I. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is seeking direction and potential action related to updating the conditional use permit entitlement process and vesting rights for cannabis operations.
II. BACKGROUND:
Section 9-5.128(f) of Planning and Zoning Code related to commercial cannabis operations states that prior to, or concurrently with, applying for a regulatory permit, the applicant shall process a conditional use permit as required by the City's Land Use Regulations. Information that may be duplicative in the two (2) applications can be incorporated by reference. The conditional use permit shall run with the regulatory permit and not the land.
Over the course of the last 3 years staff has processed several conditional use permit applications where projects were approved and subsequently changed ownership, applicants backed out and moved elsewhere, or tenants decide to no longer pursue the project. Therefore, when this occurs the new tenant and/or owner is required to submit a new CUP application even when the use is the same.
Typically, when conditional use permits are approved by the City of Coalinga the land use right runs with the land allowing for future owners and/or tenants to occupy the property so long as it is in compliance with the original use permit approvals. This is not the case with cannabis operations where the use permit does not run with the land requiring a subsequent use permit application for each cannabis operator even when the same use is proposed on the same property.
Staff has found that restricting the CUP approval to run with the applicant/regulatory permit and not the land, causes delays in operational timeframes, slows the process of permitting cannabis operations and reduces the ability of the City to collected license fees and taxes sooner because of the longer land use entitlement processing time and vacancy between change in tenancy.
III. DISCUSSION:
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council to proceed with a zoning text amendment to revise the cannabis regulations for all cannabis operator permits related to the CUP requirement so that it runs with the land. Staff feels that this action will not be detrimental to the community as it relates to cannabis permitting since the City will still have the regulatory permit that will govern the cannabis license from an operator standpoint and still have revocation authority in addition to the CUP. The change will allow for an easier transition from one operator to another. The submission of a new regulatory permit will still be required for each new operator which is reviewed and approved by the Police Chief and placed on Council consent agenda for concurrence.
Should the Council decide to proceed with the zoning text amendment, staff will prepare the appropriate reports and proceed to the Planning Commission for recommendation and then on to the Council for approval.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
- Do not direct staff to proceed with a zoning text amendment and direct accordingly.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The change in regulation could result in increased tax revenue and faster turnaround on permitting. |