Redondo Beach council introduces amended cannabis ordinances, limits locations and adds 1,000-foot buffer

The Redondo Beach City Council on Feb. 4 introduced three amended ordinances and a coordinating resolution to regulate commercial cannabis activity in the city, adding zoning and operating limits including a 1,000-foot separation between retail cannabis operators, a one-per-ZIP-code allocation (90277 and 90278), and an exclusion for Artesia Boulevard west of Inglewood Avenue.

The measures are intended to update the city's 2022 cannabis regulatory framework. Director Elizabeth House told the council the three ordinances amend the municipal code's land-use and operating provisions. "The cannabis ordinances that were approved in 2022 are the ordinances that we are amending with the versions that are being presented to the Council tonight," House said.

Supporters of giving the council flexibility and creating a tightly regulated rollout said the changes will let the city control where retailers operate and create enforcement tools. "Delivery is already happening in the city," Council member Kalajarovich said during deliberations. "By putting this ordinance together ... we can regulate it. We can monetize it and enforce it." She urged changes to preserve local discretion and to address delivery and smoke-shop activity.

Opponents urged the council to decline storefront retail altogether or to limit access to delivery-only models. Council member Barrett said he personally opposes storefront retail in Redondo Beach, arguing it would "send the wrong message of cannabis acceptance to our youth." Numerous residents who testified said they favored delivery-only policies or no storefronts in the city.

Council members debated several specific edits. The Planning Commission had recommended retaining a 1,000-foot separation between retailers; the council agreed to keep that buffer and to add ZIP-code and Artesia restrictions after hearing public testimony and staff legal guidance. City Attorney Mike Webb advised the council that an issue raised about state preemption concerned Senate Bill 1186 and medical delivery; he said he would research state law further before final adoption.

After the public hearing and deliberation, the council voted 4'to'1 on a motion to introduce the three ordinances and adopt the related certification resolution as amended. Council member Narenheim cast the lone no vote. The council read the ordinance and resolution titles into the record as introduced by title only and directed staff to return for a second reading and final adoption.

Votes at a glance - Introduced (by title only) Ordinance No. 3287-25 (amending municipal code to regulate commercial cannabis activities) ' Introduced as amended. Outcome: Introduced (4'yeas, 1 no). - Introduced (by title only) Ordinance No. 3288-25 (amending zoning provisions in inland zones) ' Introduced as amended. Outcome: Introduced (4'yeas, 1 no). - Introduced (by title only) Ordinance No. 3289-25 (amending coastal zone provisions) ' Introduced as amended. Outcome: Introduced (4'yeas, 1 no). - Adopted (by title only) Resolution CC-2502-004 (requesting Coastal Commission certification of LCP amendments) ' Adopted as amended. Outcome: Adopted for transmittal (4'yeas, 1 no).

What the council asked staff to do next included: return with clean ordinance language reflecting tonight's amendments for second reading and final adoption; provide additional legal research on state law and delivery preemption; and prepare implementation details (application process, buffer mapping and enforcement protocols). Staff said they will also prepare materials for the Coastal Commission submittal as required.

Background and context The council has been working on a commercial cannabis regulatory program since 2018. Council members and staff said the 2025 amendments are intended to close gaps and align code language after a series of reviews and public input sessions. In 2023 residents approved a cannabis business tax measure (referred to in the meeting as Measure CT) while a prior initiative (Measure E) that would have authorized three dispensaries had failed in a prior election. Staff and council emphasized that tonight's action was the "first reading" stage and that additional legal review and a formal second reading will follow.

Council member Kalajarovich said the ordinances are designed to give the city tools to reduce illegal activity and to regulate delivery that is already operating in the city. "Without this process, we cannot do it," she said of the regulatory framework that would enable the city to require participation in the state's track-and-trace and other compliance systems.

City next steps and timeline Staff said tonight's introduction allows the city to continue refining the rules and begin preparing for the application process if the council later opens a competitive licensing window. The council's next actions will include returning for a second reading of the ordinances, completing legal research on delivery preemption questions and transmitting the coastal-zone amendment to the California Coastal Commission for certification.