PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska. MINUTES OF January 4, :30 PM

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF January 4, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Tyler Robinson Jon Spring Gregory Brandon Walker Anthony Cange Andre Spinelli Danielle Bailey Stacey Dean Brandon Spoerhase Erika McConnell B. MINUTES 1. Monday, December 14, 2015 COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to approve the minutes. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. Spinelli, Cange, Walker,, Spring, Robinson, Bailey C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures COMMISSIONER STRIKE disclosed in Case that he was not in attendance for the initial meeting on December 14, 2015 and will recuse himself from participating.

2 January 4, 2016 Page 2 of 18 D. CONSENT AGENDA - 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Introduction for Public Hearings 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments 5. Other E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: (EBM) PETITIONER: Community Development Department Planning Municipality of Anchorage REQUEST: An ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code (new code) Title 21 to enable marijuana establishments, and amending Anchorage Municipal Code (old code) to enable retail marijuana stores in the downtown (Central Business District). Commissioner recused himself and left the meeting. CHAIR ROBINSON noted that the public hearing was held and closed on December 14, 2015, and explained that staff has prepared some suggested amendments based on previous discussion, and reminded the Commission and the public that the action this evening is to make a recommendation to the Anchorage Assembly. The Assembly would then introduce and hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance in the near future. ERIKA MCCONNELL provided responses to issues and presented drafted potential amendment language as requested by the Commission at the December 14, 2015 meeting. She addressed a significant change to Amendment 17 that relates to the separation distances, and noted that since the December 14 th meeting, it has come to light that the state regulations did not enact the federal drug free zone standards as being within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, vocational, or secondary school or a public or private college, junior college, or university, or a playground, or housing facility owned by a public housing authority, or within 100 feet of a public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility. Two sets of draft maps have been created and are currently displayed in the Chambers for everyone s viewing. Draft 2 of the maps show the separation distances as required by the state of Alaska regulations. Draft 3 of the maps show the separation distances that incorporate both state regulations and the federal drug free zones. COMMISSIONER WALKER withdrew his main motion which read, Moved in Case to recommend to the Assembly the amendments to Title 21 with the recommendations from staff. COMMISSIONER SPRING agreed to the withdrawal.

3 January 4, 2016 Page 3 of 18 COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Case to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending Title 21 to establish marijuana uses presented with a series of amendments and to act on each of the amendments individually. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. The amendments reflect the numbering sequence listed in the staff report, and not the actual numbering due to Amendments 1 and 2 being combined. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 1 to delete the T for marijuana retail sales establishment in the in the RO district, and combine with proposed Amendment 2 to delete the T for marijuana retail sales establishment in the CE-RO district. These are related as staff had pointed out. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING will be supporting the motion, and added that it will only be necessary to act on Amendment 1(a) if Amendments 1 and 2 are not approved. There are many instances where residential is located in RO zoning, and that is particularly true in Chugiak and downtown Eagle River, and the CE-RO zoning district. That is an overlay district in downtown, which is almost entirely residential. Marijuana sales establishments will most likely be allowed in a residential zone. It is clear that the remainder of the ordinance states that this is not a good idea because there are no other portions of the ordinance which allow marijuana sales in residential, so to be consistent these amendments should be approved. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI felt that marijuana retail sales has been happening in residential districts all day, every day from the beginning of time, and all of these will require a conditional use permit from the Assembly. He prefers to vote in favor of the least stringent rules and will not be supporting the amendment. In response to Commissioner Walker s question if alcohol sales is allowed in RO or CE-RO districts, MS. MCCONNELL explained that, in the new code, a restaurant is allowed, but not a liquor store. COMMISSIONER WALKER stated for that reason he will be supporting the motion. It makes sense to make this consistent; and he agreed with Board Member Spinelli to not go overboard in being restrictive because there is nothing that says this should be made less restrictive than alcohol, which seems to be working. FIRST AMENDMENT Cange, Walker, Spring, Robinson, Bailey Spinelli COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 3 to add the phrase, existence of marijuana or to the existing paragraph in subsection B.3. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING indicated this is more of a clerical issue just to maintain consistency. If this is not provided for, marijuana sales will be listed in the same category as adult book sales and strip clubs, which would require a separation of 1,000 feet.

4 January 4, 2016 Page 4 of 18 THIRD AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 4 to add a last sentence with the wording, For the purpose of this section, substantially different means any material change in the operation of the business which could result in significant impact on the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties by property owners or occupants. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING pointed out that this is another clerical change, and the consistency issue, substantially different is discussed in other sections of the code regarding liquor stores, does not have to be the same as liquor store regulations, but it does seem to make sense to remain consistent. Without this definition, it will be arbitrary how it is interpreted. FOURTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 5 to state, For Marijuana testing facility and Marijuana retail sales establishment in the CE-DO district, change T to T-B. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING noted this would be consistent with Amendment 1, which included deleting the T for marijuana retail sales establishments in the CE-RO district. This would limit the marijuana sales in that overlay district to just the B-3 zoning district, and not allow it in the DO, which had previously been denied. FIFTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 6 to add a last sentence that reads, If the applicant does not use the community council meeting as the community meeting, the applicant shall provide community council notice in accordance with subsection H.6. below. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded.

5 January 4, 2016 Page 5 of 18 SIXTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING added that Amendment 6 is in regard to the comment submitted by the Fairview Community Council to ensure that contact with the community council is not overlooked. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 7 to add marijuana cultivation facility to the R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, and R-10 districts and state the following: b.iv. Only cultivation facilities with a limited marijuana cultivation facility license from the state of Alaska are permitted in the residential districts indicated in tables and COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. COMMISSIONER WALKER asked if staff had suggested the 500 square foot maximum applying to all of the R-6 through R-10 zoning districts with regard to onsite horticulture in these districts because he does not think the Commission discussed this at the last meeting. MS. MCCONNELL replied that there was public testimony regarding the limited cultivation facility license which has the 500 square foot maximum, and it was of the opinion that the intent of that type of license was to allow people currently growing in their homes, to continue. If this was not the intent of the Commission, please amend it. COMMISSIONER WALKER conveyed that, in his opinion, it seems like the intent is to allow someone already in one of these large lot districts with five acres, and would like to grow a half-acre of marijuana, to go ahead. He added that 500 square feet seems like a limitation for an improved property rather than an unimproved property. From the photos, it looks like the density is much higher when grown indoors because it is being stacked versus spreading it out level outdoors. He is not sure if that should be considered. COMMISSIONER BAILEY noted that staff is not recommending supporting this amendment, but it is important to know that they are not automatically allowed in these areas and must go through the application process. Being as open as possible and allowing the application process to work is a better idea than just, outright, not allowing it into an area. She would be interested in hearing more discussion on the limited cultivation, but she will be supporting the motion. MS. MCCONNELL followed up on Commissioner Walker s comment and explained that, at this time, outdoor cultivation is not permitted. If the Commissioners were desirous of allowing outdoor cultivation, lines 45 through 50 on page 12 of the ordinance would need to be changed. The state regulations state that cultivation has to be indoors unless allowed to be outdoors by the local government. COMMISSIONER SPRING asked what current additional security requirements would the applicant have to meet anywhere that cultivation is allowed.

6 January 4, 2016 Page 6 of 18 CHAIR ROBINSON feels that two things are being confused with this amendment. One being heard during testimony that the idea with the larger lots is to actually allow an outdoor application; and the other testimony heard was regarding the marijuana cultivation 500 square foot limitation of an area that is similar to the size of a garage. He feels that if 500 square feet is going to be allowed on a large lot, why not allow it on a small lot; and added that he concurred with staff s recommendation to not support it at this time. MS. MCCONNELL referred to Article 7 of the state regulations, which are operating requirements for all marijuana establishments. Section 7-10, Restricted Access Area, states, A marijuana establishment shall restrict access to any part of the license premises where marijuana, or a marijuana product is grown, processed, tested, stored, or locked. Except as provided in the section about retail stores that states, Each entrance to a restricted access area must be marked by a sign that says restricted access area, visitors must be escorted. The licensed premises of a marijuana establishment must have exterior lighting to facilitate surveillance; a security alarm system on all exterior doors and windows; and continuous video monitoring are some of the requirements of the state regulations. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI asked for clarification that if the Commission were to approve this amendment in the R-6 or R-7, or maybe in larger undeveloped parcels, and, for example, there were several hundred acre sites on the hillside that have been deemed undevelopable for residential because the cost of the infrastructure outweighs the profitability of the development, would a marijuana facility that was located in the middle of undeveloped area surrounded by woods and creeks and topography be considered restricted, and how would the property be defined as restricted. MS. MCCONNELL expressed that she was not able to speak on behalf of the state and how they would interpret that. COMMISSIONER SPRING asked if horticulture is allowed in the R-6 through R-10 districts. MS. MCCONNELL replied that commercial horticulture is a conditional use in the R-1, R-1A, R-2A, R-2D, R-2M, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, and R-9 districts. COMMISSIONER SPRING believes he will vote in favor of this amendment. There is a lack of industrial space, warehousing space, but there is an ample supply of single-family large lots; and this seems like a good use of the land instead of something more valuable such as industrial. If the people are going to be allowed to smoke marijuana, they should also be allowed to grow it. He is convinced that the same security arrangements will be applied as any other cultivation facilities. People might be concerned that there will be those that attempt burglarizing places due to the remoteness, but this is a useful amendment to consider. SEVENTH AMENDMENT Spinelli, Walker, Spring, Bailey Cange, Robinson FAILED COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 8 to allow retail stores in the R-1 district. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded.

7 January 4, 2016 Page 7 of 18 COMMISSIONER SPRING expressed that he is more in favor of this change than when it was discussed at the previous meeting due to the new information provided regarding the federal requirements for setbacks from other facilities such as playgrounds and schools, and the 1,000 feet. It seems to be pinching the retail sales opportunities a little too tight. He realizes and understands the concern in R-1 with preserving the land for industrial, but R-1 will continue to be developed as retail, and will not suddenly change into not becoming retail. This is an appropriate use, in fact, these might be better sites for marijuana retail since they are probably further from residential and churches. Maybe it will be less offensive to neighborhoods as a result. Commissioner Spring inadvertently stated the R-1 district in his motion and findings, but Chair Robinson restated that Amendment 8 is to allow retail stores in the I-1 district. EIGHTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 9 to allow retail stores in the I-2 district with a footnote referencing the following standard: b.vi. A marijuana retail sales establishment is permitted in the I-2 district when collocated with and attached to a marijuana cultivation facility or a marijuana manufacturing facility. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING believes staff has a good point regarding the separation. It did not occur to him that it would be a problem because his assumption was that if they were to collocate, they would be, basically, in the same building with a wall separating them. This could be abused, somewhat, if a person wanted to establish a marijuana sales in an industrial zone, and possibly have a small cultivation with a large retail. NINTH AMENDMENT Spinelli, Cange, Walker, Spring, Robinson, Bailey COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 10 to allow Separation from Protected Land Uses, as noted below with the deleted language marked as stricken and the added language has been documented in bold letters. 2.a. All marijuana establishments shall be located at least 500 feet away from the following uses: ia. Community centers. iib. Neighborhood recreation centers.

8 January 4, 2016 Page 8 of 18 iiic. Religious assemblies. ivd. Boarding schools. ve. College or university. vif, Elementary or middle schools. viig. High schools. h. Homeless and transient shelters. i. Dedicated parks. viiij Correctional institutions. ix. Athletic fields. x. Playgrounds. k. Habilitative care facilities xil. Correctional community residential centers. 2.b. This distance shall be measured by the shortest pedestrian route from the entrance to the proposed marijuana establishment to the closest lot line of a school, community center, neighborhood recreation center, to the edge of a playground or athletic field (including abutting parking lots), and any dedicated park, and to the main public entrance of any other use listed above. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. TENTH AMENDMENT RECUSED; COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 11 to add, The concentration of marijuana facilities within a 1,000 foot radius of the proposed facility is appropriate. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING expressed that his concern was regarding a requirement to put information in the license application pertaining to the 1,000 foot, but there was no direction as to how that was to be treated by the Assembly upon review. He assumed the reason for including that information on the application was, in some cases, there might be a problem with concentrating marijuana sales in a small area, and he believes that will happen. Most of the applicants will seek low rent facilities finding that there will be certain areas that are cheaper than others (resulting in a congregation in those areas) in order for their business to be profitable. Downtown rent is too expensive, but Spenard Road and Muldoon Road might be more reasonable creating a concentration of these sales outlets in areas with no restrictions in place. He indicated that he had done research on Washington State s ordinances, and not every city enacted regulations, but deferred action to a later date. Belleview and Vancouver imposed a separation distance between the retail with one having a 1,000 foot separation, and the other having a 300 foot separation. At a minimum, it needs to be clarified that the Assembly can deny an application if there appears to be a concentration in one area, but, currently, no criterion specifies that. For example, the Assembly should be allowed to deny marijuana sales for a certain area stating that too many already exist in a two-block radius. COMMISSIONER CANGE agreed, but thinks the markets should be allowed to decide where the facilities will be

9 January 4, 2016 Page 9 of 18 located. If a poor establishment exists and another marijuana facility is only a short distance away then that is a much better establishment. The market will tend to drive the sales, and it would be difficult to put multiple limitations in B-3 areas. CHAIR ROBINSON explained that this basically says that concentrations of marijuana facilities within a 1,000 foot radius can be considered. It is vague, and does not stipulate a number or an exact distance, but does leave it to contemplation if an area were to be overly concentrated. In response to Commissioner Walker regarding alcohol or packaged liquor sales concentration rules, MS. MCCONNELL noted that they have the same type of required notification to the Assembly of all licenses within the 1,000 foot radius. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT Spring Robinson, Walker, Cange, Spinelli, Bailey FAILED COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment12 to add, A list of pesticides, herbicides, and/or fungicides that may be used in the facility. FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER SPRING does not feel it is appropriate to address pesticides in this particular ordinance, but he believes it is a real problem with respect to public health. He would like to give notice to the Assembly that this problem should be addressed, and would like to introduce that through a resolution at the end of the meeting. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 13 to allow manufacturing facilities in the B-3 district with a footnote referencing the standard below: iii. Marijuana manufacturing facilities that only manufacture edibles, but do not have extraction facilities or other types of manufacturing, are permitted in the B-3 district. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING feels the Commission was trying to deal with the distinction between bakeries and manufacturing of the cultivated plants. It seemed to him, that renting or utilizing an existing bakery would not be a noxious use and could fit into a B-3 district, but is now only allowed in the I-1 districts. It is getting somewhat difficult to address this amendment, and he feels it should just be considered as a food processing facility as it is currently addressed. He will not be supporting this amendment. COMMISSIONER BAILEY thinks the main concern is to not allow these areas to be open to the public, but if the business is able to control that on its own then there would not be a conflict. She will be voting in favor based on the earlier comments Commissioner Spring suggested, and based on the fact that the business will have to follow an application process, and will be responsible for keeping the public out of those areas in which edibles will be used. COMMISSIONER WALKER suggested that some consideration should be given to the odor. It might be allowable if the baking consists of a product that has already been extracted, but certain types of cooking could create a significant odor. He is conditionally supporting the

10 January 4, 2016 Page 10 of 18 amendment, but not supporting it as written. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI asked staff if the code already limits noxious gases, smells or odors. MS. MCCONNELL replied that there are restrictions on operating standards that create dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable conditions that would create adverse impacts on the residents, employees, or visitors on the property itself, or on nearby properties. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI believes the code already addresses odors, and the ability to remedy it if complaints are received. MS. MCCONNELL noted that she provided information from the Municipal Department of Health and Human Services as to how they address odor complaints. It is a difficult issue to address because there is no measurable tool to determine if there is a problem, or to what extreme the problem is. She added that the standard on page 12 of the ordinance states that the premise shall be ventilated so that the odor of marijuana can not be detected by a person with a normal sense of smell at any lot line of the subject property. The special land use takes place prior to the use actually being established so no one knows what level the odor will be at the time of the application evaluation. She also noted that the license gets renewed, not the land use approval, but if a problem were to exist, it would most likely be addressed, and if the license is not renewed, neither would the land use approval. COMMISSIONER BAILEY will be supporting the amendment because the original reason for this was to create some consistency between a bakery and other companies producing edibles that did not appear to have any main distinction between the two, and to categorically allow and promote one business while not doing the same for another did not seem to make sense. In addition, she thinks it also mentions being for one that does not have extraction facilities, and based on the comments received and her research, that is a process that is more engaged and has the odor from cultivation extraction, not from the actual manufacturing of the edibles. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT Robinson, Walker, Cange, Spinelli, Bailey Spring COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 14 to allow cultivation facilities in the B-3 district. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI seconded. COMMISSIONER WALKER mentioned that it was discussed earlier to add possible language that included if they were collocated with retail and asked if that was Commissioner Spring s intent. COMMISSIONER SPRING replied that a previous amendment was approved allowing retail stores to be currently collocated in the I-1 district. COMMISSIONER WALKER repeated that discussion took place that, basically, makes this amendment contingent on being collocated with retail. CHAIR ROBINSON clarified that it was in the context of staff s comment of non-support, but was introduced into the discussion as a way to open up the use in a more civic friendly manner. COMMISSIONER WALKER implied that he would support it with that language. COMMISSIONER BAILEY moved to amend Amendment 14 to allow cultivation facilities in the B-3 district if they are collocated with, and attached to a marijuana retail establishment. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded.

11 January 4, 2016 Page 11 of 18 COMMISSIONER BAILEY added that this addresses the concerns that staff has and maintains the business neighborhood, while also allowing something to take place where there is currently not enough space. COMMISSIONER CANGE will be supporting the motion. He pointed out that this was supported by public testimony heard at the previous meeting. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT 14 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS AMENDED COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 15 to add, The neighborhood responsibility plan shall, at a minimum, address the following: (A) Establishing a point of contact, whose name and contact information shall be clearly posted on the outside of the store. (B) A schedule of outreach to the surrounding area (residents and property owners within 500 feet) and/or the community council, to be not less than one contact per year. (C) A discussion of how problems/issues/disputes brought forward by neighbors will be addressed, such as meeting with the complainant or discussing the issue at a community council meeting. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI seconded. COMMISSIONER CANGE feels that while the intent of this may appear to be good, the Commission does not make this a requirement of any other business. He will not support hindering a legal business with this type of plan. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI indicated that this requirement is already in the code, and this motion only clarifies what the requirement actually is. If he understands this correctly, the amendment would fail and an additional motion would be made to remove the neighborhood responsibility plan altogether, and if so, he would support that. CHAIR ROBINSON restated that the pending motion is for staff s clarification, which gets back to the nebulous neighborhood responsibility plan for approval or denial. He added that the denial or removal of this neighborhood responsibility plan does not take away the issue of notice to the community councils, but is simply a plan that, at this point, is not well-defined. He will not support it. Testimony was previously heard where this has been utilized for other

12 January 4, 2016 Page 12 of 18 uses in the community. He would be in favor of a process that adds multiple uses that are causing problems in the neighborhood, but only with more concrete roles and responsibilities and not just between a private business owner and a community, and one that also involves triparty with the Municipality as well. He also believes some of those protections are already in place. COMMISSIONER SPRING added that licenses are renewed annually allowing the opportunity to address these issues through the Assembly without a neighborhood responsibility plan. FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT Spring Robinson, Walker, Cange, Spinelli, Bailey FAILED COMMISSIONER SPRING asked for clarification that the amendment was to eliminate the responsibility plan altogether. CHAIR ROBINSON explained the amendment just voted on was for staff s recommendation, and he thinks it would be appropriate to address the full responsibility plan, if the Commission so desires, or to allow it as originally written. COMMISSIONER CANGE moved in Amendment 15(a) to remove the neighborhood responsibility plan from the ordinance. COMMISSIONER BAILEY seconded. COMMISSIONER CANGE intends to support the motion. The Commission has had discussion over the neighborhood responsibility plan being vague and, at this point, he will not support the task of putting this on a business owner. FIFTEENTH (A) AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 16 to remove marijuana sales establishments from the B-1A and B-1B zoning districts. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING may have a conflict with this because he lives in an area that has a B-1B zone, and even though there are not many, they are in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He thinks it is a great zoning district and wishes there were more, but he is not sure it is a good idea if they are not being allowed in residential districts, to permit them in a neighborhood business district, which is almost inevitably in the middle of a residential district. For these reasons, he will be supporting the amendment. CHAIR ROBINSON will also be supporting this amendment.

13 January 4, 2016 Page 13 of 18 SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT Robinson, Spring, Walker, Cange, Bailey Spinelli COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 17 for changes to the Separation from Protected Land Uses to add and strike the following language to AMC A.2.: a. All marijuana establishments shall be located at least 1,000 feet away from the following uses: i. Boarding school. ii. College or university. iii. Elementary or middle school. iv. High school. v. Playground. vi. A housing facility owned by a public housing authority. b. All marijuana establishments shall be located at least 500 feet away from the following uses: ia. Community centers. iib. Neighborhood recreation centers. iiic. Religious assemblies. d. Boarding Schools. e. College or university. f. Elementary or middle schools. g. High schools. h. Homeless and transient shelters. i. Dedicated parks. iv. Correctional institutions. v. Athletic fields. k. Habilitative care facilities. vi. Correctional community residential centers. c. All marijuana establishments shall be located at least 100 feet away from video arcades with at least 10 arcade machines. d. Adding the phrase, center, to the edge of a playground or athletic field (including abutting parking lots). COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING noted that this is intended to comply with federal requirements for drug free zones, and according to staff it appears that an option does not exist other than to approve it. Attorney General Cole s memorandum expressed the fact that local marijuana laws will not be interfered with as long as it does not conflict with federal laws, or fail to protect children. He thinks it is prudent to avoid the controversy over future problems by addressing

14 January 4, 2016 Page 14 of 18 this. He did have an issue regarding the process if a school was to move into the radius of a marijuana sales business, but that seems like it would not comply with the intent of the federal requirements because he does not believe the federal government would make an exception if it existed before or after. He suggested having the Municipal Attorney review this to determine if a problem would exist. CHAIR ROBINSON noted that the issue was well stated, and he thinks there is less concern regarding new schools being constructed given Anchorage s population projections, but the arcades might prove to be problematic. He is hoping this would be considered as a finding that the Municipality would contemplate what would happen in that situation. SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT MS. MCCONNELL informed the Commission that the passage of Amendment 17 basically invalidated the passage of Amendment 10. CHAIR ROBINSON asked for clarification that Amendment 10 was striking certain uses that are still shown as stricken in this amendment. Ms. McConnell concurred, but this amendment reorganizes some of the uses that are not stricken into the 1,000 foot, the 500 foot, and the 100 foot, so it supersedes Amendment 10. CHAIR ROBINSON stated that this amendment honors those deleted in Amendment 10. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 18 to edit AMC A.2.d to read, This distance shall be measured from the lot line of the proposed marijuana establishment to the edge of a playground or athletic field (including abutting parking lots), or to the closest lot line of any other use listed above. Those uses are listed in Amendment 17. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI will not be supporting the motion. He feels that it would simplify many things by measuring from the lot line, but he cannot support further restricting something, in his opinion, that is overly restricted already. COMMISSIONER BAILEY will also not be supporting the amendment. Especially because it deals with industrial areas consisting of large complexes, and if they are connected to another area it will further restrict them for no reason other than to make it easier for the Municipality to administrate it. If the application process is being followed, the petitioner will have to show compliance. EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT Spring, Walker Robinson, Cange, Spinelli, Bailey FAILED

15 January 4, 2016 Page 15 of 18 COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 19 related to AMC A.5. regarding the Inspection of Premises to read, All premises of all marijuana establishments shall be open for the inspection and examination by the Municipality at any reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Amendment 20 to urge the State of Alaska Marijuana Control Board to provide clear information about acceptable pesticide usage to cannabis growers. Growers should be informed that the only acceptable pesticides are those that are listed as minimum risk in the FIFRA Section 25(b) exempt from EPA tolerances, and accepted for use in organic practice. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING would like the Commission to recommend forwarding a resolution to the Assembly in conjunction with the ordinance recommendation pertaining to pesticide use on cannabis cultivation. He explained that, following the proposal of the previous amendment, it would be more appropriate for this to be addressed through the state of Alaska. Currently, there are no pesticides approved for cultivation of cannabis. It is not allowed because it is illegal, under federal law, to grow cannabis and therefore, the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act does not cover it. Medical marijuana states as well as recreational states are scrambling to deal with this, and are experiencing problems. The problem he sees is that there is no control over pesticides, and it will be used in the growing of marijuana plants. Insects, mites and fungus grow on these plants especially when grown indoors. It is inevitable and has been proven in other states that pesticides are used, but not all pesticides are harmful to people. A study in Oregon, relating to testing of the flowers that are used for smoking and the concentrates used in the manufacturing products, revealed some concentrates of residual registered pesticides that are potentially harmful to humans. The study showed 29 percent of the flowers had a detectable level of pesticides and 55 percent was detected in the concentrates. Moreover, 14 percent of the flowers had failed the EPA standard for pesticides in crops that are used by humans, and 46 percent failed in the concentrates. This is a recommendation that was delivered by the Cannabis Institute and was based on the study mentioned earlier, and is basically telling the marijuana control board to immediately recognize and address this concern. His concern with approving this ordinance is that the pesticides have not been regulated and are potentially jeopardizing the health of Anchorage citizens. CHAIR ROBINSON clarified that this amendment will accompany the ordinance as amended, as an additional resolution. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI expressed that he does not want to over-regulate the marijuana industry, but he also does not want to poison people. He will be supporting the motion. COMMISSIONER BAILEY thinks the proposed amendment is honorable and admired Commissioner Spring s research, but she is not comfortable suggesting a blanket overhaul of what can or cannot be allowed when no evidence has been presented to the Commission to support it. She has no expertise in this subject, and will not be supporting the motion. COMMISSIONER WALKER agreed that the Commissioners have no expertise in this matter, but not wanting to poison people he will be supporting the resolution to recommend something that was overlooked, and definitely requires more scrutiny.

16 January 4, 2016 Page 16 of 18 TWENTIETH AMENDMENT Robinson, Spring, Walker, Cange, Spinelli Bailey CHAIR ROBINSON restated the main motion as amended is a recommendation to the Anchorage Assembly to adopt an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code (new code) Title 21 to enable marijuana establishments, and amending the Anchorage Municipal Code (old code) to enable retail marijuana stores in the downtown (Central Business District). MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED COMMISSIONER SPRING commended staff, the Municipal Assembly, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission that worked on the ordinance. This was extremely difficult and he would not be surprised to see future amendments as it progresses. He hopes the Assembly considers the recommendations thoroughly since most were based on important issues heard during public testimony with a few additional recommendations not originally considered by the public or staff. CHAIR ROBINSON added that decent representation was heard during public testimony from the industry with a few from neighborhoods and communities. He had expected more discussion from the neighborhoods, themselves, while knowing that this is an ordinance that has been expedited due to a timeline required by the state, although the state s process was slow in getting the regulations to the Municipality. One was received from the Midtown Community Council indicating they had not had the opportunity to discuss it, and the available areas include Midtown. He recommended to everyone to attend the Assembly hearing and testify. He also appreciated staff s analysis and agreed that changes will take place during the process. F. REGULAR AGENDA - 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Introduction for Public Hearings 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments

17 January 4, 2016 Page 17 of Other G. PUBLIC HEARINGS - H. APPEARANCE REQUEST - I. REPORTS 1. Chair CHAIR ROBINSON recognized Ms. McConnell as this is her last meeting before the Commission and was appreciative of her support. 2. Secretary 3. Committee a. Title 21 Committee - Robinson b. Design Criteria Manual Committee c. Long Range RPF & Policies & Procedures Committee d. Permitting Process Streamlining Committee e. AMATS Committee - Spring f. Airport Master Plan Committee - Robinson g. U-Med District Plan Committee - Walker h. Wetlands - i. Interaction with Assembly j. Budget Finance Work Committee - Spring, J. TITLE 21 DISCUSSION - K. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS -

18 January 4, 2016 Page 18 of 18 L. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER WALKER moved to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. Hearing no objections, the meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m.