Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2020_11_24_AgendaPacket CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA * COVID-19 NOTICE * Consistent with Executive Orders N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the San Luis Obispo County Health Official’s March 18, 2020 Shelter at Home Order, the City Council Meeting will not be physically open to the public and City Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. HOW TO OBSERVE THE MEETING: To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, the meeting will be live-streamed on SLO-SPAN.org, on Spectrum cable Channel 20 in Atascadero, and on KPRL Radio 1230AM. The video recording of the meeting will repeat daily on Channel 20 at 1:00 am, 9:00 am, and 6:00 pm and will be available through the City’s website or by visiting https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/rt/8539114475191636236. HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are highly encouraged to call 805-538-2888 to listen and provide public comment via phone, or submit written public comments to cityclerk@atascadero.org by 5:00 pm on the day of the meeting. Such email comments must identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of the email. The comments will be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor’s discretion. All comments should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATIONS: Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@atascadero.org or by calling 805-470-3400 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed. The City will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to afford as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. City Council agendas and minutes may be viewed on the City's website: www.atascadero.org. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection on our website, www.atascadero.org. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The Minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the Minutes and available for review by contacting the City Clerk's office. All documents will be available for public inspection during City Hall business hours once City Hall is open to the public following the termination of the Shelter at Home Order. Page 1 of 103 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, November 24, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Fonzi ROLL CALL: Mayor Moreno Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau Council Member Fonzi Council Member Funk Council Member Newsom APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call Recommendation: Council: 1. Approve this agenda; and 2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before the City Council votes. PRESENTATIONS: None. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.) 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – November 10, 2020  Recommendation: Council approve the November 10, 2020 Draft City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk] City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. Page 2 of 103 2. October 2020 Accounts Payable and Payroll  Fiscal Impact: $2,764,004.52  Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for October 2020. [Administrative Services] 3. Conflict of Interest Code - Biennial Review  Fiscal Impact: None.  Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution, updating and amending the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Atascadero. [City Clerk] UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any current issues of concern to the City Council.) COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need information may contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at (805) 470-3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Discussion of Proposed Pickleball Courts at Colony Park  Fiscal Impact: None.  Recommendation: Council provide feedback and staff direction regarding the proposed Pickleball Courts at Colony Park.[Public Works] 2. Cannabis Regulations Update Discussion (CPP 2020-0011)  Fiscal Impact: None.  Recommendation: Council direct staff to conduct further analyses on commercial cannabis uses and/or draft ordinance language to amend Title 9-Chapter 15 of the Zoning Regulations to allow for limited commercial cannabis uses. [Community Development] 4. CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project Construction Award  Fiscal Impact: $386,296.00  Recommendations: Council: 1. Reject the bid protest of JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. and award the contract for the construction of the CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project to G. Sosa Construction, Inc. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with G. Sosa Construction, Inc. for $286,385 to construct the CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project. [Public Works] Page 3 of 103 D. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion of COVID 19 issues including oral updates by Mayor Moreno and City Manager Rickard, questions by City Council, public comment and comments by City Council. 1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – Mayor Moreno 2. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – City Manager Rickard E. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): Mayor Moreno 1. City Selection Committee 2. County Mayors Round Table 3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau 1. City / Schools Committee 2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 4. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) Council Member Fonzi 1. Air Pollution Control District 2. Atascadero Basin Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSA) 3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 4. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Council Member Funk 1. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 2. Homeless Services Oversight Council 3. League of California Cities – Council Liaison Council Member Newsom 1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board 2. City / Schools Committee 3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 4. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: (Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager Page 4 of 103 ADJOURN Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. Page 5 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council November 10, 2020 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, November 10, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. Mayor Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Council Member Funk led the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Member Fonzi, Funk, and Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau, Treasurer Sibbach, and Staff wished Mayor Moreno a Happy Birthday. ROLL CALL: Present: By Teleconference - Council Members Fonzi, Funk, and Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau, and Mayor Moreno Absent: None Others Present: City Treasurer Gere Sibbach Staff Present: By Teleconference – City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Interim Police Chief Robert Molle, Fire Chief Casey Bryson, Administrative Services Director Jeri Rangel, Public Works Director Nick DeBar, Community Development Director Phil Dunsmore, City Attorney Brian Pierik, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Lara Christensen, and IT Manager Luke Knight APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Newsom and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to: 1. Approve this agenda; and, City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. Page 6 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council November 10, 2020 Page 2 of 5 2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before the City Council votes. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. PRESENTATIONS: None. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – October 27, 2020  Recommendation: Council approve the October 27, 2020 Draft City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk] 2. September 2020 Investment Report  Fiscal Impact: None  Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer’s report for quarter ending September 30, 2020. [City Treasurer] 3. Community Facilities District 2005-1 Annexation Nos. 21 & 22  Fiscal Impact: None. Assessments for the Curbaril annexation are estimated to be between $2,800 - $3,000 annually beginning in fiscal year 2021-2022, and adjusted each year for inflation. Assessments for the Grand Oaks Paseo annexation are estimated to be between $19,000 - $20,000 annually beginning in fiscal year 2021-2022, and adjusted each year for inflation. Deed restricted affordable units are exempt from the special tax.  Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance A, authorizing the levy of special taxes in Community Facilities District 2005-1 for certain annexation territory identified as Annexation No. 21. 2. Adopt on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance B, authorizing the levy of special taxes in Community Facilities District 2005-1 for certain annexation territory identified as Annexation No. 22. [Community Development] 4. Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant Program  Fiscal Impact: Adoption of the Draft Resolution will allow the City to receive up to $104,053 in jurisdictional REAP grant funds for City planning activities and allows the City to act as the lead agency for regional REAP grant funds in the amount of $181,000 to develop ADU stock plans.  Recommendation: Council approve Draft Resolution authorizing application for and entering into agreements for the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant program funds with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). [Community Development] MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau to approve the Consent Calendar. (#A-3: Ordinance Nos. 642 and 643) (#A-4: Resolution No. 2020-078) Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Page 7 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council November 10, 2020 Page 3 of 5 UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: City Manager Rachelle Rickard gave an update on projects and issues within the City. COMMUNITY FORUM: The following citizens spoke by telephone during Community Forum: Brenda Mack B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 2021-2028 Housing Element Final Draft Plan (CPP19-0067)  Fiscal Impact: None. While review of potential Housing Element policies does not have a direct fiscal impact, changes in land-use policies will generally produce an overall positive or negative fiscal impact for the City depending on the policy.  Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution, adopting the 2021-2028 Housing Element and submit the element to the State for certification, based on findings. [Community Development] Ex Parte Communications Though no recent communications have occurred on this item, Mayor Moreno and Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau reported speaking with Max Zappas previously. All other Council Members reported having no communications on this item. Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. Genevieve Sharrow, MIG, also gave a presentation and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke by telephone on this item: None Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member Funk to adopt Resolution No. 2020-079, adopting the 2021-2028 Housing Element and submit the element to the State for certification, based on findings. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Atascadero Mall Plaza Construction Award  Fiscal Impact: $1,091,700.00  Recommendations: Council: 1. Council discuss and direct staff on desired design revisions for the Atascadero Mall Plaza Project. Page 8 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council November 10, 2020 Page 4 of 5 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Kirk Construction in an amount not to exceed $819,344.50 for the constructi on of the Atascadero Mall Plaza Project subject to project design revisions as identified by Council 3. Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate up to an additional $616,700 in Public Facilities Fees Fund balance for FY20/21 toward the Atascadero Mall Plaza project subject to project design revisions as identified by Council. [Public Works] Public Works Director DeBar and Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Moreno recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Mayor Moreno reconvened the meeting with everyone present at 8:25 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke by telephone on this item: None Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Newsom and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to: 1. Council noted that the desired design revisions for the Atascadero Mall Plaza Project are to replace concrete seat walls and eliminate decorative fencing and replace with bollards (potential design revision options 3 and 5, respectively, as presented at the meeting). 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Contract No. 2020-013 with Kirk Construction in an amount not to exceed $819,344.50 for the construction of the Atascadero Mall Plaza Project subject to project design revisions as identified by Council. 3. Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate up to an additional $616,700 in Parkland Impact Fees Fund balance for FY20/21 toward the Atascadero Mall Plaza project subject to project design revisions as identified by Council. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. D. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion of COVID 19 issues including oral updates by Mayor Moreno and City Manager Rickard, questions by City Council, public comment and comments by City Council. 1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – Mayor Moreno 2. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – City Manager Rickard Mayor Moreno provided updates on Coronavirus (COVID-19) and answered questions from the Council. Page 9 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council November 10, 2020 Page 5 of 5 PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. E. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: The following Council Members made brief announcements and gave brief update reports on their committees since their last Council meeting: Mayor Moreno 1. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 2. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 3. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau 1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) Council Member Fonzi 1. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 2. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Council Member Funk 1. Homeless Services Oversight Council Council Member Newsom 1. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None G. ADJOURN Mayor Moreno adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Lara K. Christensen Deputy City Manager/City Clerk APPROVED: Page 10 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-2DATE: 11/24/20Page 11 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 3822 10/01/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 7,725.06Payroll Vendor Payment 165588 10/01/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165589 10/01/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,916.25Payroll Vendor Payment 165590 10/01/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 165591 10/01/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,963.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165592 10/01/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 344.38Payroll Vendor Payment 165593 10/01/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165594 10/01/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 806.49Payroll Vendor Payment 165595 10/01/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 165596 10/01/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 4,228.47Payroll Vendor Payment 165597 10/01/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165598 10/01/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HEALTH 183,397.33Payroll Vendor Payment 165599 10/01/2020 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO 1,647.36Payroll Vendor Payment 165600 10/01/2020 MEDICAL EYE SERVICES 1,698.17Payroll Vendor Payment 165601 10/01/2020 PREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE 8,544.80Payroll Vendor Payment 3823 10/02/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3824 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22,884.14Payroll Vendor Payment 3825 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 35,184.36Payroll Vendor Payment 3826 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,831.93Payroll Vendor Payment 3827 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,759.31Payroll Vendor Payment 3828 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,178.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3829 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,000.47Payroll Vendor Payment 3830 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 8,203.43Payroll Vendor Payment 3831 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,055.27Payroll Vendor Payment 3832 10/06/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.81,066.12Payroll Vendor Payment 3833 10/06/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 26,088.02Payroll Vendor Payment 3834 10/06/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,154.49Payroll Vendor Payment 165602 10/09/2020 13 STARS MEDIA 359.36Accounts Payable Check 165603 10/09/2020 ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.1,018.75Accounts Payable Check 165604 10/09/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 776.72Accounts Payable Check 165605 10/09/2020 SHANNON C. ASHBY 13.30Accounts Payable Check 165606 10/09/2020 AT&T 66.39Accounts Payable Check 165607 10/09/2020 AT&T 763.16Accounts Payable Check 165608 10/09/2020 ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 249.00Accounts Payable Check 165609 10/09/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 1,044.39Accounts Payable Check 165611 10/09/2020 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO.27,243.90Accounts Payable Check 165612 10/09/2020 AURORA WORLD, INC.269.41Accounts Payable Check 165613 10/09/2020 TERRIE BANISH 319.70Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 12 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165614 10/09/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.667.57Accounts Payable Check 165615 10/09/2020 BAY AREA DRIVING SCHOOL, INC.15.37Accounts Payable Check 165616 10/09/2020 JOSE R. BENITEZ 120.00Accounts Payable Check 165617 10/09/2020 KEITH R. BERGHER 56.25Accounts Payable Check 165618 10/09/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.1,021.05Accounts Payable Check 165619 10/09/2020 TESSA BETZ 25.00Accounts Payable Check 165620 10/09/2020 BIG RED MARKETING, INC.4,395.00Accounts Payable Check 165621 10/09/2020 BRADS OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.150.00Accounts Payable Check 165622 10/09/2020 BRANCH SMITH PROPERTIES 350.00Accounts Payable Check 165623 10/09/2020 BURKE,WILLIAMS, & SORENSON LLP 64,938.39Accounts Payable Check 165624 10/09/2020 BURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 2,562.12Accounts Payable Check 165625 10/09/2020 CA ASSC OF ZOOS & AQUARIUMS 1,300.00Accounts Payable Check 165626 10/09/2020 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 333.73Accounts Payable Check 165627 10/09/2020 CARQUEST OF ATASCADERO 129.59Accounts Payable Check 165628 10/09/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 8,691.89Accounts Payable Check 165629 10/09/2020 CITY OF LOS ANGELES TREAS 1.10Accounts Payable Check 165630 10/09/2020 CLEVER CONCEPTS, INC.47.95Accounts Payable Check 165631 10/09/2020 COASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 150.00Accounts Payable Check 165632 10/09/2020 CRYSTAL CLEAN A-1 WINDOW SVCS 1,700.00Accounts Payable Check 165633 10/09/2020 CRYSTAL CREAMERY, INC.182.86Accounts Payable Check 165634 10/09/2020 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 20.00Accounts Payable Check 165635 10/09/2020 CULLIGAN/CENTRAL COAST WTR TRT 70.00Accounts Payable Check 165636 10/09/2020 NICHOLAS DEBAR 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165637 10/09/2020 DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT 42.00Accounts Payable Check 165638 10/09/2020 DRIVE CUSTOMS 891.46Accounts Payable Check 165639 10/09/2020 PHILIP DUNSMORE 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165640 10/09/2020 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP, INC.24,356.80Accounts Payable Check 165641 10/09/2020 ELECTRICRAFT, INC.1,538.25Accounts Payable Check 165642 10/09/2020 JENNIFER FANNING 69.35Accounts Payable Check 165643 10/09/2020 FASTENAL COMPANY 1,629.61Accounts Payable Check 165644 10/09/2020 FENCE FACTORY ATASCADERO 427.05Accounts Payable Check 165645 10/09/2020 FERRAVANTI GRADING & PAVING 217,756.62Accounts Payable Check 165646 10/09/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 114.00Accounts Payable Check 165647 10/09/2020 FIESTA MAHAR MANUFACTURNG CORP 775.56Accounts Payable Check 165648 10/09/2020 FIGUEROA MOUNTAIN BREWING, LLC 245.13Accounts Payable Check 165649 10/09/2020 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 179.00Accounts Payable Check 165650 10/09/2020 NANCY GLOYE 29.00Accounts Payable Check 165651 10/09/2020 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 790.94Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 13 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165652 10/09/2020 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 1,976.31Accounts Payable Check 165653 10/09/2020 JOHN HOLDER 167.49Accounts Payable Check 165654 10/09/2020 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2,123.28Accounts Payable Check 165655 10/09/2020 IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMNT 113.45Accounts Payable Check 165656 10/09/2020 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 3,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165657 10/09/2020 K & M INTERNATIONAL 1,022.54Accounts Payable Check 165658 10/09/2020 K.B. INDUSTRIES, INC.1,076.40Accounts Payable Check 165659 10/09/2020 KPRL 1230 AM 875.00Accounts Payable Check 165660 10/09/2020 KRITZ EXCAVATING & TRUCKNG INC 660.33Accounts Payable Check 165661 10/09/2020 L.A. CO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 485.00Accounts Payable Check 165662 10/09/2020 LAYNE LABORATORIES, INC.2,208.88Accounts Payable Check 165663 10/09/2020 COLETTE LAYTON 1,037.15Accounts Payable Check 165664 10/09/2020 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC 1,797.55Accounts Payable Check 165665 10/09/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.1,611.89Accounts Payable Check 165666 10/09/2020 LONE MADRONE 936.00Accounts Payable Check 165667 10/09/2020 MADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC.1,682.00Accounts Payable Check 165668 10/09/2020 MARBORG INDUSTRIES 62.28Accounts Payable Check 165669 10/09/2020 MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.4,719.69Accounts Payable Check 165670 10/09/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.81.88Accounts Payable Check 165671 10/09/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 244.50Accounts Payable Check 165672 10/09/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 300.45Accounts Payable Check 165673 10/09/2020 MNS ENGINEERS, INC.3,103.75Accounts Payable Check 165674 10/09/2020 JULIAN A. MORA 850.00Accounts Payable Check 165675 10/09/2020 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.6,757.64Accounts Payable Check 165676 10/09/2020 NASSAU-SOSNICK DISTRIBUTION CO 267.68Accounts Payable Check 165677 10/09/2020 NBS 6,964.53Accounts Payable Check 165678 10/09/2020 ANDRES J. NUNO 5,495.00Accounts Payable Check 165679 10/09/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.208.41Accounts Payable Check 165680 10/09/2020 TARA ORLICK 27.60Accounts Payable Check 165683 10/09/2020 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 58,910.76Accounts Payable Check 165684 10/09/2020 PEAKWIFI, LLC 650.00Accounts Payable Check 165685 10/09/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.998.48Accounts Payable Check 165686 10/09/2020 PRP COMPANIES 1,539.23Accounts Payable Check 165687 10/09/2020 QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.11,286.35Accounts Payable Check 165688 10/09/2020 SHIRLEY L. RADCLIFF-BRUTON 37.80Accounts Payable Check 165689 10/09/2020 RAINSCAPE, A LANDSCAPE SVC CO.7,460.36Accounts Payable Check 165690 10/09/2020 JERI RANGEL 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165691 10/09/2020 RACHELLE RICKARD 500.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 14 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165692 10/09/2020 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.2,454.94Accounts Payable Check 165693 10/09/2020 SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC.2,574.34Accounts Payable Check 165694 10/09/2020 SLO BREWING CO., LLC 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165695 10/09/2020 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 4,600.00Accounts Payable Check 165696 10/09/2020 SMART AND FINAL 106.26Accounts Payable Check 165697 10/09/2020 SOFTWAREONE, INC.36,871.69Accounts Payable Check 165698 10/09/2020 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE 420.99Accounts Payable Check 165699 10/09/2020 SPEAKWRITE, LLC.703.26Accounts Payable Check 165700 10/09/2020 SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT REPAIR 750.26Accounts Payable Check 165701 10/09/2020 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY 355.50Accounts Payable Check 165702 10/09/2020 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL, INC.2,661.00Accounts Payable Check 165703 10/09/2020 SUNSET SERVICE CENTER 150.86Accounts Payable Check 165704 10/09/2020 TARANTULA HILL BREWING CO. LLC 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165705 10/09/2020 THOMSON REUTERS - WEST 170.00Accounts Payable Check 165710 10/09/2020 U.S. BANK 28,941.71Accounts Payable Check 165711 10/09/2020 ULTREX LEASING 260.76Accounts Payable Check 165712 10/09/2020 UNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.4,847.04Accounts Payable Check 165713 10/09/2020 VERDIN 5,646.69Accounts Payable Check 165714 10/09/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 3,507.02Accounts Payable Check 165715 10/09/2020 VISITOR TELEVISION LLC 595.00Accounts Payable Check 165716 10/09/2020 JOSEPH WANN 64.30Accounts Payable Check 165717 10/09/2020 WARM FUZZY TOYS 374.56Accounts Payable Check 165718 10/09/2020 WCJ PROPERTY SERVICES 537.00Accounts Payable Check 165719 10/09/2020 WEX BANK - 76 UNIVERSL 11,787.68Accounts Payable Check 165720 10/09/2020 WEX BANK - WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 6,209.89Accounts Payable Check 165721 10/09/2020 WILD FIELDS BREWHOUSE 3,208.27Accounts Payable Check 165722 10/09/2020 WILKINS ACTION GRAPHICS 126.71Accounts Payable Check 165723 10/09/2020 WISHPETS CO.201.67Accounts Payable Check 165724 10/09/2020 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.1,142.35Accounts Payable Check 3835 10/15/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 7,725.06Payroll Vendor Payment 165725 10/15/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165726 10/15/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,916.25Payroll Vendor Payment 165727 10/15/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 165728 10/15/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,978.89Payroll Vendor Payment 165729 10/15/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 233.14Payroll Vendor Payment 165730 10/15/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165731 10/15/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 816.58Payroll Vendor Payment 165732 10/15/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 15 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165733 10/15/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 3,642.33Payroll Vendor Payment 165734 10/15/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3836 10/16/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3837 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 23,778.30Payroll Vendor Payment 3838 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 35,315.59Payroll Vendor Payment 3839 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,788.14Payroll Vendor Payment 3840 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,974.67Payroll Vendor Payment 3841 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,160.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3842 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,131.53Payroll Vendor Payment 3843 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,862.93Payroll Vendor Payment 3844 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,929.65Payroll Vendor Payment 3845 10/20/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.78,188.97Payroll Vendor Payment 3846 10/20/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 24,941.56Payroll Vendor Payment 3847 10/20/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,272.11Payroll Vendor Payment 165735 10/23/2020 13 STARS MEDIA 597.40Accounts Payable Check 165736 10/23/2020 A.P.S. AUTOMOTIVE 283.10Accounts Payable Check 165737 10/23/2020 ADAMSKI,MOROSKI,MADDEN,512.50Accounts Payable Check 165738 10/23/2020 ADVANCED INFRASTRUCTURE TECHN 1,058.20Accounts Payable Check 165739 10/23/2020 AGM CALIFORNIA, INC.1,641.00Accounts Payable Check 165740 10/23/2020 AGP VIDEO, INC.6,467.50Accounts Payable Check 165741 10/23/2020 ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.5,393.00Accounts Payable Check 165742 10/23/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 2,859.48Accounts Payable Check 165743 10/23/2020 KELLY AREBALO 1,108.90Accounts Payable Check 165744 10/23/2020 DAVID ARNESEN 6,835.66Accounts Payable Check 165745 10/23/2020 SHANNON C. ASHBY 26.60Accounts Payable Check 165746 10/23/2020 ASSOCIATED TRAFFIC SAFETY, INC 372.49Accounts Payable Check 165748 10/23/2020 AT&T 1,364.44Accounts Payable Check 165749 10/23/2020 AT&T 374.43Accounts Payable Check 165750 10/23/2020 AT&T 250.00Accounts Payable Check 165751 10/23/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 1,045.00Accounts Payable Check 165752 10/23/2020 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 1,925.00Accounts Payable Check 165753 10/23/2020 DEMI BARTOLOMEO 161.00Accounts Payable Check 165754 10/23/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.539.73Accounts Payable Check 165755 10/23/2020 BEAR MARKET RIOT, LLC 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165756 10/23/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.687.05Accounts Payable Check 165757 10/23/2020 BRANCH SMITH PROPERTIES 350.00Accounts Payable Check 165758 10/23/2020 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA 1,365.00Accounts Payable Check 165759 10/23/2020 CA BUILDING STANDARDS COMM.261.90Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 16 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165760 10/23/2020 CA DEPT OF TAX AND FEE ADMIN.3,451.00Accounts Payable Check 165761 10/23/2020 CAL-COAST IRRIGATION, INC 554.80Accounts Payable Check 165762 10/23/2020 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 631.74Accounts Payable Check 165763 10/23/2020 KEVIN CAMPION 2,200.00Accounts Payable Check 165764 10/23/2020 CCI OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 64.29Accounts Payable Check 165765 10/23/2020 CENTRAL COAST BREWING, INC.795.60Accounts Payable Check 165766 10/23/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 2,543.19Accounts Payable Check 165767 10/23/2020 CLAY'S SEPTIC & JETTING, INC.5,186.96Accounts Payable Check 165768 10/23/2020 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165769 10/23/2020 CREWSENSE, LLC 286.71Accounts Payable Check 165770 10/23/2020 DARRYL'S LOCK AND SAFE 181.00Accounts Payable Check 165771 10/23/2020 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 974.60Accounts Payable Check 165772 10/23/2020 DRIVE CUSTOMS 5,211.04Accounts Payable Check 165773 10/23/2020 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 2,682.00Accounts Payable Check 165774 10/23/2020 ELECTRICRAFT, INC.6,578.24Accounts Payable Check 165775 10/23/2020 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY 675.55Accounts Payable Check 165776 10/23/2020 FASTENAL COMPANY 738.91Accounts Payable Check 165777 10/23/2020 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR 87.73Accounts Payable Check 165778 10/23/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 1,243.00Accounts Payable Check 165779 10/23/2020 FUNFLICKS CENTRAL COAST 555.45Accounts Payable Check 165780 10/23/2020 GAS COMPANY 284.81Accounts Payable Check 165781 10/23/2020 GMV SYNCROMATICS 9,500.00Accounts Payable Check 165782 10/23/2020 HAMNER, JEWELL & ASSOCIATES 17,658.82Accounts Payable Check 165783 10/23/2020 ROCHELLE O. HANSON-TORRES 86.25Accounts Payable Check 165784 10/23/2020 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 413.28Accounts Payable Check 165785 10/23/2020 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165786 10/23/2020 IMPACT ABSORBENTS, INC.2,111.89Accounts Payable Check 165787 10/23/2020 JIFFY LUBE 120.73Accounts Payable Check 165788 10/23/2020 JK'S UNLIMITED, INC.6,504.02Accounts Payable Check 165789 10/23/2020 KPRL 1230 AM 1,195.00Accounts Payable Check 165790 10/23/2020 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC 1,638.80Accounts Payable Check 165791 10/23/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.2,896.09Accounts Payable Check 165792 10/23/2020 M SPECIAL BREWING, LLC 364.00Accounts Payable Check 165793 10/23/2020 MATTHEW MADRIGAL 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165794 10/23/2020 TRISTAN MARSEILLES 2,371.00Accounts Payable Check 165795 10/23/2020 BECKY MAXWELL 38.30Accounts Payable Check 165796 10/23/2020 MCCROMETER, INC.5,461.07Accounts Payable Check 165797 10/23/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.82.47Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 17 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165798 10/23/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 520.89Accounts Payable Check 165799 10/23/2020 MINNESOTA ZOO 170.00Accounts Payable Check 165800 10/23/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 505.22Accounts Payable Check 165801 10/23/2020 JULIAN A. MORA 520.00Accounts Payable Check 165802 10/23/2020 KYLE NAKAZAWA 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165803 10/23/2020 NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP 29,048.25Accounts Payable Check 165804 10/23/2020 NEW TIMES 782.00Accounts Payable Check 165805 10/23/2020 NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC.294.00Accounts Payable Check 165806 10/23/2020 ROCIO OCHOA 1,188.00Accounts Payable Check 165807 10/23/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.96.34Accounts Payable Check 165808 10/23/2020 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC.82.29Accounts Payable Check 165809 10/23/2020 PASO ROBLES SAFE & LOCK, INC.150.00Accounts Payable Check 165810 10/23/2020 PERRY'S PARCEL & GIFT 7.43Accounts Payable Check 165811 10/23/2020 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.468.20Accounts Payable Check 165812 10/23/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.673.08Accounts Payable Check 165813 10/23/2020 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,404.09Accounts Payable Check 165814 10/23/2020 QUADIENT, INC.692.55Accounts Payable Check 165815 10/23/2020 SHIRLEY L. RADCLIFF-BRUTON 86.39Accounts Payable Check 165816 10/23/2020 RAMINHA CONSTRUCTION, INC.12,150.00Accounts Payable Check 165817 10/23/2020 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE 166.42Accounts Payable Check 165818 10/23/2020 RECOGNITION WORKS 80.81Accounts Payable Check 165819 10/23/2020 CHRISTOPHER R. ROBINSON 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165820 10/23/2020 ERIN RUSSELL 200.00Accounts Payable Check 165821 10/23/2020 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO ARTS COUNCL 5,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165822 10/23/2020 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.270.00Accounts Payable Check 165823 10/23/2020 SERVICE SYSTEMS ASSC, INC.2,500.00Accounts Payable Check 165824 10/23/2020 SLO CO AUDITOR CONTROLLER 36.00Accounts Payable Check 165825 10/23/2020 SLO COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY 81,104.50Accounts Payable Check 165826 10/23/2020 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEH SVC 13.62Accounts Payable Check 165827 10/23/2020 STATE WATER RES CONTROL BOARD 2,709.00Accounts Payable Check 165828 10/23/2020 SUNSET SERVICE CENTER 122.82Accounts Payable Check 165829 10/23/2020 TERRA VERDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONS 347.50Accounts Payable Check 165830 10/23/2020 ULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS 80.93Accounts Payable Check 165831 10/23/2020 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AM), INC 9,311.50Accounts Payable Check 165832 10/23/2020 UNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.1,211.76Accounts Payable Check 165833 10/23/2020 BRIAN VAZQUEZ 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165834 10/23/2020 VERDIN 991.10Accounts Payable Check 165835 10/23/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 248.29Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 18 of 103 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165836 10/23/2020 WALLACE GROUP 10,097.50Accounts Payable Check 165837 10/23/2020 WELL SEEN SIGN CO., LLC 80.81Accounts Payable Check 165838 10/23/2020 WHITLOCK & WEINBERGER TRANS.1,140.00Accounts Payable Check 165839 10/23/2020 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICES CO.220.56Accounts Payable Check 3848 10/29/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 8,505.06Payroll Vendor Payment 3849 10/30/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3850 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22,129.73Payroll Vendor Payment 3851 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 34,655.35Payroll Vendor Payment 3852 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,906.29Payroll Vendor Payment 3853 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2,009.57Payroll Vendor Payment 3854 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,160.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3855 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,176.53Payroll Vendor Payment 3856 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 8,203.43Payroll Vendor Payment 3857 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,759.45Payroll Vendor Payment $1,662,859.83 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 19 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Clerk Conflict of Interest Code - Biennial Review RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt Draft Resolution, updating and amending the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Atascadero. DISCUSSION: The Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code biennially and Government Code Section 87306 requires an agency to amend its Conflict of Interest Code when change is necessitated by changed circumstances, including the creation of new positions/titles and the deletion of old ones. The Political Reform Act requires that any amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code be adopted no later than December 30, 2020. The Conflict of Interest Code is a document that designates the positions within an agency that make, or participate in making, governmental decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest. The Code further sets out, in paragraphs called disclosure categories, the specific types of investments, business positions, interest in real property and sources of income that must be reported by the designated positions. Though reviewed biennially, the Conflict of Interest Code has not been updated since 2014. Over the past two years, the City Council has approved amendments to the City’s Classification Plan. These approved amendments resulted in positions being eliminated or re-named and new positions being added. Following review of the City’s current Conflict of Interest Code, it was determined that amendments were nec essary to reflect these changes. Furthermore, Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) guidance for the review of a Conflict of Interest Code suggests reconsideration of disclosure categories to ensure that disclosure category assignments adequately differentiate between positions and should not be overly broad. Using the model disclosure categories posted on the FPPC website, as well as examples provided by the City Attorney, staff is recommending amending the Code to include more detailed disclosure categories. Page 20 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 This Conflict of Interest Code pertains only to the designated positions listed in Exhi bit A to the Draft Resolution. The Council Members, City Treasurer, Planning Commissioners, City Manager and City Attorney are exempt from this Code as they are otherwise required to file disclosure statements pursuant to State Law under Govt. Code 87200. The City Clerk and the City Attorney have reviewed the current Code. The proposed amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code incorporate the basic provisions required by Government Code Section 87302 and comply with FPPC regulations. The revised list contains a list of designated positions that make , or participate in making, governmental decisions. Designated positions have been appropriately assigned to suitable disclosure categories that reflect job duties and responsibilities. The recommended changes reflect the current staffing of the City of Atascadero. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: The Code must be updated. The Council is free to add positions to the Code or to suggest any other changes, so long as the changes comply with the Political Reform Act. ATTACHMENT: Draft Resolution Page 21 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code biennially (in even-numbered years) to determine if it is accurate and up-to-date, or, alternatively, that the Code must be amended; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 2014-063, adopted on September 23, 2014, is hereby rescinded. SECTION 2. That the Conflict of Interest Code attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A be, and hereby is, adopted as the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Atascadero. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___th day of_______, 2020. On motion by Council Member ___________ and seconded by Council Member ________, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ATASCADERO ______________________________ Heather Moreno, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________________ Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney Page 22 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et. seg., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard conflict of in terest code. It can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 187 30 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix in which members and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Atascadero. Designated employees shall file their statements with the City of Atascadero who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction (Gov. Code Section 81008). Statements for all designated employees will be retained by the City of Atascadero. Page 23 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES The following positions entail the making or participation in the making of decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on financial interests: Designated Position1 Disclosure Category: Administrative Services Director 1 City Clerk 1 2 Community Development Director 1 Community Services Director 1 Consultants (who make or participate in making of governmental decisions)2 1 Consultants (who perform the duties of a designated position)2 Same category as the comparable designated position Deputy Administrative Services Director 1 Deputy City Manager 1 Deputy Community Development Director 1 Deputy Community Development Director/Chief Building Official/Economic Development Director 1 Deputy Public Works Director 1 Exempt Officials3 1 Fire Chief 1 Fire Battalion Chief 1 Fire Marshal 1 3, 4, 6 Information Technology Manager 1 4, 6 New Positions4 1 Police Chief 1 Police Lieutenant 1 Public Works Director / City Engineer 1 Zoo Director 1 5, 6 Members of all permanent City Commissions, Boards 1 2 and Committees not otherwise required to file Conflict of Interest Statements Fire Captain (all specialist designations) 2 5, 6 Police Commander 2 Police Sergeant (all designations) 2 5, 6 1 In the event that State law or regulations regarding the filing of Conflict of Interest Statements should be amended, this Exhibit shall be changed to include the designated position and category of each official as required by said amendment. 2 Consultants (see Definitions) who make or participate in making governmental decisions shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the Code . However, the City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in the section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection by the City Clerk in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. 3 Exempt Officials include the Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Treasurer, Members of the Planning Commission, City Manager, and City Attorney, who are all otherwise required to file disclosure statements pursuant to State Law. 4. New positions that make or participate in making governmental decisions are required to file under the broadest disclosure category in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. If the new position performs limited duties, the City Manager may tailor the disclosure requirements to the duties performed. If the City Manager provides tailored disclosure, a written description of the position's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements must be completed as detailed for Consultants above. Page 24 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A CATEGORIES OF REPORTABLE ECONOMIC INTERESTS Designated Persons in Category "1" Must Report: All investments, interests in real property, income, and any business entity in which the person is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management. These financial interests are reportable only if located within and subject to the jurisdiction of the City, or if the business entity is doing business or planning to do business in an area subject to the jurisdiction of the City, or has done business within an area subject to the jurisdiction of the City at any time during the two years prior to the filing of the statement. Designated Persons in Category "2" Must Report: (1) All interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside the jurisdiction of the City. (2) Investments in any business entity that, within the last two years, has contracted or in the future foreseeably may contract with the City. (3) Income from any source that, within the last two years, has contracted or in the future foreseeably may contract with the City. (4) His or her status as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holder of a position of management in any business entity that, within the last two years, has contracted or in the future foreseeably may contract with the City. Designated persons in Category “3” Must Report: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that a re engaged in development, construction, appraisal, or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the City. Designated persons in Category “4” Must Report: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources o f income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type utilized by the City. Designated persons in Category “5” Must Report: All investments and business positions in bu siness entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the designated position’s department, unit, or division. Page 25 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Designated persons in Category “6” Must Report: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that are subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the designated position’s department, unit, or division. DEFINITIONS CONSULTANTS (See Title 2 California Code of Regulations, section 18700.3) Consultants means those individuals who, pursuant to a contract with the City make (not just recommend) governmental decisions such as whether to approve a rate, rule or regulation; to issue, deny suspend, or revoke any permit, license application, certificate or similar authorization; adopt or grant City approval to a plan, design report, study or similar item; adopt or grant City approval of policies, standards, or guidelines for the City or any subdivision thereof; grant approval to a contract or the specifications thereof; or adopt or enforce any law. Consultants also means those who serve in a staff capacity with the City, and in that capacity perform the same or substantially all the same duties for the City that would otherwise be performed by an individual holding a designated position in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Consultants also means those who serve in a staff capacity and participate in the making of a governmental decision by providing information, an opinion, or a recommendation to any governmental decision-maker (including, but not limited to, the City Manager or any other City staff with contracting authority) without significant intervening substantive review. INCOME (See Government Code section 82030) (A) "Income" means (except as provided in subdivision B): A payment received, including but not limited to any salary, wage, advance, dividend, interest, rent, proceeds from any sale, gift, including any gift of food or beverage, loan, forgiveness or payment of indebtedness received by the flier, reimbursement for expenses, per diem, or contribution to an insurance or pension program paid by any person other than an employer, and including any community property interest in the income of a spouse. Income also includes an outstanding loan. Income of an individual also includes a pro rata share of any income of any business entity or trust in which the individual or spouse owns, directly, indirectly or beneficially, a 10 percent interest or greater. "Income," other than a gift, does not include income received from any source outside the jurisdiction and not doing business within the jurisdiction, not planning to do business within the having done business within the jurisdiction during the two years prior to the time any statement or other action is required under this title. Page 26 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A (B) "Income" does not include: (1) Campaign contributions required to be reported under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 84100). (2) Salary and reimbursement for expenses or per diem received from a state, local, or federal government agency and reimbursement for travel expenses and per diem received from a bona fide educational, academic, or charitable organization. (3) Any devise or inheritance. (4) Interest, dividends, or premiums on a time or demand deposit in a financial institution, shares in a credit union or any insurance policy, payments received under any insurance policy, or any bond or other debt instrument issued by any government or government agency. (5) Dividends, interest, or any other return on a security which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States Government or a commodity future registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the United States Government, except proceeds from the sale of these securities and commodities futures. (6) Redemption of a mutual fund. (7) Alimony or child support payments. (8) Any loan or loans from a commercial lending institution which are made in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to official status if: (a) Used to purchase, refinance the purchase of, or for improvements to, the principal residence of flier; or (b) The balance owed does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (9) Any loan from an individual's spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, or first cousin, or the spouse of any such person, provided that a loan from any such person shall be considered income if the lender is acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not covered by this paragraph. (10) Any indebtedness created as part of a retail installment or credit card transaction if made in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to official status, so long as the balance owed to the creditor does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (11) Payments received under a defined benefit pension plan qualified under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a). Page 27 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A (12) Proceeds from the sale of securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States Government or from the sale of commodities futures registered with the Commodity Futures Trading commission of the United States Government if the flier sells the securities or the commodities futures on a stock or commodities exchange and does not know or have reason to know the identity of the purchaser. Page 28 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Public Works Department Discussion of Proposed Pickleball Courts at Colony Park RECOMMENDATION: Council provide feedback and staff direction regarding the proposed Pickleball Courts at Colony Park. DISCUSSION: Background About two years ago, Council and staff were contacted by residents representing the Atascadero Pickleball Club to request additional pickleball courts at Colony Park. Currently, there are no dedicated pickleball facilities at Colony Park or at any other City park. Pickleball participants play in the Colony Park Community Center gymnasium and on the outdoor basketball courts. In December of 2019, the City Council approved changes to the Colony Park master plan to set aside space for 3 to 4 Pickleball courts. The Council did not direct staff to appropriate funds at that time , but said that it would be amenable to discussing a funding partnership with the Atascadero Pickleball at some time in the future. Since the Council meeting a year ago, pickleball, fund raising by the Atascadero Pickleball Club and construction of the pickleball courts have all been affected by COVID. Pickleball is currently being played only on the outdoor basketball courts although the hope is to be able to open the Gym to pickleball in the future. Fund raising opportunities have been hampered by COVID restrictions and construction prices have seen some significant increases. Representatives from the Atascadero Pickleball Club have expressed frustration with increasing estimated construction costs and the lack of a formal funding partnership agreement with the City. Site Design Analysis Pickleball has become a very popular sport over the last ten years, particularly among older adults. Pickleball is played as doubles or singles with a paddle and plastic ball with holes. This sport combines many elements of tennis, badminton, and ping -pong. Pickleball is played indoors or outdoors on a badminton -sized court with a slightly modified tennis net. The playing area for pickleball measures 20 feet by 44 feet, with a recommended buffer area of 5 feet and 8 feet outside the sidelines and baselines, Page 29 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 respectively. The minimum recommended total hard surface dimension needed for one pickleball court with buffer areas is 30 feet by 60 feet. These dimensions can be increased, if desired, to provide greater buffer distance to fencing, walls, and other physical barriers. Pickleball is currently played in the Community Center gymnasium (three courts) and outside on the basketball courts (three courts). There is a request for three to four additional pickleball courts to accommodate the growing demand of this popular sport. The Master Plan for Colony Park was changed 11 months ago to accommodate additional pickleball courts in an area adjacent to the basketball courts and petanque court (see map below). Page 30 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 The proposed pickleball court location is currently being used as a temporary material storage yard for Public Works and is located just north of Lift Station No. 5 and south of the lift station’s overflow pond area. The overflow pond is currently accessed by vehicles (trucks, mowers and a bulldozer one to two times per year) through the area slated for the Pickleball courts. Access to the overflow pond will be built into the Project either through an alternative access point or by designing the courts to allow for limited vehicle traffic. The alternative access to the overflow pond near A -Town State Park appears to be feasible and will require a culvert extension and new fence gate. This alternative access will eliminate the need to design the court pavement for loading from vehicles and heavy equipment. While the lift station and overflow pond are static and cannot be relocated without significant cost s, the temporary material storage yard can and will be combined with other nearby Public Works storage yards. This proposed location is relatively flat and can accommodate four pickleball courts as designed below. The above layout shows four courts with 34-foot by 64-foot dimensions with a 10-foot wide walkway bisecting through the middle to a 10 -foot by 20-foot seating area. The total court plus walkway dimension is 66 -feet by 138-feet. Eight-foot high fencing would be installed around the perimeter and four-foot high fencing on either side of the walkway and between courts. A concrete sidewalk would also be installed on the west side for access to the courts. Page 31 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Estimated Project Costs There is currently no funding source identified in the budget to construct pickleball courts if the Council decides to move forward with these facilities at Colony Park. The Pickleball Club is continuing to raise funds and has obtained $42,669 to date in funding, pledges and donations labor and materials as follows: Cash (Bank): $ 36,525 GoFundMe (Cash): $ 3,144 Home Depot Gift Card: $ 3,000 Total: $ 42,669 In addition, the Club has applied for the f ollowing grants and waiting for award results: Justin Community Grant ($50,000), Home Depot ($12,000), and Adidas Corporation. In addition the Club has secured either donations of services or discounted prices for services as follows:  Pledge for North Coast Engineering to complete the grading and drainage plans  Pledge by Dane Jensen to complete all soil and concrete testing for a firm price of $2,500  Pledge by Central Coast Fencing for fencing, including setting poles for $20 to $25 a linear foot. The value of the services donated to the Atascadero Pickleball Club would bring down the City Project scope and total cash outlay for the Project. The Pickleball Courts Project proposes construction of four outdoor pickleball courts, built to meet the size and construction methods standards of the USA Pickleball Association. Primary construction items include general site preparation, construction of concrete slab (138’ x 66’) and associated concrete access pathways, court surfacing (textured acrylic coating), perimeter fencing (8’ height) and court separation fencing (4’ height). (The estimate does not include costs for permanent nets, poles or storage facilities.) Staff currently estimates construction project costs to be as follows: UNIT TOTAL No.ITEM QUAN UNIT PRICE PRICE Civil 1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS 1,500.00$ $1,500.00 2 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN/TREE PROTECTION 1 LS 1,500.00$ $1,500.00 3 EXCAVATION / EARTHWORK 300 CY 30.00$ $9,000.00 4 REMOVE FENCE 120 LF 20.00$ $2,400.00 5 INSTALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1 LS 2,500.00$ $2,500.00 6 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK (4" CONCRETE/4" CL 2 BASE)1425 SF 15.00$ $21,375.00 7 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COURTS (6" CONCRETE/6" CL 2 BASE)8700 SF 20.00$ $174,000.00 8 COURT SURFACING 8700 SF 3.00$ $26,100.00 9 DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACING 10 TN 60.00$ $600.00 10 FENCING (4' HEIGHT)265 LF 25.00$ $6,625.00 11 FENCING (8' HEIGHT - NO SLATS)140 LF 40.00$ $5,600.00 12 FENCING (8' HEIGHT - SLATTED)300 LF 50.00$ $15,000.00 $266,200.00CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: Page 32 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Total project costs including contingencies would bring total project costs to almost $350,000 as follows: EST. COST 15,000$ 266,200$ 51,800$ 17,000$ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 350,000$ BUDGET ITEM SURVEY, ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15%) CONSTRUCTION STAKING, INSPECTION & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT This is a rough estimated cost based on other bids the City has received for projects. The City of Santa Maria, in partnership with the Santa Maria Pickleball Club and Partners for Leisure and Youth, are completing a project to build six new Pickleball Courts. The cost of the Santa Maria project is estimated to finish at roughly $125,000 which is significantly less than the current staff estimate for the proposed four courts. The actual cost of the Project will vary significantly either up or down depending on: 1. Thickness of Base and Concrete - The thickness of the base and the concrete will be a significant determining factor in the cost per square feet for the concrete. The Santa Maria courts were constructed using 3” of concrete on a 3” base. The current estimate includes 6” of concrete on 6” of base. There are a number of factors that will go into determining the “right” base and concrete for the courts:  Soil Composition - The soil make-up and existing soil compaction will play a significant role in determining the thickness of the required base and concrete. Complete soils testing has not been performed at the site.  Driveable - If alternative access to the overflow pond cannot be built, the courts will need to be designed and built to withstand the necessary vehicles and bulldozers driving across the courts a couple of times per year.  Upfront Costs vs. Future Maintenance Costs - In general, assuming the same soil composition and use, the thinner the base and concrete, the more prone the surface is to cracking and heaving. This may mean more frequent and costly repairs. 2. Post-tension Slab - The Atascadero Pickleball Club desires that the courts be built using a post-tension slab construction. This type of construction will be significantly more costly than most reinforced concrete, but should be more resistant to cracking and have lower maintenance costs in the long-run. 3. Total Area to be Surfaced - Typically the larger the area that will be surfaced, the more expensive the project will be. The six Santa Maria courts are on a slab that is 100’ x 110’. The four courts proposed in the Project are currently designed on a 138’ x 66’ slab to accommodate the spacing needs requested by the Atascadero Pickleball Club. 4. Bidding Environment - The number of projects being constructed and the availability of labor and materials have a significant impact on the prices that the City can expect to see in their bids. Page 33 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Staff estimates that eliminating the post tension slab and reducing the thickness of the concrete from 6” to 4” would bring down the estimated construction cost of the Project to just under $200,000 with an overall projected Project cost of around $250,000; however, the thinner concrete may lead to slab cracking in the future. Reductions in the size around the pickleball courts and a good bidding environment could further reduce costs. The Atascadero Pickleball Club also believes that with the support and partnerships that they have built, that the cost of the Project will be significantly lower than the current staff estimated Project costs. City Funding In the past, the City has collaborated with local groups request ing park facilities. Below is a list of recent City/Community partnership park expansion projects and the relative financial contribution of each. Project Park City Joy Playground Colony Park 47.3%52.7% ALPS Three Bridges Trail Open Space 24.8%75.2% Zoo Education Center/Thelma Vetter Red Panda Exhibit Lake Park 50.0%50.0%Est. Lake Well Project Lake Park 0.0%100.0% Lake Aeration System Lake Park 0.0%100.0% Bocce Ball Courts Colony Park 0.0%100.0% Petanque Courts Colony Park 0.0%100.0% Horseshoe Pits Paloma Park 0.0%100.0% Skate Park Insulation Project Colony Park 0.0%100.0% Skate Park OutdoorFacility Colony Park 0.0%100.0% Community At other times, the City has been able to use grant funding and impact fees to complete projects without significant community participation. Project Park City The Plaza New Park Area 100.0%0.0% Centennial Plaza Centennial Plaza 100.0%0.0% Stadium Park Easement Stadium Park 100.0%0.0% Paloma Park Purchase Paloma Park 100.0%0.0% Community The City collects Parkland Facilities Fees Funds from new development to help build new or expand existing park facilities. These funds have historically been used to partner with community groups such as the Atascadero Pickleball Club in order to leverage limited funds to build new facilities to serve the public. There currently is a small unallocated balance in the Parkland Facilities Fees Fund and there are significant development projects in process that are expected to pay Parkland Facilities Fees Funds within the next year or two. Since adoption of the current fees the City has received anywhere from $68,000 - $612,000 in any fiscal year; however in most average building years, the City will collect about $150,000 in Parkland Impact Fees. Page 34 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 11/24/20 Conclusion The Atascadero Pickleball Club has been fundraising for the courts, but they have asked for a City financial commitment to the Project. The City does have available Parkland Impact Fees to partner with the Atascadero Pickleball Ball Club simila r to other park projects. Staff is looking for Council direction on both the design of the pickleball courts and direction on whether to bring back a formal funding partnership agreement and appropriation. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Council will be providing direction to staff which has no fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 35 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Community Development Department Cannabis Regulations Update Discussion (CPP 2020-0011) RECOMMENDATION: Council direct staff to conduct further analyses on commercial cannabis uses and/or draft ordinance language to amend Title 9-Chapter 15 of the Zoning Regulations to allow for limited commercial cannabis uses. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: In May of 2020, the City Council gave direction to staff to examine the options for an update to the City’s Cannabis Regulations with the addition of commercial cannabis business types. The business types consisted of the following:  Commercial cultivation (Indoor)  Cannabis manufacturing (non-volatile materials)  Distribution centers Staff has evaluated the potential land use factors and tax revenues associated with these business types. Retail cannabis uses remain the predominant tax revenue genera ting land uses for most regions. However, commercial cultivation and manufacturing can account for up to 25% of the tax revenue associated with cannabis. The demand for cannabis business as a commercial land use, is primarily associated with retail uses, while manufacturing and cultivation space demand tends to be less frequent. However, as retail uses expand on the central coast, the cultivation and manufacturing uses may increase and begin to catch up with the revenue currently found in retail. Currently, the City allows for retail cannabis deliveries from businesses that are based outside of the City. There are currently eight such delivery businesses that are licensed to deliver both medical and recreational cannabis in Atascadero. The City’s existing ordinance can be modified to allow other commercial land uses if it is determined that these land uses are an appropriate fit for Atascadero and that any potential impacts can be adequately addressed through code requirements or use permit conditions . Page 36 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 DISCUSSION: Background In 2017, the City Council adopted a new ordinance regulating cannabis activities that repealed Title 9, Chapter 6, Section 9-6.186, Medical Marijuana Facilities, of the Atascadero Municipal Code. 9-6.186 was replaced with an entire new Chapter (Chapter 17), Cannabis Activities and Regulations. The existing ordinance contains cannabis definitions, personal cultivation standards, and a review process to allow for commercial cannabis activities, including a land use table indicating permitted zoning for each land use. The City also developed cannabis land use buffer maps that included 600-foot buffers from sensitive land uses should the ordinance be expanded to include additional cannabis land uses (Attachment 2). Sensitive land uses include parks, youth centers, and schools. Churches were not included in the buffer map but may be considered a sensitive use if utilized as a school or youth center. Other than testing labs, all other commercial cannabis activities are prohibited in the City. However, at this time, no testing labs have located in the City. The State of California requires that local jurisdictions allow for cannabis delivery services, whether or not the jurisdiction allows for commercial cannabis activities. Chapter 17 was developed in a fashion that would allow for code updates in the future and to incorporate legal and regulatory developments. Since the adoption of Chapter 9-17, the Council also voted to adopt a Cannabis Tax Measure (Municipal Code Chapter 3-18), which allowed the City to adopt a tax based on business gross receipts and square footage of plant canopy. Taxes are currently being collected for retail delivery businesses that are licensed to deliver cannabis products in Atascadero. As of the end of the previous fiscal year, the City has collected approximately $11,000 from eight licensed delivery services that are located outside of the City. That amount is expected to increase as additional delivery services obtain City business licenses. Many of the existing businesses did not obtain City licenses or begin paying taxes until the middle of the fiscal year. Cannabis Land Uses in Atascadero In May of 2020, Council decided to re-examine the existing Cannabis Ordinance and evaluate the potential for other commercial cannabis business land uses in the City. Based on this discussion, the following recommendations were made for further analysis of commercial cannabises in the City:  Retail storefront: No changes and examine at a future date.  Mobile Dispensaries with no storefront: No changes and examine at a future date.  Manufacturing with volatile facilities: No changes and examine at a future date.  Manufacturing with non-volatile facilities: Consider changes to allow non- volatile manufacturing. Analyze market demand, job creation, and potential tax revenue share.  Outdoor commercial cultivation: No changes and examine at a future date. Page 37 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20  Indoor commercial cultivation: Consider changes to allow cultivation in select locations. Analyze potential locations/allowable zoning districts, land use impacts, and odor concerns.  Distribution Center: Consider changes to allow non-storefront storage and distribution of commercial cannabis. Analyze market demand, job creation, and potential tax revenue share. Based on the Council discussion in May, staff has taken a closer look at non-retail cannabis land uses including manufacturing and indoor cultivation . Additionally, an economic impact study for Sonoma County’s Cannabis Industry was utilized to evaluate potential cannabis job creation numbers, as well as economic studies utilized by the City of Grover Beach’s cannabis tax and information from permits for cannabis businesses in the County and the State (Attachments 3-4). 1. Manufacturing/non-volatile There are two types of non-retail manufacturing facilities that are recognized by the State Licensing Authority. The State utilizes the term “Type 1” for non-volatile manufacturing and “Type 2” for volatile manufacturing. A Type 1 facility is a facility that does not use hazardous or volatile solvents. Type 1 manufacturing would typically consist of food products, edible items and finish products for topical use that do not include the use of solvents or heavy manufacturing. Staff has examined Type 1 manufacturing as a potential land use for Atascadero. Manufacturing Use Considerations Type 1 manufacturing of cannabis products includes but is not limited to the processing of raw cannabis plant products into a wide variety of edible, topical, and even industrial products that involve the oils, resins, fibers and compounds of the cannabis plant. These products are used in the medical, recreational, and industrial industry. Such manufacturing may also include the manufacturing of non -THC hemp based products where plant fibers are utilized for fiber, cloth and CBD products. Hemp products are not subject to the same tax structure as THC based cannabis products that are specialized to the medical and recreational market. In our County, there are few manufacturing land uses, however, some small industries have located in the Grover Beach area and u nincorporated areas. These land uses account for a smaller portion of the cannabis industry in our region but are anticipated to grow based on predictions by Grover Beach and other areas. In Atascadero, the Industrial Zones, Service Commercial Zone (CS) and Commercial Park Zone (CPK) appear to be the best fit for Manufacturing uses, as these zones are designed for indoor service, manufacturing and industrial land uses. Such land uses should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit , including a community benefit agreement. Attachment 1 begins to illustrate what an ordinance that allows Manufacturing land uses would look like. However, additional work would be needed to complete this draft ordinance for Council review in the future. Additionally, the City would need to adopt a special review process and separate fee schedule for commercial cannabis uses. Most cities seek full cost recovery for a commercial cannabis application, therefore application fees are very high (currently $23,000 in SLO, with annual renewal fees over $75,000). Page 38 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 The following considerations should be incorporated into any use permit for cannabis Manufacturing land uses: 1. Limitations on the number of specific manufacturing uses and distance requirements between land uses. State Law mandates that any cannabis land uses, including Manufacturing facilities be prohibited within 600 feet from schools, parks, and youth centers. 2. Performance criteria for Manufacturing Businesses including submittal of and/or City approval of: a. Indemnification Form/Agreement. b. Preliminary Security and Operations Plan. It is recommended that all cannabis businesses in the City be required to submit a Security Operations Plan. This is typical of cannabis permitting in adjacent cities and is included in the application for CUP for cannabis business licenses. c. Signage Plan. d. Employee Safety and Training Plan. e. City Tax and Fee Payment Plan. f. Vicinity Map showing distance to closest sensitive land uses. Sensitive land uses include uses such as residential uses, schools, and parks. g. Community Benefit Agreement to include a program or compensation to be given to the community to mitigate the potential impacts of cannabis business. h. Additional conditions to be established through the Conditional Use Permit process. It is recommended that any cannabis business in the City be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to Planning Commission to ensure neighborhood compatibility and compliance with City appearance review standards. 2. Commercial Indoor Cultivation The State Department of Food and Agriculture (Department), issues licenses for commercial cannabis cultivation through the CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing program. Indoor cultivation of cannabis consists of the cultivation of cannabis using artificial light or mixed artificial light and outdoor light (mixed-light). Mixed-light commercial operations often utilize hoop houses or greenhouses for growing, while an artificial light operation is in a fully controlled environment. The State issues indoor and mixed light cultivation licenses for various categories of commercial cultivation, based on size of operation. This includes specialty cottage, specialty small, medium, and large operations, as well as indoor nurseries and processors. Staff has examined indoor commercial cultivation (artificial light only) as a potential land use for Atascadero. Commercial Indoor Use Considerations Indoor cultivation is a controlled environment where the cultivator can control all factors that go into production of cannabis, including light, dark periods, grow mediums, moisture temperature, and harvest cycles. In general, the cost to produce cannabis fully indoors is higher than outdoor or mixed light production, and is also much less common than outdoor cultivation in the State. In terms of share of production in the State, outdoor cultivation consists of 60 percent, mixed light (indoor with some outdoor light assistance) cultivation 24 percent, and indoor cultivation only 16 percent. Page 39 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 As indoor commercial cultivation is a non-public visitation use, it is recommended that the development standards for indoor commercial cultivation be the same as the underlying zoning districts. However, it could be beneficial to include more restrictive setback requirements than the existing underlying zoning districts to contribute to additional odor control and ensure any nuisance odor emissions from being detected offsite, especially in the case of mixed light operations. The primary concern that Council discussed in May was potential odor impacts of commercial cultivation operations. Odor impacts should be controlled through odor control devices and techniques, such as air filtration, to control cannabis odors and ensure that cannabis odors are not detectable from the property boundary and adjacent public rights-of-way. Odor control systems may include ventilation and exhaust systems that provide sufficient odor control to meet requirements that would be determined in the ordinance. An odor control system is something that would be reviewed as part of the CUP process and environmental review under CEQA (if size and impacts substantiate an environmental review). In our County, there are few commercial indoor cultivation land uses, and only the City of Grover Beach and the City of San Luis Obispo allow indoor commercial cultivation. Similar to State trends, indoor commercial cultivation land uses account for a smaller portion of the cannabis cultivation industry in our region. In Atascadero, we do not have any large Agricultural properties, however, the CPK, and Industrial zones could accommodate smaller indoor commercial cannabis cultivation uses. The City could limit commercial cannabis cultivation to State license types that eliminate the option of very large cultivation facilities, since the larger facilities are not likely to be a good fit for Atascadero. The City can limit the size and scope of indoor cultivation, and the City may choose to limit the maximum size of an indoor cultivation site. For example, there are State licenses that are designed for small, “cottage” type cultivation uses that might be the best fit for Atascadero. A specialty indoor license (Type 1A) allows for indoor sites that are equal to or less than 5,000 square feet. A Type 2A license allows indoor operations between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet. The State also offers a medium indoor license that allows for indoor cultivation spaces that are between 10,000 and 22,000 square feet. All three of these license types may be suitable in a small community such as Atascadero, while a much larger facility may not fit within the smaller commercial properties in our community. The following considerations should be incorporated into any use permit for Indoor Commercial Cultivation: 1. Limitations on the number of specific manufacturing uses and distance requirements between land uses. It is recommended that Indoor Commercial Cultivation facilities be prohibited within 600 feet from schools, parks, and youth centers. 2. Limitations on the size of an indoor cultivation business. Limits should match those that are licensed by the State. For example, the maximum size could be 22,000 square feet (or smaller). Page 40 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 3. Performance criteria for Indoor Commercial Cultivation facilities including submittal of and/or City approval of: a. Indemnification Form/Agreement. b. Preliminary Security and Operations Plan. It is recommended that all cannabis businesses in the City be required to submit a Security Operations Plan. This is typical of cannabis permitting in adjacent cities and is included in the application for CUP for cannabis business licenses. c. Signage Plan. d. Odor Management Plan. e. Employee Safety and Training Plan. f. City Tax and Fee Payment Plan. g. Vicinity Map showing distance to closest sensitive land uses. h. Community Benefit Agreement to include a program or compensation to be given to the community to mitigate the potential impacts of cannabis business. i. Additional conditions to be established through the Conditional Use Permit process. It is recommended that any cannabis business, including indoor commercial cultivation, in the City be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to the Planning Commission to ensure neighborhood compatibility and compliance with City appearance review standards. Attachment 1 illustrates what an ordinance that allows Commercial Indoor cannabis cultivation land uses would look like . Similar to the discussion regarding Manufacturing uses, a special application process and fee structure would need to be developed for any commercial cannabis use. 3. Distribution Centers (CBB License Type 11) Development standards, land use impacts, and permitting for Commercial Cannabis Distribution Centers would be similar to manufacturing cannabis land uses. Cannabis distributors are licensed to purchase, sell, conduct quality assurance review of packaging and labeling, and also transport cannabis goods between licensees. Distribution may involve a variety of manufacturing-related activities including purchase of raw material and transportation of raw materials or manufactured materials to other licensed cannabis facilities. Distribution Use Considerations Distribution centers generally serve the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between entities licensed for and engaged in commercial cannabis activities. A distribution center would distribute cannabis product between licensees, such as from a cultivation site to a retailer , or from manufacturing to retail. Distribution centers do not conduct any retail sales and do not have a public visitation use. It is also important to understand that a distribution center is not a delivery service and cannot distribute cannabis products to the retail consumer. Typically, a distribution center is associated with a manufacturing and cultivation business. It is important to understand that a distribution use does not allow for any retail deliveries or distribution to retail customers. A retail delivery business is a different license (Type 9). A Type 9 license could allow for a non-storefront delivery service to operate in conjunction with another commercial cannabis use, or alone. Such a delivery service would be similar Page 41 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 in nature to a small office or small distribution site . However, at the previous City Council hearing, Council did not suggest exploring a Type 9 license in the City. Attachment 1 provides draft ordinance language to amend the existing ordinance to allow for a cannabis distribution land use. In our County, cannabis distribution centers are allowed in the unincorporated County, the City of San Luis Obispo, Grover Beach, and the City of Morro Bay (medical distribution center only). The use considerations are similar to manufacturing uses and most permitted manufacturing land uses also serve as distribution centers. In Atascadero, the Industrial (I), Commercial Service (CS), and Commercial Park Zone (CPK) zones could accommodate a distribution location. Such land uses should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Attachment 1 illustrates what an ordinance for a cannabis distribution use would look like. These uses should be limited in size to 2,000 square feet or less or be combined with a cultivation or manufacturing site. The following considerations should be incorporated into any use permit for cannabis distribution land uses: 1. Limitations on the number of specific distribution uses and distance requirements between land uses. Maximum size limits may also be prescribed. It is recommended that distribution facilities be prohibited within 600 feet from schools, parks, and youth centers. 2. Performance criteria for distribution businesses including submittal of and/or City approval of: a. Indemnification Form/Agreement. b. Preliminary Security and Operations Plan. It is recommended that all cannabis businesses in the City be required to submit a Security Operations Plan. This is typical of cannabis permitting in adjacent cities and is included in the application for CUP for cannabis business licenses. c. Signage Plan. d. Employee Safety and Training Plan. e. City Tax and Fee Payment Plan. f. Vicinity Map showing distance to closest sensitive land uses. g. Community Benefit Agreement to include a program or compensation to be given to the community to mitigate the potential impacts of cannabis business. h. Additional conditions to be established through the Conditional Use Permit process. It is recommended that any cannabis business in the City be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to the Planning Commission to ensure neighborhood compatibility and compliance with City appearance review standards. Zoning and Land Availability The City’s most intensive commercial zones are the Industrial, Commercial-Service, and Commercial Park Zones. These zoning districts are designated for service, manufacturing, and industrial land uses and are designated for larger, indoor land uses. Page 42 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 These land use designations were selected as the most desirable for non-retail cannabis land uses as these land uses can most easily fit within these zones. Manufacturi ng, cultivation, or storage of cannabis products does not seem appropriate in retail, tourism or residential zones. The City’s Industrial Zone is concentrated around Traffic Way and Via Avenue with substantial additional land along Sycamore Avenue adjacent to the Salinas River. There are approximately 25-30 acres that are vacant within this district, and much more that is underutilized. Much of the vacant industrial land is owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The existing Sycamore Industrial Park represents one of the largest industrial parks in the City. However, that industrial park is currently 100% occupied with automotive and industrial land uses. Additional industrial land lies along the Traffic Way corridor. However, many of these sites are small and are developed with small industrial buildings, typically less than 5,000 square feet. Several large, underutilized parcels remain in the industrial zone adjacent to Via Avenue. This location could accommodate indoor cultivation, manufacturing or distribution. Allowing such land uses, could accelerate development or redevelopment of several of the underutilized parcels that have been historically utilized for outdoor storage or other non-conforming uses (See Attachment 2). The City’s Service-Commercial zone or CS is primarily located along the southern corridor of EL Camino Real, north of Santa Rosa Road and south of Curbaril Road. Interspersed with the retail zone (both zones share the same general plan designation), this zone is primarily developed with light industrial uses, and service uses such as auto repair, tire shops, and towing facilities. All of the parcels in this zone are fairly small in size (less than one acre) and are developed. This zone could accommodate a small “light manufacturing” facility or distribution facility in the area that sits between El Camino Real and Highway 101, south of Curbaril Road. The likelihood of an indoor cultivation facility is low in this area since there are no significant sized buildings or parcels within this area . Therefore, it is recommended that cultivation not be included in the list of conditionally allowed uses in the CS zone (see Attachment 2). The City’s Commercial Park or CPK zone is located entirely within the strip of land between Highway 101 and EL Camino Real, north of San Anselmo and south of Del Rio Road. This zone has a significant number of medium sized, vacant parcels that could be developed with buildings suitable for light manufacturing or smaller indoor cultivation uses (see Attachment 2). Overlay Zone Option Some communities choose to utilize an “Overlay Zone”, similar to a “Planned Development” zone to implement cannabis land uses. This can ensure that cannabis land uses only get developed in very specific locations in the City, and that any change to the location would need City Council approval. For example, the City may choose to add an overlay zone to portions of the Industrial, CS and CPK zone while prohibiting cannabis uses in the remainder of these zones. This reduces land use flexibility, but allows ultimate control and neighborhood protection. In some cases, the adoption of an overlay zone could be property owner driven and could be evaluated at the request of the property owner and at the discretion of the City. Page 43 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 Job and Tax Revenue Potential State law creates a framework that allows for a legal, structured, and taxed statewide industry to develop while giving purview in terms of location and approval of cannabis business to local and regional governments. Cities can prohibit cannabis businesses, or allow businesses to operate within their jurisdiction. Job Creation Job creation data from the Bureau of Labor is non-existent as cannabis is still considered to be prohibited under federal law and jobs created in the industry are not counted. However, signs of job growth in the cannabis industry in California are positive. In 2018, Sonoma County had 52 licensed commercial cultivators (indoor and outdoor) that created an estimated 1,674 industry jobs, which is roughly 32 jobs per cultivator (Economic Impact of the Cannabis Industry, Sonoma County, 2018 (Attachment 3)). However, data on job creation from manufacturing business is limited, especially on the scale for smaller operations that would operate in the City of Atascadero. Similar to other industries, such as the wine industry, the creation of a local cannabis supply chain (cultivation, manufacturing, and certain types of retail) may align and help expand other industries, including real estate, trucking/transportation, construction, fertilizer and grower supply, printing, labeling, and marketing. There is potential market creation in allowing additional cannabis businesses and this does have the potential for job creation. In examining existing cannabis permits and environmental documents in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, a typical commercial cultivation facility of around 20,000 square foot has an estimated 15 employees directly associated with or employed by the business. A 15,000 square foot square foot manufacturing and cultivation project in Hayfork, CA, has an estimated 40 employees. In the City of San Luis Obispo, there is a merit criteria checklist that requires commercial cannabis operators to commit to local hiring of employees. Applicants that commit to hiring local employees receive more application points, as well as applicants that commit to sources from local businesses. As of August 2020, the City of Grover Beach has approved 30 cannabis use permits. Currently, there are eleven (11) operational businesses, six (6) in the development/ construction process, and five (5) under City review. Of the 30 use permits, the majority are manufacturing and distribution facilities. Existing City Tax 2018 The City Council voted to adopt a resolution to submit a Cannabis Tax Ballot Measure to the voters in June of 2018. The Cannabis Tax Measure came into effect January 1, 2019 , and is based on gross receipts of cannabis sales, services, and transactions. The Cannabis Business Tax may be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote, but voter approval would be required for any amendment that would increase the rate of any tax. The current City cannabis business tax rates are shown in Table 1 and is shown in Chapter 18 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. Page 44 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 Table 1 – City of Atascadero Cannabis Tax Rates Initial Rate (beginning January 1, 2019) Maximum Rate (through January 1, 2021) Commercial Cultivation Per square feet of canopy space Indoor, permanent artificial lighting $7.00 annually $10.00 annually + Consumer Price Index (CPI) Increase Indoor, combination of natural and artificial lighting $4.00 annually $7.00 annually + CPI Increase Indoor, exclusively natural lighting $2.00 annually $4.00 annually + CPI Increase Nursery, minimal artificial lighting $1.00 annually $2.00 annually + CPI Increase Testing, Manufacturing, and Retail % of Gross receipts Testing Lab 1% 2.5% Retail sales 4% 6% Distribution 2% 3% Manufacturing, processing, or other 2.5% 4% Staff Time and Cost Recovery While the review process to evaluate a use permit for a commercial cannabis business may require significant staff time, the cost recovery for staff time would be covered by fees and may not be significant when compared to similar use permit applications. Regionally, the cities of Morro Bay and Grover Beach implement cost recovery through cannabis specific fee structures and applicant deposits. For example, the City of Grover Beach collects an annual regulatory fee per retailer or manufacturer. These one -time or annual regulatory fees cover the majority of costs associated with maintenance and law enforcement. Additionally, development fees are charged to applicants for planning, enforcement, and permit review costs. The City of Morro Bay charges a deposit to applicants and an annual fee. As part of an amended ordinance, the City could charge deposits to applicants, annual regulatory fees, and implement 100 percent cost recovery associated with cannabis oversight and permitting. The development of this fee structure would require coordination with City Administration, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Finance Department. As an example, the City of Grover Beach’s basic fee structure for cost recovery is included below. Cannabis Business Type Fee Type Amount Notes Retail/Manufacturing Annual Regulatory Fee $20,000 Distribution Annual Regulatory Fee $10,000 Labs/Testing Annual Regulatory Fee $5,000 All Deposit Account $6,000 Redevelopment site All Deposit Account $10,000 Greenfield site Page 45 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 Market Demand The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that in 2019-2020 tax year, the state will allocate nearly $300 million from cannabis tax revenues into state programs. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) reported that as of August 2019, California’s cannabis excise tax generated $74.2 million in revenue and the cultivation tax generated $22.6 million, not including taxes collected by local and regional governments. Data also suggests that market opportunities exist in supplying products to retailers as retail operation markets mature and that the primary market in the United States will be California, where retail sales of cannabis is expected to grow by 23 percent, or approximately $4.7 billion. Regionally, market demand data is lacking as only a few cities in the County have cannabis ordinances that allow for expanded commercial activities and information on revenue, community impacts, and benefits are limited. In discussions with HdL, the City has been advised that demand for non-retail cannabis land uses is very low. It was noted that these commercial land uses typically locate in larger populations that exceed 500,000 persons where there are direct connections to a large retail market. Furthermo re, it was noted that due to Covid-19, the amount of capital to invest in these commercial land uses is very low. Much of the market is still in the illegal market, as high taxes and extensive capital needs continue to drive down the legal market. However, the City of Grover Beach still believes there is a future in the non-retail market, therefore their analysis projects that there is growth potential in this arena. Atascadero has not received any inquiries regarding cultivation or manufacturing allowances, however we do receive inquires regarding the potential for retail uses on a regular basis. Tax Revenue In San Luis Obispo County, the cities of Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo, and Grover Beach have adopted ordinances that allow for retail sales of cannabis products through store fronts or dispensaries, in addition to other commercial cannabis activities. For fiscal year 2018-2019, the City of Grover Beach received an estimated $1,000,000 in cannabis related revenue for the year and the City of San Luis Obispo received and estimated $80,000. The City of Atascadero currently collects tax on retail cannabis delivery services from outside of the City, which was implemented in early 2020. The addition of more commercial cannabis business will increase potential tax revenue, however the significant increase would be far less than surrounding communities unless a retail land use was included in the update. In Atascadero, there is very little commercial industrial land that can accommodate significant increases in manufacturing or cultivation uses, and there is virtually no agricultural land available. Currently, there is not substantial or accurate data on the potential for tax revenue from cultivation or manufacturing uses. Most of the data in our County is based on retail uses. While there are commercial cannabis cultivation operations in the unincorporated areas, these primarily exist on large agricultural or rural residential properties, and that type of land is not available in Atascadero. The three considered uses that have the potential for revenue creation are retail, cultivation, and manufacturing. Retail sales is generally considered to be the greatest source of tax revenue for cities, followed by cultivation and manufacturing. Current revenue by type is unavailable from neighboring jurisdictions due to the small number or business outlets and business information confidentiality laws. Page 46 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 11/24/20 Next Steps This discussion is intended to be a closer look at the potential land uses that may be appropriate in the City. If the City Council would like staff to return with a draft ordinance, specific direction on the items to include in the draft can be discussed at this time. The Council may also desire to direct staff to provide additional community outreach on this effort prior to returning with a draft ordinance. Specifically, staff is seeking Council direction on the following items: 1. Should staff return with a draft ordinance amending the existing Cannabis Ordinance to include additional commercial land uses? 2. What Commercial Land uses should be included in a draft ordinance: a) Commercial Cultivation (size limits, small to medium) b) Commercial Manufacturing (non-volatile) c) Commercial distribution (size limits) d) Non-storefront commercial medical or retail delivery 3. Should other land uses, such as a retail storefront, be explored at this time? 4. If staff returns with a draft ordinance, are there specific items that should be incorporated into the ordinance? a) Specific number of each use? b) Should the City establish overlay zones for cannabis? c) Should the City require community benefit programs? d) Are their specific districts other than CS, CPK or Industrial that should be examined? ATTACHMENTS: 1. Examples of a Draft Ordinance Amendments to Title 9, Chapter 17 2. City zoning maps with buffer zones 3. Sonoma County Cannabis Study 4. City of Grover Beach Revenue Projections 5. LA Times article regarding Cannabis industry trends Page 47 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 Attachment 1: Rough Draft Amendments to Existing Cannabis Ordinance (Chapter 17) Draft Amendments to AMC Chapter 17: Chapter 17 CANNABIS ACTIVITIES AND REGULATIONS Show All 9-17.001 Title. 9-17.002 Purpose and intent. 9-17.003 Definitions. (Amendments for new uses) 9-17.004 Personal cannabis cultivation. 9-17.005 Commercial cannabis activities. (Amendments for new uses) 9-17.006 Commercial cannabis activities development standards. (Amendments for new uses) 9-17.007 Commercial cannabis application and procedures. (Amendments for new uses) 9-17.008 Commercial cannabis application approval or denial of entitlement. 9-17.009 Commercial cannabis operational requirements. (Amendments for new uses) 9-17.010 Suspension and revocation of entitlement. 9-17.011 Enforcement. 9-17.003 (Changes in Red) For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply. (a) Accessory Structure. An accessory structure is a detached structure, with a “u” occupancy that is accessory to and subordinate to the primary residential use. (b) Cannabis. “Cannabis” shall have the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 26001(f), which includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Cannabis” also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. “Cannabis” does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. For the purpose of this chapter, “cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (c) Cannabis Canopy. All areas occupied by any portion of a cannabis plant, encompassing all vertical planes (i.e., stacking of plants), whether contiguous or noncontiguous on any one (1) site. Cannabis canopy” shall be measured by taking the longest length and widest width of existing plants (including all gaps and open areas between plants) and multiplying the length and width to get square footage. Page 48 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 (d) Cannabis Greenhouse. A fully enclosed permanent structure that is clad in transparent material. Cannabis cultivation within an enclosed, non-transparent greenhouse is considered indoor cultivation. (e) Cannabis Hoop Structure. A readily removable plastic covered hoop structure without in- ground footings or foundations, which are not more than twelve (12) feet in height and do not have vertical sides that exceed four (4) feet in height. Cannabis hoop structures are accessory uses on residential land use categories which shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square-feet. Cannabis cultivation within hoop structures is considered outdoor cultivation. (__) Cannabis Manufacturing. The production, preparation, propagation, or compounding of cannabis or cannabis products either directly or indirectly or by extraction methods, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, using volatile or non-volatile organic compounds, at a fixed location, that packages or repackages cannabis or cannabis products, or labels or relabels its containers. (f) Cannabis Testing Facility. A facility, entity, or site that offers or performs testing of cannabis or cannabis products and that is both accredited by an accrediting body that is independent from all other persons involved in the cannabis industry in the state, and registered with and licensed by the California State Department of Public Health. (g) Commercial Cannabis Activity. “Commercial cannabis activity” shall have the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 26001(k), which includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of cannabis or cannabis products as provided in MAUCRSA (Business and Professions Code Section 26000 et seq.) and for which a state license is required. Commercial cannabis activity shall also include the sale or distribution of cannabis and/or cannabis products, in exchange for compensation in any form, for medicinal purposes under Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 et seq. (__) Commercial Cannabis Business, Establishment, or Facility. Any business, establishment, facility, property, location, or site where a commercial cannabis activity occurs or is operated (or is proposed to occur or operate) under this section. (h) Cultivation. “Cultivation” shall have the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 26001(l), which includes any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis. (__) Distribution. The procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis or cannabis products between entities licensed pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act or as amended. (__) Distributor. A Person licensed under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act to engage in the business of purchasing cannabis from a licensed cultivator, or cannabis products from a license manufacturer, for sale to a licensed retailer or microbusiness. (i) Day Care Center. “Day care center” shall have the same meaning as Health and Safety Code Section 1596.76, which any child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school-age child care centers. Page 49 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 (j) Fully Enclosed Structure. A fully enclosed space within a building or separate structure that complies with the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted by the City of Atascadero, or if exempt from the permit requirements of the CBC, that has a complete roof, foundation, slab or equivalent base to which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, and non-transparent walls on all sides. (k) Indoor Cultivation. Cultivation, as defined in subsection (h), of this section, within a fully enclosed structure, as defined in subsection (j) of this section. (l) Outdoor Cultivation. Any location within the City of Atascadero that is not within a fully enclosed structure, or cannabis green house, as defined in subsection (d) of this section. (m) Personal Cultivation. Cultivation of cannabis at a private residence, as defined by subsection (n) of this section, for non-commercial cannabis activities, which is defined in subsection (g). (n) Private Residence. A house, apartment unit, mobile unit, or other similar dwelling unit that is legally permitted within the City of Atascadero, and is considered a residential occupancy type in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Atascadero. (o) Retail Cannabis Delivery Center. A “retail cannabis delivery center” is a facility from which deliveries of cannabis and/or cannabis products originate pursuant to orders placed by customers inside and/or outside the City. (p) School. A private or public educational facility providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 through 12. (q) State Cannabis Laws. “State Cannabis Laws” shall mean and include California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.1 through 11362.45; California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996); California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 to 11362.83 (Medical Marijuana Program Act); California Health and Safety Code Sections 26000 through 26211 (Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”)); California Health and Safety Code Sections 26220 through 26231.2; the California Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use issued in August, 2008, as such guidelines may be revised from time to time by action of the Attorney General; California Labor Code Section 147.5; California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 31020 and 34010 through 34021.5; California Fish and Game Code Section 12029; California Water Code Section 13276; all State regulations adopted pursuant to MAUCRSA; and all other applicable laws of the State of California. (__) Type 1 Cannabis Manufacturing Facility. A facility that manufactures cannabis products using nonvolatile solvents, or no solvents, and for which a Type 6 or Manufacturing Level 1 license is required under Business and Professions Code section 26100. (__) Type 2 Cannabis Manufacturing Facility. A facility that manufactures cannabis products using volatile solvents and for which a Type 7 or Manufacturing Level 2 license is required under Business and Professions Code section 26100. (__) Volatile Solvents. “Volatile solvents” shall have the same meaning as in Health and Safety Code section 11362.3(b)(3), which includes any solvent that is or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures. Page 50 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 (r) Youth Center. “Youth center” shall have the same meaning as Health and Safety Code Section 11353.1, which includes any public or private facility that is primarily used to host recreational or social activities for minors, including, but not limited to, private youth membership organizations or clubs, social service teenage club facilities, video arcades, or similar amusement park facilities. (Ord. 612 § 2, 2017) 9-17.005 Commercial cannabis activities. (Changes in Red) All commercial cannabis activities are prohibited unless specifically allowed in this Table 17-1. It is unlawful for any person to commence, operate, engage in, to conduct, or carry on (or to permit to be commenced, operated, engaged in, conducted or carried on) in or upon any property located within the City a commercial cannabis activity unless that person does so in strict compliance with State Cannabis Laws, this section, and all applicable Municipal Code provisions. (a) Table 17-1 identifies the uses of commercial cannabis activities that are permitted in non- residential districts, and the planning permit required to establish each use, in compliance with Chapters 9-1 and 9-2 of this code. Table 17-1 – Commercial Cannabis Use Table Table 17-1 – Commercial Cannabis Use Table Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements Non-Residential Zones A Allowed Use, Zoning Clearance Required CUP Conditional Use Permit Required (Major) AUP Administrative Use Permit Required  Not Permitted Use Permitted Uses By Zones CN CP CR CS CT CPK DC DO IP I Commercial Cannabis Activity Distribution Center – No On-Site Sales CUP CUP CUP CUP Indoor Commercial Cultivation CUP CUP CUP CUP Manufacturing - Type 1 CUP CUP CUP CUP Testing Facility CUP CUP AUP AUP AUP AUP 9-17.006 Commercial cannabis activities development standards. (Changes in Red) (a) Commercial Cannabis Businesses. The following are development standards for all Commercial Cannabis testing facilities cannabis testing facilities: (1) On-Site Sales. Retail or wholesale sales to the public are prohibited. (2) Distance. Cannabis testing facilities shall be prohibited within six hundred (600) feet of schools, parks, and youth centers. (3) Signage. Signage shall be limited to fifteen (15) square feet in size. (b) Cannabis Deliveries. The following standards apply to Cannabis delivery services located outside the incorporated City limits of the City of Atascadero: Page 51 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 (1) Deliveries within Incorporated City Limits. State-licensed retail cannabis delivery centers located outside the City may personally deliver cannabis and cannabis products to individuals located at private residences within the City, provided that such deliveries are in strict compliance with State Cannabis Laws and have obtained a business license tax certificate and are paying the applicable business license tax under Municipal Code Chapter 3-5. All other deliveries of cannabis and/or cannabis products are prohibited. (2) Vehicle Advertising. Vehicles used in the delivery process must be unmarked without any designation or logo that identifies the vehicle as a cannabis delivery vehicle. (3) Delivery Times. Cannabis and cannabis product deliveries within the City may not occur between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Ord. 612 § 2, 2017) 9-17.007 Commercial cannabis application and procedures. (Changes in Red) (a) Application Requirements. Any person applying for an AUP or CUP for a commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility, as allowed under this chapter, must submit the following information with their application: (1) The name of the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility including, if applicable, the name on file with the California Secretary of State and any fictitious business names and/or DBAs. (2) The location of the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility (must comply with the zoning and location restrictions set forth above). (3) The names, addresses, and contact information for each owner of the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility (4) If the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility is incorporated, the names, titles, addresses, and contact information of each corporate officer, the name, address, and contact information of the agent for service of process, a certified copy of the articles of incorporation, and c opy of the bylaws. (5) If the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility is a partnership, the names, addresses, and contact information for each partner and the agent for service of process. (6) The name and contact information for each manager of a proposed commercial cannabis business, establishment, or facility. If such information is not available at the time the application is submitted, the proposed commercial cannabis business, establishment, or facility shall submit such information to the Community Development Department as soon as it becomes available. (7) For each owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer, a criminal history (“LiveScan”) prepared not more than two (2) weeks prior to the date of submitting the application demonstrating that there are no pending charges or convictions for any crime ( including, without limitation, theft, fraud, deceit, or assault) within the previous ten (10) years, and that the subject i s not currently on parole or probation for the sale, possession for sale, manufacture, transportation, cultivation, or distribution of a controlled substance. For each owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer who becomes part of a cannabis testing facility after the required permit is issued, the cannabis testing facility must submit the required criminal history to the Community Development Department within two weeks of the new owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer joining the operation. (8) A site plan and operations plan that demonstrate how the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility has already complied or will comply with the requirements of this chapter. Page 52 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 (9) A copy of all required permits and certificates under Title 8 (Buildings Code) of this Code or an acknowledgment that the proposed cannabis testing facility will obtain all required permits and certificates under Title 8 prior to its opening, establishment, operation, and/or commencement. (10) The name, address, and contact information for the owner of the property on which the proposed commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility will be located. (11) An agreement signed by the owner of the property on which the commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility is located consenting to use of the property as a commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility and agreeing to indemnify, defend (with an attorney selected by the city), and hold harmless The City of Atascadero from any claims, damages, legal or enforcement actions arising from the use of the property as a cannabis testing facility. (12) Indemnification Form/Agreement, (13) Preliminary Security and Operations Plan. It is recommended that all cannabis businesses in the City be required to submit a Security Operations Plan. This is typical of cannabis permitting in adjacent cities and is included in the application for CUP for cannabis business licenses. (14) Signage Plan, (15) Odor Management Plan (16) Employee Safety and Training Plan, (17) City Tax and Fee Payment Plan, (18) Vicinity Map showing distance to closest sensitive land uses. (19) Community Benefit Agreement to include a program or compensation to be given to the community to mitigate the potential impacts of Cannabis business. (20) Additional conditions to be established through the Conditional Use Permit process. (12) (21) Any supplemental information requested by the Community Development Director or designee to establish compliance with the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 612 § 2, 2017) 9-17.009 Commercial cannabis operational requirements. (Changes in Red) Existing: (a) Operational Requirements. (1) A commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility permitted under this section may only operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (2) A commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter must comply with all applicable State Cannabis Laws. (3) A commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter must comply with all applicable provisions of Title 8 of this Code. (4) A commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility permitted under this section may not employ any person who is not at least eighteen (18) years of age. (5) A commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility permitted under this section shall not conduct or engage in the commercial or retail sales of any cannabis or cannabis products on the premises of the cannabis testing facility. (6) No cannabis cultivation may occur on the property of a cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter. Page 53 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 1 (7) A commercial cannabis facility cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter may not allow or permit the use, inhalation, smoking, eating, ingestion, or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products on the property of the commercial cannabis activity, including in the parking areas of such property. (8) Criminal Background Requirements. (i) No person who is currently charged with or has been convicted within the previous ten years of a felony, a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or any crime involving the sale, possession for sale, manufacture, transportation, cultivation, or distribution of a controlled substance, shall be an owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer of a cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter. A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendre or no contest. (ii) Prior to commencing any work within or on behalf of a cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter, each owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, and volunteer must complete a current criminal history background check that demonstrates compliance with subsection (g)(13)(i). Each criminal history background check must be updated every twelve (12) months. (iii) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this section shall maintain a complete register of each owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, and volunteer working for and/or associated with the cannabis testing facility, including a copy of each required criminal history background check. The register and required records must be made available for inspection by any city officer or official for purposes of determining compliance with this chapter. (iv) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter shall notify the city in writing of any disqualifying conviction described in subsection (g)(13)(i) for an owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer within ten (10) days of the conviction. (v) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter may submit to the Police Chief a written request for a waiver of the prohibition in subsection (g)(13)(i) with regard to a particular owner, corporate officer, partner, manager, employee, or volunteer, on the ground that such person’s involvement with the cannabis testing facility will not pose a threat to public safety. The Police Chief, in his or her unfettered discretion, may deny such a written request, subject to the appeal procedures set forth in Municipal Code Sections 1-2.13 through 1-2.16. (9) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter shall provide the name, phone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of a manager or representative who can be reached twenty-four (24) hours a day in the event that the city decides to provide notice of an operating problem associated with the cannabis testing facility. (10) Disposal of chemical, dangerous or hazardous waste must be conducted in a manner consistent with Federal, State and local laws, regulations, rules or other requirements. Cannabis waste must be made unusable and unrecognizable prior to leaving the licensed premises by grinding it and incorporating it with fifty percent (50%) non-cannabis waste. (11) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter must pay any applicable taxes pursuant to Federal, State, and local law. (12) A cannabis testing facility permitted under this chapter shall provide a secured storage area on- site. All cannabis and cannabis products shall be stored in this area during non-business hours. (Ord. 612 § 2, 2017) Page 54 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 2 Attachment 2: Draft Buffer Maps Page 55 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 2 Page 56 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 2 Page 57 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Attachment 3: Sonoma County Cannabis Study The Economic Impact of the Cannabis Industry Sonoma County, California December 2018 Sustaining Technologies, LLC Economic Forensics and Analytics, Inc. This report was generously funded by Mercy Wellness, The GrowBiz, CannaCraft, and NorCal Cannabis Company for the benefit of the community. By analyzing economic activity of the cannabis sector, policy makers and the industry can better understand how to regulate and nurture the industry’s growth. Questions and Comments to the authors: Please go to this Google form (https://goo.gl/forms/aa54zuQnDU0PAP0Z2) and submit your inquiry. We ask that you don’t contact the authors directly. Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Key Findings for Sonoma County .............................................................................................................. 2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Basic Concepts and Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 5 Basic Concepts .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Taxation .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Costs to Public Sector: Enforcement and Compliance .......................................................................... 9 Market Entry and Industry Challenges ..................................................................................................... 9 3. Cannabis Supply Chains .......................................................................................................................... 11 Sonoma County Cannabis Industry: Transition from Illegal to Legal Marketplace ................................ 11 Modeling the Legal Cannabis Industry ................................................................................................... 12 Cannabis Cultivation ............................................................................................................................... 12 Cannabis Manufacturing ......................................................................................................................... 16 Page 58 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Cannabis Distribution .......................................................................................................................... 16 Cannabis Retail ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Cannabis Supply Chain Summary and Direct Economic Impacts ........................................................ 17 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4. Broader Effects (IMPLAN®) ..................................................................................................................... 18 Description of Direct to Total Impacts .................................................................................................... 19 5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................ 22 References and Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 23 Executive Summary With a long history in Sonoma County, the cannabis industry has new challenges and opportunities as a result of Proposition 64 passing and recreational use of cannabis being legal for adults over 21 starting on January 1, 2018. This study estimates the economic impacts from the current state of the legal cannabis business. Conversion of current, illegal businesses and the expansion of new businesses can lead to broader economic impacts. This study was sponsored by several Sonoma County cannabis businesses; this report is not advocating a position for or against cannabis consumption. This report instead shows the gains and economic consequences from more cannabis businesses coming to Sonoma County rather than locating elsewhere or remaining illegal. The cannabis supply chain, like any other agricultural good, determines its ability to support a broad number of industries and jobs regionally. Local agriculture is likely to produce more products than can be sold within Northern California, which implies export possibilities. As of 2018, the legal cannabis market cannot legally sell products outside California; for Sonoma County cannabis businesses, one challenge is to optimize cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail business opportunities inside the county. This balance between leakages (losses of revenue to vendors outside the local area) and exports (sales outside Sonoma County) is a major part of economic development for any industry. Recent data collected by this study’s authors, and available from sources such as BDS Analytics, provide the baseline data as of July 1, 2018. Key Findings for Sonoma County • Sonoma County’s overall retail sales of cannabis products are projected to be $150 million in 2018 based on the first two quarters of legal, taxable activity and estimates of illegal activity; • 52 licensed cultivators are currently identified by the state of California as of July 1, 2018 in Sonoma County; o Another 178 businesses licenses are in Sonoma County, predominantly temporary cultivation licenses; • There is an estimated 64.33 million grams of cannabis product or 64,330 kilograms of raw product to be produced in Sonoma County in 2018; Page 59 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 • The estimated amount of cannabis legally cultivated in Sonoma County is $233 million for 2018; • Estimated sales in Sonoma County are $150 million in 2018 of cannabis products, suggesting some cultivation is exported to other parts of California and beyond; • In 2018, given the current level of economic activity and supply-chain connections, state and local taxes of over $33 million are estimated from the economic impacts paid across many categories in Sonoma County; and • In the legal market, as many as 2,800 jobs may be supported in this industry through all the supply chain connections; • For every kilogram of cannabis produced in Sonoma County, the county economy generates $7,800 of business revenue across hundreds of industries; o If all local retail sales came from local production, there would be a 31 percent increase in economic impacts within Sonoma County. Sonoma County Cannabis Economic Impact Full-time Equivalent Jobs 2,814 Wages Paid $164.0 million Retail Value of Cannabis Sold $150.0 million Cultivator Revenue $233.3 million Number of Cultivators 52 Number of Licensed Businesses Beyond Cultivation 178 Taxes Paid: State and Local $33.4 million Total Impacts $504.4 million Total Impacts per kg harvested $7,800 * Estimated production is 64,330 kilograms in 2018 for Sonoma County for legal cultivation. Recommendations • Public policy should focus on incentives for conversion of current illegal businesses, enhancing the hedgers and wait-and-see possibilities for conversion by reducing tax rates and compliance costs; Page 60 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 • Public costs exist for enforcement and compliance in the legal environment and to enforce laws against continued, illegal activity; • Provide entrepreneurship training and support for business conversions; • Centralize distribution and use of local product such that benefits can be maximized across county economy; • Make provisions for local processing of plant material into saleable flower and supply for manufacturers to make concentrates; • Support cannabis tourism through Sonoma County Tourism; and • Create a long-term vision for development of the cannabis industry in Sonoma County. Economic Impact of Cannabis in Sonoma County 1. Introduction The 2016 passage of Proposition 64 in California allows for recreational adult use of cannabis products beginning on January 1, 2018, opening up the current marketplace for cannabis beyond medical use only. The nationalization of cannabis for recreational use in Canada (October 2018) provides an example of how national policies can provide a framework for further economic opportunities. The U.S. does not have a national policy in place yet, which restricts the economic impacts of California’s legalization. It is in production where Sonoma County, the focus of this study, has advantages to generate economic benefits across the county. This report is not advocating a position for or against cannabis consumption. This report instead shows the gains and economic consequences from more cannabis businesses coming to Sonoma County rather than locating elsewhere or remaining illegal. Public policy continues to struggle with a regulatory framework that both discourages consumption while simultaneously providing incentives for illegal operations to become legal. There are few strong, historic examples: the end of alcohol prohibition in December 1933 has some similarities, but currently California cannabis production does not have a national, legal market. The tax structure for legal cannabis is still evolving with every California municipality left to its own choices. Some risks also exist of having adjacent “dry” and “wet” cities and counties in terms of recreational cannabis availability, while state legislation continues to develop its policies for cultivation to retail and other supply-chain partners in between.1 This study’s purpose is to look at the legal cannabis industry’s potential economic impacts on the Sonoma County. Data remain problematic in defining the market’s size: a 2017 study by ERA Economics (see the following link) provides estimates of the supply and demand sides of the state-level market for the medical cannabis market only. ERA Economics’ methodology (as discussed later) is one way to consider estimating the total market size; however, the ERA study does not measure Sonoma County directly. Because an illegal market continues to exist, estimates of total market size with precision are tricky. This study provides projected consumption and production levels in Sonoma County. For each new business 1 The best place to watch this evolution is the California Cannabis Portal of the state government: https://cannabis.ca.gov/ 2 See a study on Oliver’s Market for one methodology to examine the capture of local supply chains and the economic impacts. Page 61 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 that converts somewhere along the supply chain in Sonoma County, there are different regional effects; however, the data reflect the power of regional, vertical integration to capture as much of the supply chain in Sonoma County as possible.2 Using information available from various industry sources, we provide a per-kilogram, algorithm by which policymakers can consider how to provide incentives to generate more legal jobs and economic activity through converting activity already occurring in illegal markets. After conversion, those benefits become taxable and traceable as well as safer for all. This study has the following organization: • Section 2 provides research examples and basic concepts to consider both caveats and opportunities in estimating this marketplace and monitoring its evolution; • Section 3 explores the supply chain of cannabis and how each part has its own economic impacts; • Section 4 provides the economic impact analysis showing the greater economic effects. The IMPLAN® model is used to identify the business revenues, wages, jobs and estimated tax revenue amounts supported by this industry per kilogram of product, regardless of recreational or medical use2; and • Section 5 offers conclusions and policy recommendations. 2. Basic Concepts and Literature Review This section provides a brief overview of a nascent, expanding literature on the cannabis industry’s economics based on a legal marketplace. Basic Concepts The current, overarching issue in the cannabis industry is the Schedule 1 drug designation by the United States government: an illegal drug for recreational use. Because Sonoma County is located in California’s premium wine area, we are able to point out some similarities and connections between the cannabis and wine industries as they exist: • Cannabis, like wine grapes, is an agricultural product; • Each have harvest cycles that create local labor and vendor demand annually at a minimum, however unlike wine grapes, cannabis has multiple harvests per year; • Both harvests then go to a processor for conversion into at least one “value-added” product from raw materials; • These products manufactured from raw agricultural materials are then packaged and distributed to a wholesale entity or direct to a retail or consumer endpoint; o After wholesale, a retail entity delivers product to consumers; and • Each step of this process has some taxation and governmental monitoring involved. Each supply-chain link, as shown in Figure 1, is a step where value is added to the previous step’s product, then tracked and traced. Chemical testing happens as required by California’s regulations, 2 See http://www.implan.com for more on this model and economic impact examples. Page 62 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 creating scientific jobs to process legal cannabis as it moves from one link in Figure 1’s chain toward the consumer. Wine and beer and spirits are different than other products that come from agricultural raw materials in terms of compliance and governmental regulations because they contain alcohol. Each state in the United states regulates alcoholic beverages differently, though some states are “reciprocal” and have very similar laws (California and Colorado are examples in the alcohol industry). Until cannabis is a federally legal product, reciprocity and exporting are only future possibilities. Vertically integrating the supply chain in Figure 1 is critical in taking advantage of regional connections from cultivator to retail. This can happen in one business or through regional economic development. Figure 1: The Cannabis Supply Chain As of 2018, California grows more cannabis than it consumes. Estimates suggest there may be $10 to $12 billion of market value of legal cannabis in California in terms of potential supply; for the United States overall, the retail sales number may be as high as $40 billion, where California is a major potential supplier.3 Demand is nationwide. For Sonoma County, legitimate export markets for now are the rest of California outside of Sonoma County. However, because demand is nationwide, incentives remain to grow and ship through longstanding interstate markets illegally unless incentives to convert and redirect focus on California’s market are a norm for policymakers. Recreational use and availability of cannabis does not stop illegal activity; it simply changes how markets compete and the costs of continuing to operate in an illegal marketplace. What should concern policymakers is placing taxes on a product where competition is fierce. The illegal market, where no taxes are collected, is a mature substitute for a legal market where costs are relatively large to conform and comply. Concerns over costs of enforcement are somewhat alleviated by new tax revenue, but data so far do not allow any precise conclusions as to how law enforcement and other city and county agencies adapt to new regulations and compliance support needs. There are generations of cannabis business entrepreneurs regionally in Sonoma County, and circumvention of taxes and laws has been a long- standing part of that industry. Making both compliance costs and tax rates a relatively low barrier to 3 See https://bdsanalytics.com/press/new-report-legal-marijuana-industry-to-generate-40-billion/ for more. 5 Sustaining Technologies estimates that at least $1.5 billion in cannabis flower/buds were sold before 2018, which connects to the estimate of $150 million in local consumption. Farmer/ Cultivator • Outdoor • Indoor • Mixed Light Manufacturing/ Processing Distribution Retail • Direct to Consumer • Brick and Mortar Consumer • Domestic Sales • Export Sales Page 63 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 entry allows new, legal markets to start more easily with these revenues generating new government revenue. Throughout this study the idea of “leakage” or loss of economic value from a market is addressed. A legal seller of cannabis cannot export from California if the seller wants to remain legal. For Sonoma County specifically, local growers historically have been able to outpace local demand by a factor of around ten, generating “export” (outside of Sonoma County) sales from a base of approximately $1.5 billion in production.5 To summarize, Sustaining Technologies’ estimation model, surveys by the authors and third-party sources like BDS Analytics and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) suggest the following baseline estimates in 2018: • Sonoma County consumes about $150 million in cannabis, of which $20 million is due to non- residents visiting Sonoma County and making purchases; • There is a mix of legal and illegal production of $1.5 billion in final value, perhaps as much as $2 billion in market value from Sonoma County growers as 2018 began (pre-legalization); and • California has a $10 billion retail marketplace (combined illegal and legal) and the United States has as much as $40 billion retail nationally. Taxation Taxation faced by converting businesses concerns both advocates and policymakers. The potential economic impact of this industry may fall because taxes lead to an artificial constraint on growth. There are two basic truths related to this issue: • The tax structure for cannabis businesses is a key marginal variable in decisions converting an illegal market business into a legal business as compliance with tax codes is another cost; and • In Sonoma County and California, so many of the value-chain and supply-chain relationships are already in place, albeit in ways that violate state and federal laws. Economic development is most effective when there is regional, vertical integration that captures as much of an industry’s supply chain (see Figure 1) locally as possible. This includes local capture of sales, use and excise taxes placed on the cannabis market. The literature on cannabis as a legal, recreational product and the economic impacts is limited as of September 2018. Literature Review Tax Rates, Sonoma County, July 1, 2018 Outdoor Cultivation Mixed Light Cultivation Cultivation License Type Rate per Sq ft Cultivation License Type Rate per Sq ft 1C - Specialty Cottage $1.00 1C - Specialty Cottage $2.25 - Specialty Outdoor 1.50 1B - Specialty Mixed-light 4.50 - Small 2.00 2B - Small 6.50 - Medium 2.00 3B - Medium 6.50 Indoor Cultivation Operator Type % of Gross Receipts Cultivation License Type Rate per Sq ft Manufacturer 3.0% 1C - Specialty Cottage $3.75 Transporter 0.0% 1A - Specialty Indoor 7.50 Distributor 0.0% 2A - Small 11.25 Cannabis Nursery 0.0% 3A - Medium 11.25 Dispensary 2.0% Testing Laboratory 0.0% Page 64 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Three main strains to this nascent research field affect our economic impact analysis. First are some economic impact analyses available as of September 2018.4 Tax collection and compliance at the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail levels are similar in structure (not exactly the same in terms of full compliance) to the wine industry. The supply-chain relationships define “allied” industries and other business dependent on the core industry. Related literature includes studies on the wine industry. There are scores of these studies now, some of which are about California and Sonoma County (see http://www.wineeconomy.com/ for the latest version for California from 2017 and at this link for the Sonoma County report in 2014 link). The second literature thread is on measuring market activity, perhaps to be combined with economic impact studies. This literature looks at how to measure a market where there is illegal activity as the basis or parallel to a legal marketplace. The medical cannabis market provides one way to look at demand and supply, thus pricing and volume. How large and precise an indicator the medical market is of the legal, recreational market remains to be seen. ERA Economics completed an extensive study in 2017 for the California Department of Finance that helped inform our analysis (see the ERA Economics study here). ERA Economics’ analysis centers on the decision function for cultivators: the core risk premium, the direct cost of regulation, and the regulatory risk premium. The core risk premium for a cultivator is continuing to operate in an illegal market at the potential cost of losing their business and personal freedom. The direct cost is initial compliance of making the conversion, including permitting, fees, taxes, and other requirements. The regulatory risk premium is keeping the compliance in place, including ongoing tax payments (which may rise in cost over time) and increased costs and regulatory complexities. The regulatory risk premium also includes costs of local permits, fees and other compliance processes; this includes the cost of not producing while waiting for local government to provide legal clearance. Currently, the cost of outdoor and mixed light are by far the most expensive growing operations and styles. Another important insight comes directly from the ERA Economics study. One might argue that the economic impacts of this industry already exist, and the conversion from illegal to legal business is simply a transfer of the same market to a different environment. We argue that because the choice to convert is costly and the legal marketplace is “new” and complex in structure, the economic impacts of the illegal market loses an enormous amount of supply-chain partnerships, and new, legal businesses from formerly illegal operators are like new market entrants. 4 Two such studies are used here as ways to model thinking about the market’s structure and the supply -chain relationships that help proliferate the economic impacts. University of the Pacific (UOP) has produced two studies on Sacramento and Calaveras counties as models (see the UOP studies here). UC Davis’ Agricultural Issues Center has also released a study on the cut flower industry and how legal cannabis may intrude on their growth (see the UC Davis study here). Page 65 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Other studies are more academic in nature and have extensive bibliographies in terms of recent studies. Butsic, et al. (2017) investigates the ecological economics of where cannabis production is located. Its focus is on Humboldt County, California. Humboldt along with Del Norte and Mendocino counties make up the “Emerald Triangle” of major, historic cannabis production in California. Locations in this area tend to be close to each other, and the authors see positive, “cluster” effects in terms of where cannabis is grown. Doussard (2017) examines the labor market for cannabis supply-chain jobs with a focus on the Colorado market. Many of the gains come from import-substitution effects, where due to the lack of potential imports, the legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado created jobs across the supply chain to fulfill the demand for legal cannabis. The gains may not last, especially if there is nationalization, and Colorado is generating gains from being a first mover. These two studies elucidate how economic development efforts need to support initial gains when conversion takes place. Firms like BDS Analytics are using big data to follow the cannabis market. Studies such as Caulkins, et al. (2018) look at data available in Washington State after two years of legal use. Data show where market opportunities may lie and how data perhaps increase competition in some areas and lower the current 3:1 retail to wholesale price ratio for value-added products. Yates and Speer (2018) look at the Colorado market and how data of all kinds can help inform regulatory decisions and evolution to maximize social welfare or gains to Sonoma County from market activity being legal. Their results suggest that increasing the amount of available data is better for all and may inform how other states or national decisions evolve. Costs to Public Sector: Enforcement and Compliance Some concern exists over increased costs to the public sector as a result of cannabis legalization for recreational use in California. Since Proposition 64 passed, law enforcement and city and county agencies have been concern with shifting burdens and rising costs versus estimated new tax revenues. Data to draw conclusions are not available as of this writing, but the literature has a couple of studies that provide some perspective. Carnavale, et al. (2017) uses recent evidence in Colorado and Washington to investigate the public costs, benefits and concerns of cannabis legalization for recreational use without a parallel federal policy. Their study suggests a need to align public policy with public goals. This study advocates for a single, state-wide system, a public health approach, and practical goals as primary. Reducing youth exposure and use and increasing transparency are examples. For each stage of the supply chain, this study shows examples (page 75, Table 3) of regulatory considerations. Their conclusions provide specific recommendations for a well-balanced, regulatory environment where public costs are balanced with business support. The depth and breadth of literature will also change. The next section explores market entry and the basics of how new business may come into the cannabis space in Sonoma County. Market Entry and Industry Challenges A key challenge is to provide the correct incentives and entice current illegal businesses to become legitimate. Tax and regulatory environments must balance between conditions of temperance and also ERA Economics estimated a total supply of 13.5 million pounds in 2016 (650,000 lbs. was for medical use), of which 1/3 comes from the “North Coast” region of California that includes the “Emerald Triangle” counties and Sonoma County (as well as Lake, Marin and Napa counties). Page 66 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 business support to keep local businesses as involved as possible. Sustaining Technologies in Santa Rosa has identified four different types of market entrants. All in Businesses that see the potential and are willing to do the initial heavy lifting to convert to a legitimate business Hedgers Businesses that have both legal and illegal operations where full conversion (becoming “all in” businesses) depends on cost of legal market entry Wait and See Businesses that are illegal and considering conversion but are not going toward legitimate businesses yet Not in Businesses that have no intention to convert These categories are important to understand moving forward. There is some evolution of hedgers into all-in businesses and wait-and-see operators into hedgers. The speed at which this evolution happens may be slow; however, local policy can help shape and augment such choices. Local governments should want entrepreneurs in this market to convert from illegal to legal businesses. Another challenge is determining how much supply-chain revenue can stay local versus being lost to adjacent counties due to lack of raw materials supply or capacity along the supply chain. More established industries (such as agriculture and food systems) vertically integrate by connecting local and regional raw materials sources with local processors/manufacturing, distribution and retail. For example, a grocery store is both a retailer and manufacturer simultaneously in cases where a full-service grocery store includes amenities such as a bakery, deli, taqueria, etc. A recent study commissioned by Oliver’s Market in Sonoma County shows the power of vertical integration as an approach to retail.5 By sourcing local inputs, Oliver’s Market revenues in Sonoma County were increased by 55 percent compared to a grocery store that sourced from outside Sonoma County. Tax revenues generated were increased by approximately 73 percent due to multiple layers of additional taxes paid by local vendors and wholesalers versus similar entities paying other counties and cities those taxes. We provide a similar analysis below to show the economic power of local, vertical integration and monitoring licenses in a way to fill supply chain gaps. Doing such work is the essence of economic development. Suppose there is a Sonoma County business that sources raw cannabis from Mendocino County farmers. Farmers and suppliers in Mendocino County are generating income where Sonoma County farmers could be gaining that income instead. This represents a leakage and loss to the county economy. This is precisely the situation in October 2018 because of regulations related to land use in Sonoma County that have rendered 8090 percent of the incumbent cultivators illegal. Manufacturing and testing and distribution have similar outcomes. If local growers need to send their product to another county, for instance, to Yolo County as businesses choose to locate close to UC Davis and its scientific talent, that location choice represents a leakage to Sonoma County. By encouraging such businesses to locate in Sonoma County and take on local contracts with local farmers, one part of the supply chain links to another through vertical integration. Retail works the same way; local retailers should attempt to source as much local product as economically feasible and possible to maximize the local economic impacts. 5 See the Oliver’s Market study from 2016 at https://bit.ly/2QpE4Oe Page 67 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Cannabis businesses may not only grow their own supply, but may combine manufacturing, testing, packaging, distribution, and retail in one space as a business model (microbusiness licensing allows supply-chain links to be integrated inside the same license). A cannabis business may hold other links within supply chain. 3. Cannabis Supply Chains Earlier, we introduced similarities between cannabis and other agricultural crops. Some simple differences between cannabis and other “crops” are: • Cannabis remains federally illegal, thus no legal exports from California to other states; • It is a high-value product to weight; and • The compliance network is vast and costly. Labor resources also make up a large part of the value chain as raw cannabis is converted to various products by adding value. Sonoma County Cannabis Industry: Transition from Illegal to Legal Marketplace The cultural divide between the cannabis marketplace and mainstream culture is more evident now that cannabis is legal statewide. In a pre-legal environment, there was little need for non-cannabis consumers (around 70 percent of the general population) to pay much attention to the marketplace. It was mostly out of sight, out of mind. That changed dramatically on January 1, 2018 when recreational cannabis consumption became legal. Cities and counties throughout California had to wrestle with regulatory apparatus in short order to align with the everchanging state regulations. Decisions about where to legally grow and manufacture cannabis products and where to sell them became a source of controversy and disagreement between residents. The distribution of Sonoma County cultivators (farmers) was in the thousands pre-2016. Most were small growers operating on small parcels of land and, in some cases, in residential neighborhoods. Some farmers could make a living wholly, but most saw cannabis as a supplement to their household income. Their transition to a legally-sanctioned pathway has slowed in Sonoma County in the face of restrictive land-use policies balancing temperance and legal production incentives. While pre-2018 production was illegal, it represented an economic presence that was difficult to ignore due to its multiplier effects in the local economy. Thousands of people have been employed in the cannabis market over past decades, and their expenditures for commercial and private consumption stimulated local economic activity. In 2018, very little grown flower has made it to the legal Sonoma County retail marketplace. Local manufacturers likewise have relied on biomass supplies from outside Sonoma County. This loss of local biomass supply clips the wings of economic growth as it represents a major leakage at a time when retail sales are growing statewide in search of high-quality product. Page 68 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 The downside for the legal market at this critical time is that the illegal market is thriving in 2018. Since track and trace does not kick in until 2019, available product from illegal cultivation and even in some cases from legallysanctioned operations are found in the illegal market. A portion of the illegal market supplies the California consumer market through legacy channels that are comfortable to long-time consumers. In reality, most of the illegal market production leaves the state in the forms of flower and concentrates. Due to massive oversupply in Oregon, that product is also finding its way into the national supply and illegal market prices have fallen significantly—to approximately $700 per pound for outdoor and $1,600 for indoor. That’s a price decline of nearly 40 percent over the past two years. Legal cultivators will find it more difficult to divert production to the illegal market once track and trace begins, but not impossible. While it is not ideal for cultivators and manufacturers to bifurcate into markets, it is a matter of survival due to regulatory costs rising quickly for most operators, slow permit process in cities and counties, and rising taxes from all levels of government. These concerns are at the heart of the ERA economics study mentioned above. Two years ago, Sonoma County was perched to become a robust center of supply chain activity largely due to the presence of thousands of small cultivators. Given the drastic reduction of local suppliers, it is not clear the role Sonoma County will play on the state, or national, stage in the coming years. Modeling the Legal Cannabis Industry A major challenge is finding a model of what legitimate businesses are currently doing to measure what the benefits are for illegal businesses to convert to legal businesses in Sonoma County. Aggregating these benefits over the entire county economy is the next step. The data here are based on the grams of cannabis involved, the standard unit of measure in a final product and the basis of pricing in cannabis markets. Figures 2 and 3 provide the licenses volume as of July 1, 2018 for California across different parts of the supply chain. These data also provide some perspective on how many potential businesses may spring up in this marketplace and the economic possibilities if more conversions and entrepreneurships take place. Like the wine industry, the cannabis industry has allied industries as part of its normal operations. These include fertilizer, commercial real estate, trucking/transportation, crop management, field design and maintenance, fencing, water, packaging, printing, labeling, marketing, track and trace, and research. Each of these “allied” industries have their own connections to cannabis and also help accelerate and proliferate the economic impacts of these jobs. Cannabis Cultivation Outdoor cultivation is the classic growing condition associated with forested areas. Sonoma County is part of the “Emerald Triangle” region, but is at its southern vertex. Being proximate to the central counties of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte, exporting product out of state remains illegal but still exists (interstate trade will not be allowed legally until a national policy is passed); Sonoma County remains a hub for logistics and retail in the illegal market. Indoor cultivation is associated with a highly-controlled environment, where cultivators set up optimal growing conditions as possible. Pests and other agricultural concerns can be mitigated through an Page 69 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 indoor setting, but space management, energy and other costs of such cultivation can be relatively large. New innovations in LED lighting design and environmental control can significantly lower energy consumption. Mixed light cultivation is similar to indoor with less control and a focus on manipulating the light as the key factor in growing. Greenhouses or hoop houses are a classic example of such agricultural practices, which use artificial light, as with indoor growing, that can be controlled in combination with the use of natural light. Because of the similarities, some areas may see a conversion to indoor grow if product prices are high enough to cover the additional cost. ERA Economics (2017) identifies three types of cultivation as the cornerstone of cannabis supply: • Outdoor; • Indoor; and • Mixed Light. Figure 2: Cannabis Supply Chain Licenses Across California, July 1, 2018 (number of licenses) Manufacturing Licenses Alameda Los Angeles Riverside Humboldt Monterey Sacramento San Bernardino San Francisco Santa Cruz Sonoma San Diego Santa Clara Yolo All Others Totals 111 80 76 53 36 32 32 31 29 22 16 13 11 61 603 Temporary Cultivation Santa Barbara County Humboldt County Mendocino County Monterey County Calaveras County Trinity County Riverside County Los Angeles County Sonoma County Yolo County Sacramento County Alameda County All Others Totals Licenses 1,288 843 616 405 195 191 189 156 103 91 88 81 310 4,556 Retail Storefront Los Angeles Riverside San Francisco Sacramento Orange San Diego Stanislaus Santa Cruz Mendocino Solano Alameda Sonoma Santa Clara All Others Totals 130 32 32 27 18 18 16 14 13 13 12 11 10 68 414 Page 70 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Retail: Non-store Alameda Sacramento San Francisco Los Angeles Marin Monterey Riverside San Bernardino SLO Colusa Lake Orange Totals 44 25 23 8 6 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 118 Testing Facilities Los Angeles Alameda Humboldt San Diego Monterey Sacramento Sonoma Marin Orange Riverside San Francisco Santa Cruz Ventura 7 6 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 31 Each license type has a financial performance model unique to its link in the supply chain, but ultimately each is based on weight and value. For example, indoor growing operations with 22,000 square feet (sq ft) of canopy produce 17,600 kg in volume (weight) per year at $5,000 per kg in value (dollars). These models were developed over the past two years by interviewing cultivators and researching average performance metrics. Cultivators employ many different techniques that produce many different results, even within the same license class. Survey interviews noted differences among different yield levels and best practices in pursuit of higher yields. Page 71 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Figure 3: Cannabis Supply Chain Licenses Across California, July 1, 2018 (number of licenses) Microbusiness Los Angeles Alameda Santa Clara San Francisco Riverside Humboldt Santa Cruz Siskiyou El Dorado San Diego Santa Barbara Sonoma Stanislaus Mendocino Sacramento San Bernardino Shasta Solano Totals 25 18 10 8 7 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 95 Distributor – Transport Mendocino 25 Humboldt 16 Alameda 4 Riverside 2 Monterey 1 Sacramento 1 Sonoma 1 Trinity 1 Totals 51 Distributor Los Angeles Alameda Monterey Humboldt Riverside Sonoma Santa Cruz San Francisco San Diego Mendocino San Bernardino All Others Totals 74 57 32 30 29 26 19 15 11 10 10 70 383 Sources: California Cannabis Portal (https://cannabis.ca.gov/) and Bureau of Cannabis Control (https://www.bcc.ca.gov/) and California Department of Public Health (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/MCSB/Pages/LicenseeLookup.aspx) Figure 4 provides the data that lead to $233.3 million in wholesale value of recreational cannabis product produced in Sonoma County by legal, licensed cultivators. Figure 4: Estimated Wholesale Value from 52 Cultivator Licenses in Sonoma County, as of July 1, 2018 Cultivation License Type # of licenses Sq Ft Grams per license Total Grams Price per gram $ value per license Estimated Total Value Medium Indoor 4 88,000 4,400,000 17,600,000 $5.00 $22,000,000 $88,000,000 Medium Outdoor 13 567,450 1,658,700 21,563,100 $2.00 $3,317,400 $43,126,200 Small Indoor 2 20,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 $5.00 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 Small mixed light Tier 1 1 10,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 $3.00 $4,200,000 $4,200,000 Small Outdoor 12 120,000 380,000 4,560,000 $2.00 $760,000 $9,120,000 Specialty Cottage Mixed Light Tier 1 1 2,500 350,000 350,000 $3.00 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 Specialty Cottage Mixed Light Tier 2 2 10,000 700,000 1,400,000 $3.00 $2,100,000 $4,200,000 Specialty Indoor 12 60,000 1,000,000 12,000,000 $5.00 $5,000,000 $60,000,000 Specialty Mixed Light Tier 1 1 5,000 700,000 700,000 $3.00 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 Page 72 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Specialty Outdoor 4 20,000 190,000 760,000 $2.00 $380,000 $1,520,000 Total 52 902,950 12,778,700 64,333,100 $233,316,200 Cannabis Manufacturing Categorically, refined oils, the flowers/buds, and biomass (the remaining, usable parts of the cannabis plant) are main products for value-added goods. Value-added goods and services have many forms and many directly and indirectly related components to take raw materials to finished products. Equipment purchases, commercial space, heating and air conditioning (HVAC), transportation, mechanical engineering, architects, and many other sub-industries may need to be engaged to complete value- added services. Compliance is another value-added component in terms of track and trace and understanding each product’s chemistry and origin (like “terroir” and viticultural areas in the wine industry). Hence, quality assurance and quality control are also major elements of cannabis manufacturing. The possibilities of final products may be somewhat unlimited. From gummies to candies to simply refined buds, the craft- manufacturing process is analogous to wine or beer or confection making, and likely has a lot of the same processing elements. Market possibilities are vast. Starting with a harvested, agricultural product, the raw inputs become products based on adding value. Each of these allied industries are potential places of economic development and business growth in Sonoma County once legalization and conversion begins in earnest: • Quality control and sorting; • Preparation; • Extraction and processing; • Post-processing and quality assurance; • Drying or initial storage; • Packaging and final processing; and • Final Storage. Cannabis Distribution Distribution in the legal form has compliance (taxation and track and trace) and involves many of the same costs as any other food distribution: • Warehousing; • Logistics (trucking, last-mile delivery, refrigeration, etc.); and • Security. Additional expenses follow other business settings: electricity, water/sewer, roadway maintenance, building maintenance, etc. Each step or link in these relationships generates more economic activity and more connections to households throughout Sonoma County as more workers are affected. Because distribution companies look to optimize scale and perhaps take on multiple clients to spread risk and to Page 73 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 grow, as the cannabis industry evolves and matures, California locations where distribution is most likely to thrive will also evolve. Cannabis Retail Once distribution takes place, retail begins. Retail is a cash activity for now. This is likely not the preference of legitimate businesses long-term. Because the United States government’s scheduling does not allow for credit market activity, merchant activity in banks and credit unions (depository institutions where cash can be stored) may be limited also. Due to consistent cash needs, cannabis businesses, from farmer to retailer, are faced with additional security costs and concerns to complete transactions. Some debate exists on what retail analog best describes cannabis. While the future likely includes a mix of specialty shops and grocery shelf space, regulated retail is the only, current choice. Three major issues apply to a tightly monitored environment where cannabis retail is handled more like a high-end jewelry shop than a specialty food store: • Until removal from Schedule 1 status with the federal government, merchant banking services are going to be largely unavailable and thus all transactions continue to be in cash; • The product by volume is relatively high value, like diamonds in glass cases, and thus have different security conditions and transport needs/costs; and • The nascent market aspects suggest something more like an educational wine-tasting experience rather than a mass marketing and shelf space competition. There are some inherent inefficiencies from such models, and this industry’s evolution and success as it moves forward legally depends on innovations and regulatory generalizations to help reduce costs. Cannabis Supply Chain Summary and Direct Economic Impacts As shown above, this study used multiple sources of data to estimate the current (as of June 30, 2018) level of economic activity in the cannabis markets in Sonoma County. These “direct impacts” are the basis of estimates for the broader economic impacts of this industry; the amount of economic activity possible with more regional, supply-chain integration; and the benefits of conversion of illegal regional businesses into legitimate ones. Figure 5 summarizes the direct impacts from the full supply chain including allied industries. Figure 5: Direct Economic Impacts, Legal Cannabis Industry, June 30, 2018 (per kilogram (kg) based on 64,330 kilograms produced in Sonoma County in 2018) Category Direct Impacts: Aggregate Direct Impacts per kg Cultivation – Greenhouse $11,550,000 Cultivation – Indoor Grow $168,000,000 Cultivation – Outdoor Grow $53,766,200 Manufacturing $70,427,000 Distribution – Transport Allied Distribution Allied Testing Allied Retail – Storefront (Added Value)* $27,571,200 Page 74 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Totals $331,314,400 $5,150 *Note: There is an estimated amount of gross retail sales of $140,584,000, but due to leakages along the supply chain, only $27.5 million remains local in Sonoma County. These direct impacts are new to the economy because they generate new tax revenues for city, county and state government. Sonoma County’s economy, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, is approximately $25 billion in 2009 dollars as of January 1, 2018. The methodology below provides one way to measure the current market size. Methodology We initially arrived at a range of $54 million low end and $65 million on the high end using estimated, legitimate sales in Sonoma County from statewide customers for 2018. These estimates are based on current tax collection with the other period forecasts divided by all retailers currently licensed in the state. No weights were applied for location. We then multiplied that average with the number of licensed dispensaries in Sonoma County to arrive at a $70 million estimate. This estimate is very close to the one implied by CDTFA data extrapolating tax collections on legal cannabis sales from Sonoma County after 2018 quarter 2 (July 1, 2018). Sustaining Technologies LLC has developed a consumption model multiplying an estimated percent of the population that consumes cannabis with average consumption (seven consumer segments at varied volumes of annual consumption derived from Colorado’s data and two other sources). The results suggest that Sonoma County residents consume around $130 million of product per year. Another $20 million are likely sold to tourists for a total sales projection of $150 million per year. That would produce a conclusion that the legal retail is around 47 percent ($70 million of $150 million) of total sales with the rest coming from illegal or imported sales. The next section provides the economic impacts generated from these direct impacts. 4. Broader Effects (IMPLAN®) Economic impacts come in three “flavors” that start the same way ripples come from throwing a rock into a still pond. The rock, in this case, is a new cannabis cultivator, manufacturer, distributor, or retail business. The new revenues ripple out as additional economic impacts produced from by new employers. Direct effects come from these projects and the subsequent business and worker gains. Indirect effects come from workers employed by vendors to these cannabis businesses or allied businesses (wholesale, testing, etc.), producing broader spending. For example, a testing business may purchase more office furniture due to new cannabis businesses providing more demand for services. This spending supports some portion of office furniture businesses and its employees locally as an example. This type of spending has induced effects on the broader economy. The furniture store’s employees spend wages on groceries, medical visits, restaurant meals, and various other industries that have nothing to do with the original businesses affected. Figure 6 shows the multiplier effect of these rounds of new spending. Page 75 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Figure 6: Economic Impacts Description of Direct to Total Impacts In each figure below, we assume 64.33 million grams or approximately 64,330 kilograms of product annually. Notice the breadth and depth of industries and workers affected by an expansion and the current economic footprint of this industry in Sonoma County. The business revenues derived from the cannabis industry involve its licensee businesses and allied industries (as shown in each figure from Figures 7 through 11) as well as hundreds of other industries that have nothing to do with Figure 1’s supply chain, but everything to do with the regional economy. From these revenues, wages are paid to support full-time employment and taxes of various kinds are paid indirectly due to the new economic activity. Per kilogram of raw product produced in Sonoma County, there is approximately $7,800 of business revenue spread throughout countywide businesses. If Sonoma County did not cultivate cannabis, allied industries (manufacturing, distribution and testing) would have less incentive to locate here; the $7,800 acts as an algorithm for the economic impact of one additional kilogram of raw cannabis biomass grown in Sonoma County legally. Estimated wages of $2,549 are paid per kilogram, while $519 in tax revenues (including the excise taxes paid to the state of California) are supported per kilogram. One job full-time worker is supported per 25 kilograms. These numbers are connected by the general activity of $7,800 per kilogram in business revenues. Other costs, profits and leakages to businesses and workers outside Sonoma County make up the remaining amount. Figure 7: Business Revenues Category Direct Impacts Indirect and Induced Impacts Overall Impacts Per kg Induced Impacts Indirect Impacts Direct Impacts Total Economic Impacts Page 76 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Cultivator – Indoor $11,550,000 $7,761,600 $19,321,600 Cultivator – Greenhouse $168,000,000 $94,882,000 $262,882,000 Cultivator – Outdoor $53,766,200 $11,943,000 $65,709,200 Manufacturing $70,427,000 $35,830,900 $106,257,900 Distribution $0 $8,650,100 $8,650,100 Testing $0 $103,200 $103,200 Retail ($140,584,000) Retail margin $27,571,200 $13,970,200 $35,541,400 Total $331,314,400 $173,141,000 $504,455,400 $7,840 *Note: There is an estimated amount of gross retail sales of $140,584,000, but due to leakages along the supply chain, only $27.5 million remains local in Sonoma County. Cultivation gains are seen as being local by definition, and it is in manufacturing and retail where the gains expand. The more those processes can use local markets, the better. We assume that Sonoma County cultivators are producing more cannabis than is consumed in Sonoma County, thus there is an intrastate export market where Sonoma County’s economy is the “domestic” market. Figure 8 shows how sourcing more local products affects manufacturing, allied industries and retail environments in such a way to increase the economics gains of conversion to a legitimate business per raw cannabis kilogram. We estimate the sum of these additional, integration gains as 31.2 percent more than the status quo. By connecting Sonoma County links in the supply chain more completely, the Sonoma County economy reaps 31 percent more economic benefits. Figure 8: Sourced Locally Versus Outside Sonoma County, Manufacturing and Retail Value - Added 2x (from current amount of economic activity) Category Direct Impacts Indirect and Induced Impacts Overall Impacts Per kg Cultivator – Indoor $11,550,000 $7,761,600 $19,321,600 Cultivator – Greenhouse $168,000,000 $94,882,000 $262,882,000 Cultivator – Outdoor $53,766,200 $11,943,000 $65,709,200 Manufacturing $140,854,000 $71,661,800 $212,515,800 Distribution $0 $17,300,200 $17,300,200 Testing $0 $206,400 $206,400 Retail ($140,584,000) Retail margin $55,142,400 $27,940,400 $71,082,800 Total $429,312,600 $231,695,400 $661,008,000 $10,275 Percentage gain from baseline in Figure 5 +31.2% Figures 9, 10 and 11 complete the data summary by providing the annual wages, jobs supported and annual tax revenues at the state and local level collected from our estimated level of cannabis cultivated, manufactured and sold in Sonoma County. Page 77 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Figure 9: Wages Category Direct Impacts Indirect and Induced Impacts Overall Impacts Per kg Cultivator – Indoor $5,625,900 $2,976,700 $8,602,600 Cultivator – Greenhouse $46,886,900 $23,885,600 $70,722,500 Cultivator – Outdoor $23,498,000 $17,270,000 $40,768,000 Manufacturing $13,771,700 $13,248,500 $27,020,200 Distribution $0 $2,703,600 $2,703,600 Testing $0 $47,000 $47,000 Retail $9,425,000 $4,681,800 $14,106,800 Total $99,207,500 $64,813,200 $164,020,700 +$2,549 Gain from baseline in Figure 5 if more local +$3,344 Jobs, wages and taxes come from business revenues. For the jobs numbers, notice that the per-kilogram figures are less than one full-time equivalent job. An alternative way of viewing the estimate of 0.04 jobs per kilogram produced is that one full-time equivalent worker is supported somewhere in the cannabis supply chain for every 25 kg of raw product cultivated. The projected production in 2018 for Sonoma County is estimated to support 1,674 jobs in cannabis directly and over 2,900 jobs throughout the county just in the legal market. Taxes include those projected through the end of the year from California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (www.cdtfa.ca.gov) and are reflected on the line item called “Excise Taxes” (excise tax on retail sales is 15 percent). Figure 10: Jobs Supported, Direct, Indirect, Induced and Total Impacts Category Direct Impacts Indirect and Induced Impacts Overall Impacts Per kg Cultivator – Indoor 86.0 61.0 147.0 Cultivator – Greenhouse 712.0 478.0 1,190.0 Cultivator – Outdoor 412.0 249.0 761.0 Manufacturing 256.0 218.0 474.0 Distribution 37.0 37.0 Testing 0.6 0.6 Retail 208.0 97.0 305.0 Total 1,674.0 1,140.6 2,814.6 +0.04 jobs Gain from baseline in Figure 5 if more local +0.05 jobs Page 78 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Figure 11: Tax Revenues Supported Annually Type of Tax Amount Per kg Employment Taxes $840,800 Sales taxes $6,854,800 Excise Tax $10,500,000 Property taxes $6,026,500 Personal Income $6,752,500 Other Taxes and Fees $2,451,200 Total State and Local taxes $33,425,800 +$520 Gain from baseline in Figure 5 if more local +$680 As Sonoma County considers the use of agricultural and commercial space for economic development, it would be wise to study and compare cannabis to other agricultural industries in Sonoma County and regionally to gain a complete perspective on land use choice and the economic impacts conversion. It is difficult to imagine another crop that has as much economic impact and value per kilogram of raw production for Sonoma County agriculture. 5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations This study shows the economic impacts from the current state of legal cannabis business, where conversion of illegal businesses and the expansion of new businesses can lead to broader economic impacts. This study was sponsored by several Sonoma County cannabis businesses. The cannabis supply chain, like any other agricultural good, determines its ability to support a broad number of industries and jobs. Agriculture grown locally is likely to produce more products than can be sold locally, which implies export possibilities. The legal cannabis market cannot sell products outside California legally as of 2018. For Sonoma County, the challenge is determining how to maximize the opportunities of cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and retail businesses within the county versus purchasing those goods and services from outside the county. This balance between leakages and exports is a major part of economic development and support for legal cannabis. Major findings include: • Sonoma County’s overall retail sales of cannabis products are projected to be $150 million in 2018 based on the first two quarters of legal, taxable activity and estimates of illegal activity; • 52 licensed cultivators are currently identified by the state of California as of July 1, 2018 in Sonoma County; o Another 178 businesses licenses are in Sonoma County, predominantly temporary cultivation licenses; • There is an estimated 64.33 million grams of cannabis product or 64,330 kilograms of raw product to be produced in Sonoma County in 2018; • The estimated amount of cannabis legally cultivated in Sonoma County is $233 million for 2018; • Estimated sales in Sonoma County are $150 million in 2018 of cannabis products, suggesting some cultivation is exported to other parts of California and beyond; • Public costs exist for enforcement and compliance in the legal environment and to enforce laws against continued, illegal activity Page 79 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 • In 2018, given the current level of economic activity and supply-chain connections, state and local taxes of over $33 million are estimated from the economic impacts paid across many categories in Sonoma County; and • In the legal market, as many as 2,800 jobs may be supported in this industry through all the supply chain connections; • For every kilogram of cannabis produced in Sonoma County, the county economy generates $7,800 of business revenue across hundreds of industries; o If all local retail sales came from local production, there would be a 31 percent increase in economic impacts within Sonoma County. Recommendations • Public policy should focus on incentives for conversion of current illegal businesses, enhancing the hedgers and wait-and-see possibilities for conversion by reducing tax rates and compliance costs; • Encourage the development of a craft, artisanal sector; • Provide entrepreneurship training and support for business conversions; • Centralize distribution and use of local product such that benefits can be maximized across county economy; • Make provisions for local processing of plant material into saleable flower and supply for manufacturers to make concentrates; • Support cannabis tourism through Sonoma County Tourism; and • Create a long-term vision for development of the cannabis industry in Sonoma County. References and Data Sources Bureau of Cannabis Control (2018) “Check a License.” Accessed at https://www.bcc.ca.gov/clear/license_search.html California Cannabis Portal (2018) “Laws and Regulations.” Accessed at https://cannabis.ca.gov/laws- regulations/ California Department of Public Health (2018) “Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch: Licenses.” Accessed at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/MCSB/Pages/LicenseeLookup.aspx California Department of Finance (2017) “Economic Impact Analysis of Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program Regulations: Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA).” by ERA Economics LLC for California Department of Food and Agriculture and California Department of Finance, Accessed at http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Major_Regulations/Major_Regulations_Table/documen ts/2017 0203FinalMCCPSRIA.pdf California Department of Food and Agriculture (2018) “CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing.” Accessed at http://calcannabis.cdfa.ca.gov/ Carnevale, John T., Raanan Kagan, Patrick J. Murphy, Josh Esrick (2017) “A practical framework for regulating for-profit recreational marijuana in US States: Lessons from Colorado and Washington”, International Journal of Drug Policy, vol.42, pp. 71-85. Page 80 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 3 Caulkins, Jonathan P., Yilun Bao, Steve Davenport, Imane Fahli, Yutian Guo, Krista Kinnard, Mary Najewicz, Lauren Renaud, Beau Kilmer. (2018) “Big data on a big new market: Insights from Washington State’s legal cannabis market.” International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 57, pages 86-94. County of Sonoma (2018) “All Cannabis Tax Rates.” Accessed at https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Cannabis/Taxes/All-Cannabis-Tax-Rates/ Doussard, Marc. (2017) “The Other Green Jobs: Legal Marijuana and the Promise of Consumption-Driven Economic Development.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, pages 1-14. Sonoma County Grapegrowers (2015) “Economic Impact of Sonoma County Wine Industry: Summary.” Accessed at https://sonomawinegrape.org/wp- content/uploads/2014%20Sonoma%20County%20Economic%20Impact%20Report%20Release.pdf Sonoma State University (2016) “Going Local as a Retailer: Oliver’s Market as a Case Study.” mimeo, Accessed at https://bit.ly/2QpE4Oe University of California Agricultural Issues Center (2017) “Economics of the California Cut Flower Industry and Potential Impacts of Legal Cannabis.” Accessed at https://www.cafgs.org/assets/docs/final_calflower_reportweb.pdf University of the Pacific (2018) “Cannabis Sector Analyses.” Accessed at https://www.pacific.edu/academics/schools-and-colleges/eberhardt-school-of-business/centers- andinstitutes/center-for-business-and-policy-research/custom-studies/cannabis-sector-analyses.html United States Food and Drug Administration (2018) “Cannabis Q&A.” Accessed at https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm Van Butsic, Benjamin Schwab, Matthias Baumann, Jacob C. Brenner (2017) “Inside the Emerald Triangle: Modeling the Placement and Size of Cannabis Production in Humboldt County, CA USA.” Ecological Economics, Volume 142, Pages 70-80. Yates, Dave and Jessica Speer (2018) “Over and under-regulation in the Colorado Cannabis industry—A dataanalytic perspective.” International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 59, pages 63-66. Wine Institute (2018) “Economic Impact of California Wine, 2017.” Accessed at http://www.wine- economy.com/ Data: BDS Analytics provided data that helped complete the estimation of market size. See https://bdsanalytics.com/ for more. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Staff provided sales/excise tax information for each quarter of quarter 1 and 2 in 2018 directly through e-mail. See https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/ for more. Sustaining Technologies provided both survey and estimation data that helped inform this report. Those surveyed were told they would remain anonymous. Page 81 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 Attachment 4: City of Grover Beach Revenue Projections and Staff Report CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 16, 2018 FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Matthew Bronson, City Manager SUBJECT: Options for Amending Commercial Cannabis Tax Structure ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION Receive information on potential options for amending the City’s commercial cannabis tax structure and provide direction to staff on desired amendments. ____________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND On April 2, 2018, the Council received an update on the implementation of the City’s commercial cannabis ordinances and regulatory processes and provided direction to staff on policy issues related to commercial cannabis. These policy issues included the following items: • Development application review and permit process changes • Retailer businesses with no storefront • Level Two manufacturing with volatile solvents other than ethanol • Adult use commercial cannabis businesses • Onsite consumption • Regulatory budget and permit fees • Tax structure changes Based on Council direction, staff is currently amending the commercial cannabis land use and regulatory ordinances to: 1) change the development application review process for the Planning Commission to issue Use Permits for non-retailer businesses, 2) allow Level Two manufacturing with volatile solvents, 3) allow adult use commercial cannabis businesses in addition to medicinal businesses, and 4) draft standards for greater restrictions on personal cultivation in residences. The amended ordinances will be brought to the Council for consideration in May. In addition, the Council requested that staff conduct further analysis into the commercial cannabis tax structure changes and bring back information for the Council to consider for potentially Page 82 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 amending this structure. The cannabis tax approved by voters in November 2016 (Measure L-16) includes a 5% gross receipts tax on medical commercial cannabis activities and a 10% tax on adult use/recreational commercial cannabis activities. This gross receipts tax does not apply to cultivation businesses which have a $25/square foot tax on the first 5,000 square feet of canopy space and $10/square foot on square footage beyond that. Pursuant to Proposition 218, these rates represent the maximum tax rates for cannabis businesses unless voters approved a higher rate structure. Since the City’s rates were approved, numerous jurisdictions have established cannabis tax rates as shown in Attachment 1. This compilation includes San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties which have each placed a measure on the June 2018 ballot to establish a commercial cannabis tax. Agenda Item No. ______ 12 Staff Report: Options for Amending Commercial Cannabis Tax Structure April 16, 2018 Staff identified the following four general options for changing the cannabis tax structure at the April 2nd meeting: • Reduce the 10% gross receipts tax rate for adult use businesses • Create a flat gross receipts tax rate of 4-5% for all cannabis businesses except cultivation • Charge different gross receipts tax rates for different cannabis uses • Lower the cultivation square foot tax The Council concurred in reducing the 10% gross receipts tax for adult use businesses and requested further information and initial revenue estimates of the following tax rate structures: • Retail: 4-5% of gross receipts • Manufacturing/Distribution: 2%, 3%, and 5% of gross receipts • Cultivation: Change from canopy area to building area and reduce to $5/square foot Staff has developed initial revenue estimates for the current baseline tax structure and six potential options shown in Attachment 2. These estimates include next fiscal year 2018-19 along with three years out (2021-22) to match the timeframe of the existing baseline estimates realizing the degree of uncertainty in projecting out these revenues. Given that this is a new industry in Grover Beach, the current baseline tax structure assumes a conservative estimate for business revenues (gross receipts) along with the number of businesses operating. The current structure does not include a specific estimate of increased business revenues with allowing adult use businesses and products at this time though some increase is likely once businesses start operating. Page 83 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 Below is a brief summary of the current tax structure and each of the six options for the Council’s consideration: • Current Baseline Structure – 5% tax and $25/square foot cultivation tax. Baseline structure is based on a projection of 10 separate businesses to operate beginning in 2018- 19 based on previous and impending permits issued (4 retailers and 6 manufacturers). Under this structure, revenues for 2018-19 are projected at $800,000 and 2021-22 revenues projected at $2 million. • Option 1 – 5% tax and $5/square foot cultivation tax. This option retains the 5% tax rate while lowering the cultivation tax to $5/square foot. Revenue estimate for 2018-19 remains at $800,000 given a lack of cultivation businesses assumed next year while 2021-22 revenues are projected at $1.74 million or approximately $260,000 (13%) lower than the baseline. • Option 2 – 5% retailer tax, 3% manufacturing/distribution tax, $5/sf cultivation tax. This option retains the 5% tax rate for retail businesses while lowering the tax to 3% for manufacturing and distribution businesses and the cultivation tax to $5/square foot. Revenue estimate for 2018-19 is lowered to $560,000 with lower tax revenues expected from manufacturing businesses while 2021-22 revenues are projected at $1.22 million or approximately $780,000 (39%) lower than the baseline. • Option 3 – 5% retailer tax, 2% manufacturing/distribution tax, $5/sf cultivation tax. Similar to the above option, this option retains the 5% tax rate for retail businesses while lowering the tax further to 2% for manufacturing and distribution businesses and the cultivation tax to $5/square foot. Revenue estimate for 2018-19 is lowered to $440,000 with less revenues expected from manufacturing businesses while 2021-22 revenues are projected at $960,000 or approximately $1 million (48%) lower than the baseline. Staff Report: Options for Amending Commercial Cannabis Tax Structure April 16, 2018 • Option 4 – 4% tax and $5/square foot cultivation tax. Similar to Option 1, this option uses a consistent tax rate for all businesses (4% in this case) while lowering the cultivation tax to $5/square foot. Revenue estimate for 2018-19 is lowered to $640,000 while 2021-22 revenues are projected at $1.41 million or approximately $590,000 (30%) lower than the baseline. • Option 5 – 4% retailer tax, 3% manufacturing/distribution tax, $5/sf cultivation tax. This option includes a 4% tax rate for retail businesses and 3% for manufacturing and distribution businesses with the lowered cultivation tax to $5/square foot. Revenue estimate for 2018-19 is lowered to $520,000 while 2021-22 revenues are projected at $1.15 million or approximately $850,000 (43%) lower than the baseline. • Option 6 – 4% retailer tax, 2% manufacturing/distribution tax, $5/sf cultivation tax. This option includes a 4% tax rate for retail businesses and 2% for manufacturing and distribution businesses with the lowered cultivation tax to $5/square foot. Revenue estimate for 2018-19 is lowered to $400,000 while 2021-22 revenues are projected at $892,000 or approximately $1.1 million (55%) lower than the baseline. Page 84 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 These six options provide choices for the Council to consider in amending the current tax structure. The Council could also consider a tax cap where a business would not pay taxes above a certain level of gross receipts (e.g., $3-5 million). While the majority of jurisdictions identified in Attachment 1 charge the same tax rate for businesses other than cultivation, several jurisdictions have different rates for retailers and manufacturers including Long Beach, Watsonville, and Santa Barbara County if approved by voters. Of the six options, Option 2 (5% retailer and 3% manufacturer/distributor rates) might particularly meet the Council’s expressed interest in encouraging substantial manufacturing investment while still generating desired tax revenues to address community needs. The 5% retailer rate is lower than the initial 4% rate proposed for San Luis Obispo County that increases to 6% in 2019 or the 6% rate proposed for Santa Barbara County and the 3% manufacturing rate is similar to the Santa Barbara County rate. These rates in Option 2 would be half the median tax rate in jurisdictions listed in Attachment 2 which is 10% for retailers and 6% for manufacturers. The median cultivation square footage tax for jurisdictions using this methodology is $25/square foot of canopy space in contrast to $5/square foot of building area as identified by the Council. Staff is researching this change in methodology from canopy space to building area to ensure Proposition 218 compliance. Staff is seeking Council’s direction in determining the most appropriate commercial cannabis tax structure and corresponding amendments to the existing structure. Pending this direction, staff would bring a resolution to the Council in May to formally change the tax amount to be charged under the maximum amount authorized by Measure L-16. This amended tax structure would be retroactive to be applicable for any cannabis businesses starting to operate in April. FISCAL IMPACT Staff has estimated that the City’s commercial cannabis tax will generate approximately $800,000 in 2018-19 and up to $2 million annually over time under the current tax structure. Council direction for an amended structure with lower rates would change these estimates and staff would incorporate updated estimates into the City’s budget development for next year and long-term financial forecasting. There would be a decrease in anticipated tax revenue projected from lowering rates, but conversely there could be an increased level of cannabis business activity particularly with adult use businesses that would ultimately lead to greater tax revenues. Staff Report: Options for Amending Commercial Cannabis Tax Structure April 16, 2018 ALTERNATIVES The Council has the following alternatives to consider: Page 85 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 1. Receive information on potential options for amending the City’s commercial cannabis tax structure and provide direction to staff on desired amendments; or 2. Provide alternative direction to staff. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. ATTACHMENTS 1. Examples of Adult Use Tax Rates in California Jurisdictions 2. Cannabis Tax Rate Revenue Estimates Page 86 of 103 Attachment 1 Examples of Adult Use Cannabis Tax Rates in California Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Retail Manufacturing Cultivation Other/Comment Adelanto 5% 5% 5% Cultivators can pay $5/sf of facility as alternative Berkeley 5% 5% 5% Recently reduced from 10% Carson 18% 18% $25/sf Tax increased annually by CPI Cathedral City - - $25/sf $1 per gram/unit of cannabis concentrate or product Coachella 6% 6% $15/sf Only wholesale cannabis businesses allowed Coalinga 10% - $25/sf $10/sf after first 3,000 sf of cultivation space Dixon 15% 15% 15% - Fillmore 15% 15% $30/sf $15/sf after first 3,000 sf of cultivation space Gonzales - 5% $15/sf Rates can be raised in 3 years to 15% and $25/sf Greenfield 5% 5% $15/sf Rates increase after 2020; nursery rate $2/sf Grover Beach (current) 10% 10% $25/sf $10/sf after first 5,000 sf of cultivation space Hayward 15% 15% 15% - King City - $30,000 $25/sf $10/sf after first 5,000 sf of cultivation space Long Beach 10-12% 6-8% $12-15/sf Marijuana business license tax also imposed Oakland 10% 10% 10% Considering ballot measure to lower rates Perris 10% - $25/sf - Pittsburgh 10% 10% 10% - Point Arena 10% 10% 10% - Richmond 5% 5% 5% - Sacramento 4% 4% 4% - SLO County (if apprv) 4% 4% 4% Raised 2% every year to 10% maximum Salinas 5% 5% $15/sf Rates increase in 2019 to 10% and $25/sf San Diego 5-15% 5-15% 5-15% - Page 87 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C -2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 San Jacinto 15% 15% $50/sf - San Leandro 10% 10% 10% - Santa Barbara (city) 20% 20% 20% - Santa Barbara Co (if apprv) 6% 3% 4% Also 1% on nurseries and distributors Santa Cruz 7% 7% 7% Maximum rate of 10% Watsonville 10% 2.5% $20/sf Manufacturing rate selected within 2-5% range Page 88 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C -2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 Attachment 2 Commercial Cannabis Tax Structure Revenue Estimates Current ‐‐ 5% Tax and $25/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $200,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $340,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $600,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $1,300,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $350,000 TOTAL $800,000 TOTAL $1,990,000 Option 1 ‐‐ 5% Tax and $5/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $200,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $340,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $600,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $1,300,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $100,000 TOTAL $800,000 TOTAL $1,740,000 Option 2 ‐‐ % Tax Retailer, % Manufacturer/Di stributor, and $5/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $200,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $340,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $360,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $780,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $100,000 TOTAL $560,000 TOTAL $1,220,000 Option 3 ‐‐ % Tax Retailer, % Manufacturer/Di stributor, and $5/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $200,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $340,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $240,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $520,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $100,000 TOTAL $440,000 TOTAL $960,000 Option 4 ‐‐ 4% Tax and $5/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $160,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $272,000 5 3 5 2 Page 89 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 4 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $480,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $1,040,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $100,000 TOTAL $640,000 TOTAL $1,412,000 Option 5 ‐‐ 4% Tax Retailer, 3% Manufacturer/Distributor, and $5/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $160,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $272,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $360,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $780,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $100,000 TOTAL $520,000 TOTAL $1,152,000 Option 6 ‐‐ 4% Tax Retailer, 2% Manufacturer/Distributor, and $5/SF Cultivation Tax 2018‐19 2021‐22 # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount # Type Gross Receipts Tax Amount 4 Retailer $1,000,000 $160,000 4 Retailer $1,700,000 $272,000 6 Manufacturing $2,000,000 $240,000 10 Manufacturing $2,600,000 $520,000 ‐ Cultivation ‐ ‐ 2 Cultivation $2,500,000 $100,000 TOTAL $400,000 TOTAL $892,000 Page 90 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 5 Attachment 5: Los Angeles Times Article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californias-biggest-legal-marijuana-market --------- Page 1----------------------- California now has the biggest legal marijuana market in the world. Its black market is even bigger A new study predicts record legal cannabis sales in California this year. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) By PATRICK MCGREEVY | STAFF WRITER AUG. 15, 2019 | 5 AM SACRAMENTO — California is on track to post a record $3.1 billion in licensed cannabis sales this year, solidifying its status as the largest legal marijuana market in the world, according to a study released Thursday by financial analysts who advise the industry. Legal sales are up significantly from an approximate $2.5 billion in 2018, the first year of licensed cannabis sales in California, according to the analysis by sales-tracking firms Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics. After a rocky start in 2018, retailers that have survived California’s tough licensing, testing and packaging regulations are “battle hardened” and stronger because of an influx of investment that has allowed them to take advantage of the state’s large population and pent-up demand for legal products, said Tom Adams, managing director and principal analyst for BDS Analytics. “Any market in the world would be ecstatic about a 23% growth rate,” Adams said. “That is fabulous for any industry to have that kind of growth.’’ But California’s black market for marijuana continues to flourish as high taxes and a refusal by most cities to allow licensed shops makes it cheaper and easier for people to buy from illicit dealers, he said. An estimated $8.7 billion is expected to be spent in the illegal cannabis market in 2019 — more than double the amount of legal sales. The size of the black market continues to trouble many supporters of Proposition 64, the statewide initiative approved by voters in 2016 that legalized growing and selling cannabis for recreational use. “The illegal market is competitive because legal marijuana is so expensive to produce under Prop. 64,” said Dale Gieringer, director of Cal NORML, which supported the initiative though it preferred other regulations. Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) tried unsuccessfully this year to win legislative approval to temporarily reduce cannabis taxes. “It’s abundantly clear that the illicit market is still undercutting the licensed and regulated market,” Bonta said. “The much lower than projected statewide cannabis tax revenue indicates that significant numbers of cannabis businesses remain in the illicit market not paying their taxes, rather than migrating to the regulated market.” California cannabis markets 2019 spending Page 91 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 5 Legal market: $3.1 billion Illicit market: $8.7 billion 2024 projection Legal market: $$7.2 billion Illicit market: $6.4 billion Tamar Todd, an attorney who lectures on cannabis law at UC Davis and UC Berkeley and is vice chairwoman of a state advisory panel on marijuana, said the growth of the legal market and the continued existence of a large illicit market is not a surprise. More than 20 years after California became the first state to legalize the sale of medical marijuana, it will take years more to move many longtime growers and sellers into a complicated licensing system, she said. “I personally take a really long view of the transition toward legalization, especially in California that had a really large illicit and quasi-legal market under medical [marijuana law] for 20 years that operated without state oversight and state enforcement,” Todd said. California remains easily the biggest government-sanctioned market in the nation, topping the $1.6 billion in legal sales projected this year for Colorado, which legalized cannabis in 2014. Legal pot sellers here are expected to sell nearly triple the $1.1 billion in legal cannabis that will be sold this year in Canada, which began allowing pot shops in Adams said California’s legal market this year is also larger than those in Germany, which he projected to reach $240 million this year, and the Netherlands, which he expects will have smaller sales. The first year of licensed cannabis sales in California saw spending drop from $3 billion to $2.5 billion because many medical marijuana shops closed once licensing began or kept operating outside the legal market. There are currently 583 licensed pot shops in California and 263 licensed home-delivery firms. The climb back this year is happening “despite these huge levels of taxation and regulatory woes that we think add 77% to the cost of a gram in the legal market versus what it costs on the open market,” Adams said. Jerred Kiloh’s Sherman Oaks store, the Higher Path, has seen sales hold steady after spiking in the first months after legalization. He said many licensed stores in the San Fernando Valley have seen an uptick in sales because of the city’s enforcement against illegal operators in the area. But he is skeptical of the $3.1-billion projection because many other pot shops have seen sales declines in the last year as they struggle with a competitive disadvantage against the illegal market. “If you look at Los Angeles, it’s 10 to 1 when it comes to illegal operators versus legal ones,” said Kiloh, who is president of the United Cannabis Business Assn. Contributing to the size of the illicit market, industry officials say, some 76% of cities and 69% of counties have banned cannabis stores. Proposition 64 gave local governments the power to prohibit legal marijuana sales in their jurisdictions. The local control provision of the initiative “requires by design that there is going to be a very long transition period because it’s saying there are communities in California that are going to wait and see and are going to opt to keep an illicit market,” Todd said. Page 92 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 11/24/20 5 As more states allow cannabis and the federal government changes laws, more cities may decide that it is better to license pot shops than have home deliveries they can’t control come from outside their jurisdictions. If federal and state law change to allow California cannabis to be legally exported out of the state, that also could reduce the illicit market, Todd said. The release of the report coincides with the return of the California Legislature for its last two months of work for 2019, and is likely to add urgency to the debate on a cluster of bills aimed at bolstering the legal market and reducing illegal sales. Lawmakers have shelved a measure that would have cut the state excise tax on cannabis sales from 15% to 11% for three years, but bills still under consideration would fine websites that advertise unlicensed pot dealers and create a state-sanctioned bank for use by cannabis firms. Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) was unable to get the votes needed for a bill that would have required cities to allow pot shops if their voters supported Proposition 64. But he noted enforcement is stepping up. “California’s cities and counties need our support to go after the illicit cannabis market,” Ting said. “At the same time, local governments need to do their part and help bring legal cannabis businesses to light, so they can thrive and pay taxes that help fund public services.” Without changes to make it easier for illegal pot sellers to get licenses and compete, the illicit market will continue to be a significant part of cannabis sales in California, according to the report released Thursday. Adams’ Colorado-based firm projects legal cannabis sales in California will grow to $7.2 billion in 2024, but illegal sales will still be $6.4 billion that year. More cities are expected to allow pot shops, and state efforts to get illegal operators licensed, in part through tougher enforcement, will help with the shift, officials say. “Unless the state acts to lower the taxes and lower the regulatory load, they are making the illicit market participants happy campers by keeping them in business,” Adams said. Patrick McGreevy is a reporter covering California state government and politics in the Sacramento Bureau. He previously worked in the Los Angeles City Hall Bureau for The Times. He is a native of San Diego and a graduate of San Jose State University. Page 93 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Public Works Department CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project Construction Award RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Reject the bid protest of JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. and award the contract for the construction of the CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project to G. Sosa Construction, Inc. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with G. Sosa Construction, Inc. for $286,385 to construct the CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project. DISCUSSION: Background A portion of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) must be used for public facility projects. The City is eligible to apply for these funds, and has trad itionally used these funds for design and construction of sidewalk and pedestrian improvements to remove barriers related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Generally, these projects are smaller in nature ($100,000-$150,000) and address non-compliant pedestrian ramps and sidewalks, as well as pedestrian connectivity issues by constructing “missing links” between sidewalks and other upgrades to the existing infrastructure to provide greater accessibility. The CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project was awarded a $100,612 grant during the 2017 funding cycle, with a second $198,449 grant award during the 2018 funding cycle. Additional funding in the amount of $87,235 was reallocated to this project for a total of $386,296. The City prioritized this project to remove pedestrian barriers along Traffic Way and at the intersection with El Camino Real. The current sidewalk, adjacent to the property at the northwest corner of the intersection (5970 El Camino Real), was constructed long before current accessibility requirements when the property was developed as a refueling and service station. Subsequently, a full frontage driveway approach was constructed that doubled as a sidewalk and it does not meet the cross-slope Page 94 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 requirements of ADA between El Camino Real and the 101 undercrossing. Furthermore, the pedestrian ramp at the northwest corner of Traffic Way and El Camino Real is substandard. This project will address these deficiencies. The project will reconstruct approximately 220 lineal feet of 10-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Traffic Way, 140 lineal feet of 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Traffic Way, two pedestrian ramps at the corners, concrete curb and gutter, driveway approaches, storm drain improvements, fire hydrant relocation, and pavement replacement of the outside lanes in both directions. Additionally, Traffic Way will be widened by two feet to add a lane to provide three eastbound lanes (left, through, right). Narrowing of all four lanes will be needed to accommodate the added lane, but the proposed widths still meet minimum City and California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) standards. This lane reconfiguration was identified as an important mitigation measure for improving traffic flow in the traffic analysis for the Downtown El Camino Real Infrastructure Enhancement Project. The project schedule was delayed due to on -going discussions and negotiations for permanent and temporary construction easements with the property and business owners on the northwest corner of Traffic Way/El Camino Real (5970 ECR). A permanent easement was needed to accommodate construction of an ADA-compliant pedestrian ramp on that corner, while temporary construction easements were needed for encroachments to the property to construct the new sidewalk. Much of the discussion focused on vehicle access to the property, which currently has unfettered access due to existing driveway approach ramps across the full frontage of the property (Traffic Way and ECR). The current business (Pflum’s Atascadero Muffler and Auto Sales) situates vehicles for sale on the perimeter of the property and has no internal circulation, requiring direct access to Traffic Way and El Camino Real on an infrequent basis. A combined driveway approach for public alleyway and auto repair structure (on the westerly side) will be constructed on Traffic Way, while a standard vertical curb will be constructed on the El Camino Real frontage of the pro perty. A mountable concrete curb will be constructed between the combined driveway approach and the pedestrian ramp on the northwest corner to allow the occasional need to access the property. In addition, concrete sidewalk will be thicker in these locations to accommodate vehicle loads. The City has secured needed easements at no direct cost. Discussions were also held with the property owner on the south side of Traffic Way (6040/6090 El Camino Real) regarding access onto Traffic Way from those properties. The original design was modified to accommodate requested access improvements, including a rolled curb for delivery access to Colony Deli, and a right out only egress from the 6090 El Camino Real parcel. Bid Analysis The project was advertised for a minimum of 30 days, from October 9, 2020 through November 12, 2020. Six bids were received ranging from $236,930 to $319,380 with the low bid submitted by R. Burke Corporation, with the next lowest bid of $286,385 submitted by G. Sosa Construction, Inc. The bids were reviewed for accuracy and compliance with the City of Atascadero and Federal bidding requirements, and the City Engineer determined that R. Burke Corporation was the lowest responsive bidder. Page 95 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 However, R. Burke Corporation notified the City on November 16, 2020 that their bid contained a substantial clerical error related to traffic control working days and requested their bid to be withdrawn. The City Engineer agreed that the error was material and finds that G. Sosa Construction, Inc. of Santa Maria to be the next lowest responsible bidder. G. Sosa Construction’s bid of $286,385 is very competitive and roughly $18,000 less than the next lowest bid amount. The City Clerk received a written bid protest from the third lowest bidder, JJ Fisher Construction, Inc., on November 17, 2020 (see attachments). The bid protest alleges that bids received from R. Burke Corporation and G. Soso Construction, Inc. are not responsive to Technical Specification Section 10-2, Mobilization. Mobilization is an itemized pay item on the bid form and Section 10-2.1 list activities that are to be included with the Mobilization bid item, such as obtaining bonds, moving equipment onto the project site, etc. JJ Fisher Construction alleges that the two low bidders did not include costs associated with one of the mobilization activities listed in Section 10-2.1 as follows: “Designation of the Contractor’s superintendent who will be present at the job site full time”. JJ Fisher Construction’s bid protest alleges that the mobilization price of the two low bidders could not possibly cover the costs of a superintendent for the project. JJ Fisher Construction’s bid included $61,176 for mobilization, while R. Burke Corporation and G. Sosa Construction bids included $13,000 and $20,400, respectively, for this item. Staff reviewed the bid protest of JJ Fisher Construction and finds that the protest has no merit (see attached response letter). In the bid protest, JJ Fisher Construction incorrectly interprets “Designation of the Contractor’s superintendent who will be present at the job site full time” to include the cost of providing a superintendent for the project. Mobilization is widely known to be associated with preconstruction activities as evidenced by the other listed activities in Section 10-2.1, such as identifying key personnel who will be representing the contractor. The words “designation” and “who will be” in the said clause also support this notion of preconstruction. Furthermore, JJ Fisher Construction’s mobilization price of $61,176 was roughly 2 to 4 times higher than the bid prices of the other five bidders ($13,000, $20,000, $20,400, $31,000, and $33,000), further supporting that the bidding documents were clear and this interpretation was a mistake made by JJ Fisher Construction. For these reasons and others stated in the City Engineer’s response letter, staff recommends rejecting the bid protest of JJ Fisher Construction. Environmental Review The proposed project is Categorically Exempt (Class 1) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, because it is limited to repair and maintenance of existing facilities. A finding of exemption is on file in the project records. Since the project is federally funded, a review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is also required. As the funding recipient agency, the County of San Luis Obispo completes the NEPA analysis. This project was found to be Categorically Excluded per 24 CFR 58.35(a). This finding of exemption is on file with the project records, and associated mitigation requirements are included in the project bid documents. Page 96 of 103 ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 Conclusion Staff recommends that the City Council reject the bid protest from JJ Fisher Construction for the reasons stated above and award a contract for the construction of the CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project to G. Sosa Construction for $286,385. In an environment where construction costs have been consistently escalated and available bidders scarce, this bid environment for this project was very competitive provides good value for the City. If awarded, construction is expected to begin before the end of this year and continue during winter as weather permits. Significant inconveniences to vehicular and pedestrian traffic along the roadway segments are an ticipated during construction. The Contractor will be required to prepare a traffic control plan, and City staff will work with the Contractor and adjacent business owners to minimize travel delays and impediments to driveways. FISCAL IMPACT: Award of this contract for the construction of the Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility and Pedestrian Ramp Project will result in the expenditure of an estimated $386,300 in budgeted CDBG funds. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Design and Bid Phase 15,000 Construction 286,385 Staff / Inspection / Testing / Construction Administration @ 12.5% 36,000 Contingency @ 17% 48,911 Total Estimated Expenditure: $386,296 BUDGETED FUNDING 2017CDBG Allocation 100,612 2018 CDBG Allocation 198,449 CDBG Reallocation 87,235 Total Funding: $386,296 ALTERNATIVES: Staff does not recommend any other alternatives. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bid Summary 2. JJ Fisher Construction Bid Protest 3. City Response Letter to JJ Fisher Construction Bid Protest Page 97 of 103 TO: FROM: BID NO.: OPENED: PROJECT: 6 Name of Bidder Bid Total $236,930.00 $286,385.00 $304,276.20 $307,216.50 $314,879.00 $319,380.00 City of Atascadero Office of the City Clerk Bid Summary Public Works Amanda Muther, Deputy City Clerk 2020-005 11/12/2020 CDBG Barrier Removal/Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility & Pedestrian Ramp Replacement Bids were received and opened today, as follows: R. Burke Corporation G. Sosa Construction, Inc. JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. CalPortland Construction Papich Construction Co., Inc. AAAA Engineering Contracting, Inc. ITEM NUMBER C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 98 of 103 1 Lara Christensen From:Kevin Dodd <kevin@jjfisherconstruction.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 4:16 PM To:City Clerk Cc:JJ Fisher Subject:CDBG Barrier Removal/Traffic Way Sidewalk Bid Protest Attachments:ATASCADERO BID PROTEST.jpg; ATASCDERO BID PROTEST2.jpg Lara, JJ Fisher Construction would like to submit a bid protest for this project. The reason for this protest is the apparent non responsive inclusion of an item requested in the special provisions 10-2.01 10-2.01 “Designation of the contractors superintendent who will be present at the job site full time” After reviewing the bid items of bidders 1 & 2 it doesn’t seem possible that costs were factored in for this item due to the bid total of line item #1. Attached is the special provision from the bid set and a copy of my bid software for that line item. Since this project is federally funded, the cost for the superintendent should be the same for everyone involved in this bid. Bidder 1 & 2 final bid number does not even come close to this cost and when you figure bond and insurance in there also I don’t see how they could have factored this required specification into their bid. Thank you for your time, Kevin Dodd Superintendent JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. Lic.# 939644 PO Box 2219 Nipomo, Ca. 93444 Office: (805)723-5220 Cell: (805)801-1417 ATTENTION: This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments. ITEM NUMBER C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 2 Page 99 of 103 ITEM NUMBER C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 2 Page 100 of 103 ITEM NUMBER C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 2 Page 101 of 103 CITY OF ATASCADERO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero CA 93422 (805) 470-3456 | publicworks@atascadero.org November 18, 2020 VIA EMAIL Kevin Dodd, Superintendent JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 2219 Nipomo, CA 93444 RE: BID PROTEST FOR CDBG TRAFFIC WAY SIDEWALK ACCESSIBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN RAMP PROJECT | CITY PROJ. NO. C2016M05 Dear Mr. Dodd: We have received and reviewed your bid protest dated November 17, 2020 for the above reference project. In your protest, you allege that the two lowest bidders, R. Burke Corporation and G. Sosa Construction Inc., were non-responsive in their bids to include costs associated with superintendence as defined in Section 10-2.01 of Technical Specification 10-2 (Mobilization). Section 10-2.01 list the various activities that Mobilization is comprised of, such as obtaining bonds and permits, moving equipment to the project site, and installing temporary facilities. Specifically, your protest is focused on the mobilization activity of “Designation of the Contractor’s superintendent who will be present at the job site full time“ as itemized in Section 10-2.01. You claim that the line item bid price for Mobilization on the two lowest bid proposals could not have possibly accounted for the cost of a superintendent for the project. We have reviewed your bid protest and have concluded that JJ Fisher Construction misinterpreted the above “Designation of the Contractor’s superintendent” clause of Section 10-2.01. Mobilization is an industry standard and conventionally known to be related to preconstruction activities as evidenced by the items listed in Section 10-2.01. Introducing and identifying personnel who will be representing the contractor is also an item that occurs before construction commences. The words “designation” and “who will be” in the said clause also support this notion of preceding construction. Section 7-2.7, (Superintendence) of the bidding documents supports this concept, stating “Contractor designate in writing before starting work an authorized representative who shall have the authority to represent and act for Contractor”. Furthermore, JJ Fisher Construction’s mobilization price of $61,176 was roughly 2 to 4 times higher than the bid prices of the other five bidders ($13,000, $20,000, $20,400, $31,000, and $33,000), further supporting that the bidding documents were clear and this interpretation was a mistake made by JJ Fisher Construction. For the above reasons, we will recommend that the City Council reject your bid protest without merit and recommend awarding the project to the lowest responsible bidder. ITEM NUMBER C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 102 of 103 Bid Protest for CDBG Traffic Way Sidewalk Accessibility Project Page 2 Please contact me at 805-470-3456 or ndebar@atascadero.org if you should have any questions regarding this matter. You will also have an opportunity to address the City Council when they consider awarding this project and may present any evidence rebutting our recommendation. The City Clerk will provide you with the needed information if you choose to participate at the City Council meeting. Sincerely, Nicholas D. DeBar, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer xc: Lara Christensen, City Clerk Greg Soso, G. Sosa Construction, Inc. ITEM NUMBER C-3 DATE: 11/24/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 103 of 103