A major discussion point was the proposed ordinance amendment to regulate the sale of cannabis products in the B2 (commercial) and industrial districts by license type rather than zoning type. This shift aimed to clarify the types of cannabis activities allowed in these districts while aligning local regulations with state statutes. City Attorney Amanda Johnson outlined that the ordinance’s current language could inadvertently allow growing and manufacturing activities in the B2 district, which the proposed amendments sought to prevent. By focusing on specific licensing types, the city hopes to avoid confusion and maintain a clear regulatory framework.

Another topic was the inclusion of delivery services in the cannabis regulations. The commission debated whether to allow delivery services as a potential use in the B2 district, which was not previously addressed in the code. With the state’s rigorous standards for delivery services, including parking restrictions, the commission considered whether such services should be a primary or accessory use. Concerns were raised about parking availability and the number of delivery vehicles, leading to suggestions to explore alternative transportation methods like bicycles. Ultimately, participants expressed a desire to remain open to business opportunities by allowing delivery services, provided appropriate regulations were established.

The commission also discussed the registration process for cannabis businesses, proposing that only one cannabis retail shop be allowed in the city. This proposal sparked debate over whether such a restriction could lead to a monopoly and hinder future market opportunities. Although the current wording did not explicitly limit the number of retailers, the commission recommended clarifying the ordinance to restrict registration to one retail shop, regardless of the business type. The application process would be based on a first-come, first-served principle. The topic of social equity applicants, who would have priority in the licensing process, further complicated the discussion, as it could impact the number of licenses available to non-social equity applicants.

Further complexities arose when participants discussed the potential for cannabis businesses to engage in both retail and manufacturing activities within the same site, drawing parallels to the “tap room” model in the alcohol industry. Concerns about odor issues and the public safety implications of a cash-based business model were acknowledged, along with the need for adjustments to accommodate social equity applicants. The evolving landscape of the cannabis industry prompted suggestions for a workshop to further examine these issues.

The meeting also addressed the potential for temporary cannabis events, limited to the B2 and industrial districts. Questions were raised about the feasibility of such events, particularly outdoor events in public parks, given current regulations requiring indoor locations. The council expressed uncertainty about the current state of the cannabis market and whether these events would gain traction, noting the absence of successful examples in the local area.

Towards the end of the meeting, the commission proposed an ordinance change to incorporate mandatory annual age verification compliance checks for cannabis sales, aligning with existing statutes for tobacco and alcohol. A public hearing phase followed, but with no attendees present, the hearing was closed. Procedural clarifications highlighted the importance of maintaining a quorum for voting purposes, and the meeting concluded with a focus on refining cannabis retail and delivery regulations.