AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; repealing Ordinance 124552 and amending Sections 23.42.058, 23.47A.002, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.020, 23.48.002, 23.48.005, 23.48.065, 23.49.002, 23.49.025, 23.49.042, 23.49.090, 23.49.142, 23.49.300, 23.49.320, 23.49.338, 23.50.002, 23.50.012, 23.50.014, 23.50.044, 23.66.122, 23.66.322, and 23.84A.025 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change marijuana zoning regulations and make technical corrections.
Yes, I've signed all these documents. I'm just kidding. Okay, next we have the report of the planning land use. And no, do we have one more item on this report of the planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee? Please read the report. The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. Agenda number five Constable 118 580 relating to land use and zoning repealing ordinance 124552 and in many sections 23.40 2.58 23.40 78.002.004.0 2020 3.40 8.002.005.0 6520 3.40 9.002.0. 25.0 42.0. 90.1 42.3 100.3 20.3 38. 23.50 .00. 2.0. 12.0 14.0 4420 3.60 6.1. 22.3 22 and 23.84 8.0 25 zero. Mr. Code to change marijuana zoning regulations and make technical corrections, the committee recommends that the bill passes amended. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So I'm just going to walk through a couple of the points on this bill. We have four amendments that I'm aware of that we'll take up in order. And then I can just speak to what the bill does at the very end to the mayor presented legislation to the council a little over a month ago . We had a public hearing and a couple of committee meetings to discuss this and the bill that the mayor proposed. There's there's two measurement issues that we often conflate, and I'm trying to keep them clear here. One is around buffers. So how far do marijuana businesses have to be from certain types of other uses, like daycare parks, community centers, arcades? And then the second term we use a lot is dispersion, which is how far do marijuana retail establishments have to be from other marijuana retail establishments? There are three different levels of businesses. There's the retail establishments. There's also producers and their processors. I just want to be clear that when we're talking about dispersion, we're only talking about retailers. There's not a dispersion requirement around producers or processors. The buffer zones apply to all of them. The bill that was proposed by the mayor and came out of committee included a 500 foot buffer zone for producers, processors and retailers for the types of activities. The buffer from the types of activities that state law allows us to reduce the buffer below a thousand feet. The dispersion requirement is not any requirement by state law that doesn't exist in existing city law. The bill that was proposed by the mayor's office proposed dispersion requirement of 500 feet, meaning if one retail business is located in one location, the second one could had to be at least 500 feet from that property to open up as it came out of committee that was amended by former Councilmember McCarter. His amendment was passed out of committee to reduce the dispersion requirement to 350 feet so businesses to retail businesses could not be within 350 feet. So we have four amendments. The First Amendment is one that I'm sponsoring. So I'm going to go ahead and speak to that and ask for a Second Amendment number one in our packet deals with the buffer zones and specifically with lower the buffer zone from 500 feet to 200 feet for the producers and processors only, not the retailers. To around 50. Feet. What did I say? Hundred, 250 feet. Thank you. I'm getting the words right now. I need the numbers wrong. So, again, current the current ongoing bill we're talking about has a 500 foot buffer zone for all types. This amendment would reduce that buffer from 500 feet to 250 feet just for the producers and processors, not for the retailers. Is there a second for that? Okay. Okay. I'll just speak briefly to that. My from a policy perspective, I understand the idea of having buffer zones from these certain types of uses. Again. The ones that come to mind arcades, community centers, child care centers, parks, the types of sensitive uses within the city that often have youth often have folks that specifically are prohibited from using marijuana. We want to keep some space between those those uses and the retail stores. The the producers and processors, on the other hand, do not have any retail presence. There's no signage. There's really no way for my understanding, for the average citizen to even know what's going on inside. It's just another business that the public doesn't have access to. So I don't believe that having a great buffer zone for those operations makes policy sense, which is why I'm supporting that. We have an amendment to decrease the buffer for our producers to 250 feet. Are there any other comments? I'd like to actually make a comment, as I said this morning, that it's I'm I'm going to support the amendment, but with some level of concern. And that concern is, as I understand, the state's position, they are not limiting the number of production or growing licenses. I think there are policies as far as going to be sort of let the market take care of itself. Many growers, I think, are possibly going out of business because there seems to be a lot of product out there that hasn't been moving. And I'm concerned that, again, there are chemicals that are sometimes used, there are disposal issues on the grow operations, there are odor issues that neighborhoods are concerned about. And I just don't think we've adequately thought through some of the unintended consequences of just increasing the number of producers. And I don't even know if we need to do that at this point. I don't think we've done that, both research or data homework or looked at the impacts. But I as a policy standpoint, we have decriminalized this product and we're trying to get patients their medicine, and I'm supportive of where we're trying to head. But I just think there there's a lot of work still to be done as we lower the buffers. But generally speaking, I know there's been support on the council for this and I don't want to send away that support, but it is with some level of concern. Are there any other comments of Councilmember O'Brien. Just at this morning, this morning's briefing council President Harrell, you mentioned that and I had a chance, my staff had a chance to have a conversation about producer providers. And I just the reality is that this is kind of a joint regulatory effort between the city and the state. And ultimately the state holds a lot of the cards is what's happening. My understanding is that the state is not in the process of issuing any more producer processor licenses. They have set a cap on the number of retail, but of course it's a state and they could change their mind at any point in the future. So I don't my sense is that your concern is not something that's happening today, but obviously could become valid if the state were to change its direction. Absolutely. Hearing no other comments will vote on this in a minute. All has been moved in. It's been moved to Amendment one, has been moved to there. A Second Amendment one to council. Bill 118580 has been moved. And second, all those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Let's move to amendment number two. Great. So I'll speak just briefly to this and hand it off to Councilmember Herbold, who is a sponsor of this. This amendment is also about the buffer zones. This is about buffer zones for the retail operations in one specific area in the downtown zone. Councilmember Herbold So. This works off of the existing buffers in the mayor's proposed bill. The existing citywide buffers are 500 feet. This creates an exception to that of 250 feet in a specific zone. It's the downtown mixed commercial and downtown mixed residential zones. And this is in the downtown urban center west of I-5, north of yester way and south of Denny Way would not apply in. Specific. Carved out areas within the downtown urban center, including downtown office or one and two downtown Harbor Pike Place Market mixed or Pioneer Square mixed. The reason for this amendment is this is a high tourism area with cruise ships. More will be coming soon and an existing street drug dealing problem. It's actually we've had Liz Campbell from the Belltown Community Council come and speak to us about their concern about the illicit drug trade in the area and that their desire for a legal store will hopefully eliminate that that illegal activity. In particular, I know that there were questions about. A Town ID and Pioneer Square. Those are not included. And if there are specific questions that councilmembers have about the amendment, I'd love to receive them. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So are there any comments on Councilmember her Herbold Amendment two, which, as I understand it, for retail stores lowers the buffer to 250 feet. Any other comments? Only in those zones. Only in the specified zone. I should say. Okay. So it's been amendment to Councilmember Herb also has been moved. Is there a second? Second so moved in Second Amendment number two. All those in favor say I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three. Okay. So amendment number three, we're going to shift from just talking about buffer zones to talking about dispersion. The current bill before us has a dispersion requirement of stores have to be at least 350 feet from each other. Council members purchasing Gonzalez have an amendment that would change how we calculate dispersion. So please, this amendment has to be viewed in the context of the buffer zone as well. So both the buffer and the dispersion need to be viewed together. So this would say that there cannot be more than two properties with major marijuana activity, including the retail sale within 1000 feet of each other. So a thousand feet is approximately four or five city blocks, depending on what part of town you're in. So if you think about a neighborhood business district, for example, with this amendment, there could be two retail outlets within a thousand feet. If the buffer is also met. So except in the downtown area, the amendments that we just passed, it would have to be 500 feet buffer between. The sensitive uses like parks, community centers, childcare facilities. But then only two allowed within 1000 feet. So I would move amendment number three. Second. So we have amendment number three in front of us that's been moved on second. And are there any additional comments on amendment number three? Councilmember Gonzalez The only thing that I would would add to this particular amendment that I think is important for us to keep in mind is that this this particular dispersion requirement would not go into effect until it is signed by the mayor, so it becomes effective immediately upon the mayor's signature. So this does not impact current current marijuana retail locations. It would only impact the siting and zoning requirements for major marijuana activity moving forward. Thank you very much for that clarification. We have amendment number three that has been properly moved in second. And all those in favor say I, I opposed the ayes have it. And Councilmember O'Brien, I believe you had Amendment four. That was somewhat based on the passage of 1 to 3. The bill, their own adventure for portion of the meeting. So amended number for the intent of a minimum of four is to go back and add some recitals justifying the changes in the buffer zones that we just made in our in our documents. There are four different versions based on what could have happened earlier in the meeting, because both amendments, one and two are approved. I am going to go ahead and propose alternate RD of Amendment four, which, as is the recital language that had previously been reviewed by law to support the changes in the buffers that we just made in the amendment. Second. Okay has been moved in seconded amendment number four, which is basically alter D. It's been moved in seconds for its passage. All those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Councilmember Brian, you want to make any closing remarks relative to the bill as amended? Yeah. Thank you. I want to I want to thank the mayor's staff and David Mendoza in particular for doing a lot of work over the not just the last months, but over a year. It feels like we are at the leading edge of a new industry. We're trying our best to get this right. We're learning a lot, I think the the enforcement work that they've done to help transition medical providers into the recreational framework, well, not perfect. I think it is taking great steps. I also want to thank folks from the community for the various aspects that have done a lot of work to try and help us understand what their business environment looks like as we made these changes. I want to highlight just a couple things that we're not doing today but may come up specifically around the current legislation and the underlying law before we passed this legislation. Both prohibit retail operations within any of our historic districts, and that is not being proposed to change today as a tourist district. Historic districts include Ballard Avenue, Pioneer Square, Pike Place Market, Columbia City, International District, and perhaps others. There have been conversations from folks in the community who would like to lift that prohibition in both the Ballard Historic District and possibly Pioneer Square. And my conversations with community members from both Ballard and Pioneer Square was that the communities there hadn't had enough time to process and have conversations on those, but are open to possibly making changes in the future. And so what I have told both advocates and community members is that I will do what I can to help foster communications in the coming weeks and months. And if it seems that we can get to a place of consensus, I would certainly support coming back with legislation to make changes to those historic districts where we've had more process and more opportunity for people to weigh in. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. I'd like to suggest, as I support this amended bill, that we still have so much work to do. I mean, we're way beyond the issue as to whether we support decriminalization of marijuana. I mean, that that's an old debate. I think we've shown a strong commitment toward basically supporting this industry and making sure we regulate and tax and do all those kinds of things as well. At this point, we're also looking at trying to enrich our city and trying to educate our kids and trying to protect our neighborhoods. And so when we talk about the environmental impacts, we talk about the people impacts, we talk about its effect on poorer or underrepresented communities. There still remains a lot of policy work to do. And this, I think, is one of the very few times where the state are actually moving faster than we are from a city standpoint . So as they do their licenses, I think we are trying to figure this out. We also know that there are many neighboring cities as well trying to figure this out as well who may not get as many licenses. And so Seattle, being such a large city that we have an opportunity to be a leader in this industry, but to do it in a very smart and concerted way. So I think that both the race and social justice impacts of what we're trying to do, the environmental impacts we still have work to do. I want to support I want to voice my support to all of the industry participants out there, both on the medical side and recreational side for helping us create this industry. And we hope to be partners with you in the future. Are there any other comments on this bill as amended, just briefly? Councilmember Gonzalez. I also wanted to echo Councilmember O'Brien's gratitude to the mayor's office and to David Mendoza in particular, who has spent probably a countless number of hours working on this policy issue, both at the state level. And we're lucky enough to have him here at the city continuing to to provide us with his his knowledge around this particular industry and policy issues related to to to this new venture that we're on. I'm really pleased that this ordinance has passed. I think it's really critically important that we continue to foster an environment within the city of Seattle where we can create a competitive industry for retail marijuana businesses. And I think that the zoning law that we've just passed will do exactly that. Of course, we have a lot of other work to do to ensure that there are no disparate impacts based on race or social justice or other important factors. First and foremost will be tackling, I think, the delivery legal delivery services system to make sure that either they are folded into the system or that we are deploying city resources appropriately to ensure that those types of illicit markets aren't hurting. What the voters have said loud and clear is an industry we want and expect to flourish within our city, within the bounds of the law. So thank you to the mayor's office and thank you to the city council for for taking this step. Thank you for those comments. Councilmember Gonzalez. Hearing no further comments, I move the passage of Council Bill 118580 as amended and moved in second that council bill 118580 passed passed. Please call the roll on passage of the bill. Burgess. Gonzalez. Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien. Safwan Bagshaw. President Harrell I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next we'll have a report of the energy committee. Please read the report. Okay. And as the clerk prepares to read the energy bill, I will announce that the bill that we just a minute is not ready for the chair signature, but once it is ready. You'll be signing at that point? Yes. Are you ready for the energy report?