commercial grow facility to to what was the precise license? large was 22 22,000 square feet. Oh, I was going to use the I was thinking we'd use the state language. Large indoor cultivation.

Large indoor cultivation as defined by the state. So, you would not want to permit that, but anything less than that, and I I apologize, I don't have the dcc regulations up at the moment, but I think that literally is the name large indoor cultivation, no more than 22,000. It's kind of a mouthful, but you see these license types like small indoor cultivation, no more than 5,000. That's just what they call it. I mean, would it make more sense to just say that we're tying it to the state's current definition of that? Because if that changes, then ours would adjust with it. We wouldn't have to split a difference if they raised it to 25 or something like that.

Yeah. And you can typically accomplish that just by putting comma as may be amended from time to time. And we can maybe try to pin down a particular um regulation in state and state. Okay. Yeah, cuz I was just thinking we could just say no larger than the states defined large indoor cultivation. Uh I think that's a that's a good plan. Um so if I wanted to make that as an amendment, I don't know where that goes since that's a we have thrown in the code somewhere. You you don't need to do that. I don't think so. The um you need to say what we want them to do. Okay.

And then you need to find out where it goes. So I would um so you would propose an amendment and that would become added to my motion and that would be a substantive motion. So does everyone understand what the amendment is? Yes. that we're voting on, which is to limit the upper limit or the maximum size to correspond with the state's definition of a large indoor cultivation facility in the zones where we're going to allow cultivation according to the new municipal. I would love to second that. So that's moved and second amendment.

Yeah, he's seconding my amendment, right? Sorry. Okay, we need to have a formal vote. Um, so are there any other areas of discussion? Do we need to vote on that or do we come back to Well, I'll come back to both of them. So, no, no other I so so let's move. I had one more quick thing and there may not be any appetite for it, but I thought that

in light of the public engagement requirement that we put in for large development projects as part of the new notification. Would there be any interest in potentially requiring a public meeting for let's say these kind of large cultivation facilities that were coming up for that had put in an application to meet with the public to maybe do some scientific education about what they're going to do, what their plans are, you know, make I know most of the complaints we've gotten have been from communities, residential communities. they at least give them an opportunity to let's say meet the HOA board, open a line of communication if there are any issues. It's just a thought. I'm not going to die on a hill for it.

Is is that currently part of the application process?

Good evening, uh, commissioners. No, the um public notification regulations that were put in place was based upon project site size. So if it was 5 acres or greater or 10 acres or greater, it triggered certain requirements and offhand I don't require uh recall what what that trigger was for the community notification but it wasn't based upon size of facility.

Correct. I'm saying similarly, would we be interested in doing something like that since these larger cultivation facilities seem like they have the potential to uh cause the perception of there being problems or actual problems? I'm saying is there any appetite to do something like that? I

I guess that would be a question for the commission. Um, you know, the state identifies 22,000 ft² as a large indoor cultivation. Um, I don't have a list of other than the one on Raone and Date Palm being ex, you know, larger than we've we understand that's a problem. I don't know what that threshold is for the other ones. like are they again as indicated by director um the other cannabis cultivation facilities haven't been creating or haven't had these order issues um and so that may be um potentially burdensome I I don't know that's going to be up to a discussion with the commission and again I was just throwing it out

you know how many of those facilities would we actually have and that would probably be in our our other m I believe we call it MU area that is not being considered right So, on the north side of town, um I I think that could be a good amendment, but I don't know if there's a place for that to even be considered in where we are as a city, but I think it it could be great. I mean, it might be an amendment just to add that if in the future if there is another 22,000 extra-large indoor cultivation being proposed that they must do a notification process. Why not just bring it up into the zoning study group? Yeah,

I can do that. All right. Okay. Mhm. Um if there are no other comments at this point, then we'll move to a vote uh for including the amendment. Um which was uh And who seconded? Somebody I didn't hear who did it. No, I thought I heard somebody say it had already been that was that was the main motion was already seconded. Thank you. Do we vote on the main motion and then the amendment or how does that work? No, we vote on the amendment. Okay. We see if the amendment is joined to the main motion to make a substantive motion and then we vote on the substantive motion. Okay.

So, um so what we're voting on here is the inclusion of the amendment. You're voting on the inclusion of the amendment. So, we had a motion made and seconded originally for discussion and then a substantive amendment made to that. And so, we're voting on the amendment and then we'll vote on the actual original motion. Correct. Yes. Right. All right. So, the way I have this down is that for the substantive amendment that a motion was made by Vice Chair me and seconded by member uh Commissioner Badard. Is that correct?

All right. So, I will go ahead and open that vote. Please go ahead and vote. All right. Let the record show that a motion was made by member uh vice chair me seconded by member Badard. The motion score uh vote in favor was four with one nay. Motion passes. And then to move on to the original amendment. Let me get that pulled up for you.

So, we're done with all discussion now. Yes. And again, that motion was made by Chairman Lee. I think I seconded it. and seconded by Yep. by member McFale. Go ahead and vote, please.

Wait, what? What? Nothing coming up. Is this for the the report? This is for the main motion. This is the main to adopt the the uh See, I'm not getting anything, but I would be I Oh, okay. Okay, let me mark down. Yeah.

All right. So, I will do a I'll do a um a recording of this. So, I have a motion made by uh Chairman Lee, a second made by Commissioner McFale, and then I have Bedard Me McFale and Lee voting in favor. Member Malikov voting opposed. All right, I am going to close that vote. So, the member uh excuse me, the motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, moving on. Um, so um we have item three on our agenda, non-public hearing items. Uh 3A is a development code update. Do we have a staff report?

I have an update for you this evening. Good evening. Um so as um promised we would do these development code brief development code updates. So today this the tag the technical advisory group which is made up of staff uh received administrative provisions. These administrative provisions were con comprised of two sections that will be implemented into the the updated development code update. Uh that includes the code administrative code administration section and the permit procedures sections. So staff tag the technical advisory group has been tasked with doing a review of these. So we've got about two weeks to get these turned around sent back to Mir Harish for a review and revisions so that it can then be sent on to the steering committee because the steering committee then meets on September 9th. That September 9th steering committee meeting will be held virtually um and it's been scheduled um for that evening. uh once that steering committee has taken place the comments and feedback that we hear from steering committee will then go back to Mier Harish and they will prep that then to turn around and give to this body the planning commission at your special meeting which will be held on October 15th. Um so that meeting will be to discuss that. You will also have subsequent subsequent special meetings December 17th and that one will be to discuss zoning district provisions and that will then pave the way for and this is some of this is a repeat from last time but I'm going to repeat it every single meeting. um that will pave the way for 2026 that will have the uh development standards will come before you and then I wanted to point out that the process for all these reviews you might be picking this up tag reviews it gives it back to mint mint tier harness mid tier harish gives it then we give it then to steering committee for them to weigh in at and then it comes to you all so that's the process for it we'll have we'll do this several times we'll see

this several iterations but anyway any questions and if you would like I can send out that update um as I did with the other one as well. Um any questions from commissioners for staff? It's late and so I just maybe you were forgetting but this has to go through SQUA, right? SQA is part of was part of the um contract for this. Okay, Commissioner McFale,

I think you know what I'm going to say. Um, it's good to get these updates, but it just feels like, you know, these things are happening. Okay, we're off to do it. I would like us to have more of a, I don't know, consideration of these things that are coming up. For example, you mentioned the task force going to talk about um, administrative provisions and land use matrix meetings. I don't really know what any of that means. And it would be nice before those meetings are held for those of us who are not on the steering committee to have a little update like this is this is what they are talking about a wee bit more than administrative provisions. I

it makes me feel any better. We haven't been involved either. We we don't get it until after the steering committee. So So we're all in the dark.

Yeah. if there was some way to tee us up for those meetings by having it as a regular item for one year on the agenda uh that staff could then be ready to say we're having this meeting and administr we're going to talk about administrative provisions which are A B C and D and we could all say oh that sounds very interesting could you remember to bring up this thing but we we don't have that opportunity at the moment and I feel like if we had it as an agenda item, we might be able to be a bit more informed and educated in what's going on. So, I just making another request for that being on the agenda. But this is the it is on the this is the agenda item.

I know it's on it's it's an agenda item, but I'm asking for it to be a recurring. It is it's been on every week, every meeting. That's a development code update. Yes, it has been. Yeah, because we just started doing it there. Just last week, it is it is a recurring agenda item. I'm just saying right now there's nothing for them to tell us. If it's a recurring thing, I'm very happy. Yes, it's a recurring before meetings. Yes. Thank you. Any other any other question? Um any other questions for staff?

I have a question just as advisory. So last summer and this summer, the heat hasn't been as bad this summer, but it was last summer. and the medians that we have the islands that I believe are and this is where I need your guidance maintained by the city or paid to be maintained by the city. So say Dval driving down Dval from Frank Sinatra to uh Ramon there's several areas that are uh islands that are landscaped the landscapers are doing severe pruning in July and that puts trees and I'm sorry

I need to interrupt you just because we're off we're off the topic comments. No, we're we we're still on the staff report, but got it. Never mind up again. Yes. Um, okay. Uh, so now we have finished with that item and we will go to commissioner's comments. Thank you very much. So, but I just want to be in the right place. I appreciate it. Yes. Okay.

It's good to have the structure. Um, so I didn't know. I mean, I know it's it's it's hard to educate landscapers, but they are contracted, I believe, by the city and we pay them to maintain, I believe. So, I need guidance. I don't know where this goes, but there's a problem because if you go out there and you drive down these streets, there's large areas where they were once landscaped and there were living plants and there are now none. and the these islands are being denutified, I think is the proper word. Um, could I So, could I just try and pick that up for you quickly, please? So, that that's going to be the works department that actually supervises that.

Great. Contracting. Deanna Presgrove is very um reactive to questions. So, I would call her, get any information, and see if anything else needs to come back to planning commission. Great. Thank you. All right. Um

um I spoke to Dominique about a future item on um the King School. Um since it has limited access, we can't get in. So, um I believe she sent out a contact that you can make an appointment and I also asked her to send out the architectural review committee report so that we know what we're looking at rather than just touring the campus and guessing at what they're going to do. So, she's going to send out the architectural review committee report to everybody and that way you'll have some idea of what their plans are and you can make an appointment to go in there and see it during the week with the person that she

gave us the name of. Thank you. Great. Uh, vice chair. Nothing for me. And okay, and there's nothing from me. So, um, city attorney's comments, nothing tonight. Thank you. Uh any staff comments? I've done a lot of talking. Nothing else. In which case, this meeting is adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Thank you everybody. Thank you for your well.