RETAIL CANNABIS REGULATIONS March 19, 2018 2 Legislative History - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

RETAIL CANNABIS REGULATIONS

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

1 March 19, 2018

Legislative History

• Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, was passed in the House
• f Commons in November 2017

– Senate has agreed to third reading by June 8. – Can come into force between 8 weeks and 12 months from date of royal assent; TBD by Governor in Council. – Legislation gives authority to each province to determine the legislative framework, resulting in different regulations and approaches to retail cannabis across the country.

• Bill 26, An Act to Control and Regulate Cannabis, was

approved by the Alberta Legislature in December 2017.

• Implementing regulations were released mid-February

2018.

2

Alberta’s Approach to Retail Cannabis

• Storefront retail is privatized
• Minimum 100 m separation from school

sites and provincial health facilities

• Retail cannabis must be a standalone

business

• Hours same as liquor stores
• Extensive licensing requirements

3

Municipal Authority

• No ‘opt out’ provision
• Determine appropriate land use districts
• Determine ‘sensitive uses’ in the community

and adopt regulatory setbacks

• Establish minimum separation distances

between cannabis retail sales locations

• Establish hours of operation
• Define cannabis retail and other associated

uses

• Control variance powers of DOs and SDAB

for above regulations

4

What are we trying to achieve?

• Balance economic opportunity with public

safety

• Keep cannabis away from children
• Minimize public nuisance and resource

drain

• Minimize land use impacts on other

businesses

5

Land Use Bylaw or Business Licence Bylaw

• Municipalities can choose how to regulate

cannabis retail sales

• Most municipalities in the region are opting

to regulate primarily through LUB

• City of SG is best set up for LUB

regulation

6

Cannabis vs Alcohol Regulations

• Cannabis sales are regulated differently than

alcohol

– AGLC setbacks for cannabis but not alcohol – Consuming cannabis can occur in more public places than alcohol, including parking lots, walkways, etc., associated with a development – Best practices where cannabis is already legal separate cannabis uses from sensitive uses and at greater distances

7

What are Sensitive Uses?

• Uses that may be affected by another, or

uses that may cause impacts when grouped together.

• Provincial regulations: school sites and

provincial health facilities (100 m)

• Each municipality will determine what uses

they want to be separated.

– Common: daycares, parks, public facilities – Less common: religious facilities, arcades – Edmonton proposes setbacks to liquor stores; Calgary proposes setbacks to pawn shops, liquor stores, payday loans

8

Regulatory Considerations

• Setbacks from sensitive uses are

reciprocal

• Land use districts that we choose for

allowing cannabis retail need to:

– Be safely accessible – Have appropriate facilities (parking, walkways, etc.) – Minimize impact on other sensitive uses

9

Proposed Land Use Districts

• Proposing Vehicle Commercial and City

Centre Districts only

– Easily accessible by transit, bicycle, walking – Complementary uses – Appropriate parking availability

• Vehicle Commercial private parking lots
• City Centre on-street availability

– Building code occupancy types that are easier to convert without major investment

10

Mapping of Sensitive Uses

• Maps were prepared to help Council

understand spatial distribution of sensitive uses

• Understanding of provincial regulations

are still evolving, so some maps may change slightly

11

12

13

14

15

Comparison of Setback Criteria

Separation distance regulation Spruce Grove (proposed) Edmonton (proposed) Calgary (proposed) U.S. Best Practice Between cannabis retail uses 500 m 200 m 300 m 304 m Distance to schools 300 m 200 m 150 m 304 m Distance to public library 300 m 200 m n/a 304 m Distance to Provincial health care facilities 100 m 100 m 100 m N/A Distance to child care facilities 100 m 200 m 10 m 304 m Distance to public parks 200 m 100 m n/a 304 m Distance to public recreation facilities 300 m 100 m n/a 304 m Distance to liquor stores n/a 100 m n/a 304 m

16

Draft Recommendation

17

Separation Distances

• Controls the cumulative impacts of several

stores located in close proximity

• Minimizes issues with public perception of

areas with high concentration of certain uses

– Investment potential – Property values

• Allows the City to understand the impacts

18

Understanding Linear Commercial

19

Separation Distances

• Staff recommendations on separation

distance are dependent upon other setbacks from sensitive uses.

• With only AGLC setbacks:

– 200 m = up to 18 stores in C1 & C2 – 300 m = up to 12 stores in C1 & C2 – 500 m = up to 6 in C1 & C2

20

Variances

• Variances or not? Administration is

recommending key separation distances be included in use definition

– No variances allowed by staff or SDAB – Allows a period of consistency in applying Council’s requirements – Gives clear understanding to Administration and reduces staff time in early years of adoption. – Could be reviewed and changed later by Council.

21

Application Intake

• Proposed regulations will impact

development permit intake process

• Depending on restrictions, may need to

have a lottery system for processing or

• ther published date for acceptance of

permits.

• Further information will follow as part of

the bylaw process.

22

Timelines

• Develop bylaw: March to April
• 1st Reading: April 23 (target)
• Public Hearing: May 14th
• 2nd Reading: May 14th

23