Councilman López Proposes Amendments To Retail Marijuana Local Licensing Ordinance

Councilman Paul López, District 3, presented his proposed amendments to the Retail Marijuana Local Licensing Ordinance at the July Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee (INC-ZAP) meeting. Councilman López is the first councilmember to share their take on the ordinance with INC-ZAP. Retail marijuana licensing has been on the radar of the INC-ZAP committee and the committee issued a recommendation to City Council that its licensing be treated in the same manner as alcohol. This ordinance has not been passed by City Council and is still under development and consideration by the Special Issues: Amendment 64 Committee. This Committee meets as needed on Monday afternoons and is comprised of all 13 members of City Council.
As recommended by INC-ZAP, the ordinance is based on the idea of treating retail marijuana licensing in much the same way as liquor licensing. Councilman López’s proposed amendments center on preventing undue concentration of retail marijuana establishments and providing a better foundation for neighborhood “needs and desires.”
In Amendment 1, he is proposing to expand the proposed 1,000 foot radius distance from other retail and medical marijuana centers to 2,500 feet. Similarly, the distance from schools, child care centers and any alcohol or drug treatment facility would also be expanded to 2,500 feet. Amendment 2 would allow any party of interest to request that the public hearing for the licensing be held on or after 5 p.m. to allow more people to attend. Amendment 3 is drawn from Excise and Licenses Policies and Procedures for Needs and Desires: “The purpose of the hearing is to consider testimony and evidence related to the needs and desires of the neighborhood for the retail marijuana store, and whether the health, welfare, and morals of the neighborhood would be adversely impacted by issuance of the license.”
Councilman López encourages Good Neighbor Agreements, which are agreements between a Registered Neighborhood Organization and the licensee for things such as hours of operation and notification of transfer of license. With liquor licenses, enforceable items from the Good Neighbor Agreement can be attached to the license. Amendment 4 expands the “area of interest” to be a statistical neighborhood (such as Greater Park Hill) and not just a 5 block by 5 block zone around the proposed establishment. Amendment 5 would include a designated representative of a registered neighborhood organization and the district City Councilmember as a “party of interest” to represent the statistical neighborhood. Also, this amendment would allow anyone considered a party of interest to testify, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and seek judicial review of the licensing authority’s decision.
Existing medical marijuana establishments will be grandfathered-in to licensing but, if they want to convert to a retail establishment, they will have to comply with the new ordinance for retail licensing.
Members of the INC-ZAP committee had the following comments and suggestions: At-Large Councilmembers should also be considered a “party of interest”; does expanding the “area of interest” negate the voice of those most immediately affected?; residents that do not live nearby could be proponents for the retail establishment; and has the city performed G.I.S. mapping to see what areas of Denver would be blocked out from retail marijuana based on the separation distances proposed in Amendment 1? Councilman López said that City Council is working with Community Planning and Development to produce a map of potentially affected areas. The other items are still up for debate and consideration.
For more information on the Special Issues: Amendment 64 Committee and their meeting schedule go to denvergov.org. Councilman López welcomes your ideas and comments on retail marijuana licensing and he can be reach by email at paul.lopez@denvergov.org.