The Colusa Planning Commission last week said they expect an update to the city’s cannabis ordinance to take several more months.
The new ordinance, as proposed by city staff, calls for marijuana dispensaries to be allowed to operate in the city. The new ordinance will also align local regulations to match those of the state, as well as include the ban on cannabis operations in the downtown to align with the agreement the city made with Colusa County in exchange for annexation of Colusa Industrial Properties into city limits.
“My personal belief is this is going to be an ongoing process,” said Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Richard Selover, who conducted the continued public hearing on Oct. 13. “There is nothing on fire. There is no hurry to make this happen.”
While people spoke for and against the city allowing retail cannabis storefronts, Commissioners said they plan to consider the new ordinance to bring the city’s cannabis regulations up to date cautiously, as state allowances for marijuana retail stores are not mandatory.
At issue is not just the city allowing or prohibiting the “retail” distribution of marijuana or the possibility of allowing cannabis “micro-businesses,” but an update to the developer agreements, in general, for future cannabis manufacturers.
The Planning Commission said they may want to add “more teeth” that would allow the city to better enforce code violations, including odors, which has plagued the city since the first legal marijuana manufacturing company opened downtown.
In addition to the state merging three different state programs into one state department that will license, inspect, and regulate all cannabis activity in California, the state also expanded authorization under the “micro-business license” to allow cannabis cultivation and processing to be combined with retail sales on property under 10,000 square feet.
Planning Commissioners said allowing micro-businesses in the downtown would violate the agreement with Colusa County, especially since the state eliminated the requirement that different activities at a micro-business be separated by walls or barriers.
William Zapata, who owns a cannabis cultivation and delivery service in Colusa, is very much in favor of the city allowing retail storefronts downtown.
He was one of two people at the hearing that said cannabis businesses should be treated no differently than alcohol or tobacco stores, and that the state is encouraging cities to allow retail stores to provide manufacturers a broader market to move product.
“There is a crisis in California with farmers not being able to sell product because there is not enough retail available,” Zapata said. “So, we have a bunch of farmers in Colusa who are looking to sell their product.”
Zapata said that while he has a successful delivery service, he and other cannabis producers are missing out on travelers who pass through Colusa on their way to the coast or casino. And while delivery does well, producers lack the ability to assist their customers who need help with cannabis selection, as different products are available for pain as opposed to hallucinogens for recreational use.
“It takes a budtender to explain what (people) need…” Zapata said. “With a storefront, you actually do demos, where companies can come in with the products and show you what works. I think it would be a great thing for Colusa. I would be a candidate who would like to apply for this if it goes through. I have a downtown location that would actually be very suitable for this. I just think the city is missing out on a lot of tax revenue.”
Zapata disagreed with any notion that the city would become a “weed mecca” or that Colusa could capitalize on the cannabis industry as a tourist opportunity, as most surrounding cities are moving to allow storefronts, which Zapata urged Colusa to consider to keep local customers from traveling out of town for personalized service.
“Right now, we operate like Amazon,” Zapata said. “You place an order online and a package shows up at your back door. You can’t do a demo and explain the product and show (people) the health benefits of this plant when you are delivery only. That is a big perk of having a storefront.”
The City of Colusa is currently conducting a survey to get a pulse on what residents want, although how much weight the Planning Commission gives the informal procedure is unknown.
As of last week, 428 people said retail dispensaries should be allowed, compared to 267 people who opposed, but neither the Survey Monkey nor paper survey have controls on who takes the survey, how many times they vote from different devices, or whether they are a verifiable Colusa resident.
The survey also blocked those opposed to storefronts from answering how many dispensaries should be allowed, if the City Council should approve retail sales, or where they should be located in the city.
As of last week, 51.5 percent of those who were allowed to vote on the number of retail stores said only two should be allowed, compared to 28 percent who said only one store should be allowed. About 10 percent said three stores; 3.7 percent said four stores; and 6.3 percent said five or more.
About 50 percent of those who were allowed to vote on location said they were in favor of storefronts downtown; about 50 percent said on industrial or light industrial property only.
Those who spoke at the public hearing in opposition to retail weed shops said the businesses would change the historic nature and quaintness of Colusa, especially in the downtown.
“We take pride in the nature of Colusa and we intend to help it stay that way,” said Loni Gross, who, with her husband, owns several downtown properties and historical homes. “When I look at other small towns that have let retail cannabis in, Clear Lake area, Weaverville…they are not places I would want to live, visit, or invest my money in. As you go into these towns, the billboards alone advertising the retail shops ruin the aesthetics of the town.”
Janice Bell, who spoke at the last public hearing, reiterated her position that delivery services were working, they were discreet, and they were sufficient to serve local cannabis consumers without Colusa allowing public storefronts for marijuana.
“The state is not telling you that you have to accept it or change your ordinances – and the state does not encourage people to change their ordinances. They have a structure and if it’s in the structure that you need to do so, then you have to do so. I know the city has to update their ordinance, but you do not have to include an ordinance for dispensaries. That is misunderstood information.”
Those in favor of storefronts did not believe cannabis retail shops would necessarily diminish from Colusa’s historical nature, because the city could regulate all signs and the appearance of the stores.
But unlike the locked doors and blackened windows common with downtown cannabis manufactures, the marijuana stores would likely be highly visible to passersby, and open for anyone 21 and older (or 18 with a marijuana recommendation) to walk up, walk in, and purchase marijuana.
“Just because everyone else is doing this, it does not mean that it is going to happen here or will work here,” said Colusa County Superintendent of Schools Mike West. “This is a pleasant community. It is a small town. We came here, we raised our kids here, they are safe here. We don’t need this. As superintendent of schools, there is no way I am ever going to stand up and say it is OK to have dispensaries or cannabis products anywhere in the city of Colusa or in the county. It is my job to protect those students, and the 5,000 kids that are here don’t need this distraction. They have a tough enough time growing up as it is with other issues going on.”
Public members encouraged the Planning Commission to use caution in updating their ordinance, and reminded them of the promises the marijuana companies made originally, which never came to fruition.
“The bottom line is if there is no enforcement, then it’s only going to get worse here,” said Colusa resident Don Bransford. “There is not one of us who spends any time out walking that can walk in fresh air the whole time. If you can’t address the enforcement, you don’t want anything more here because you’re not managing what you have now.”
The Planning Commission decision on the ordinance will be just one step in the process, and Commissioners encouraged the public to stay involved. The Planning Commission said they want to make sure cannabis developers go through the required audits and inspections, and that they may also look at changing future agreements to receive more than 3 percent of the gross receipts.
“I would like Colusa to go on the map for saying we want more than 3 percent because we are dealing with the problems more than the state is,” Commissioner Dick Armocido said. “I would like Colusa to stand up and say that 3 percent isn’t enough for our city…Considering all the other aspects of the costs we incur.”
Commissioner Selover said the Planning Commission will ultimately make a recommendation on a new ordinance to the City Council, but that the council will be the final authority.
“Don’t get bored; keep going to meetings,” Selover reminded the public. “You will have to attend those meetings as well. The City Council doesn’t always care what (the Commission’s) feelings are, so make sure you keep your public voice heard.”
The Planning Commission also requested city staff to change the survey to allow all residents, whether for or against retail pot shops, to weigh in on all the questions.
The public hearing was continued to 7 PM on Oct. 27. ■