City Council on 2026-09-14 7:00 PM - WORK SESSION - Sep 14, 2026

Transcript

Warning: This transcript is automatically generated by machine and may contain errors, including misheard words, misattributed speakers, and omitted passages. Always listen to the audio or video recording before assuming the transcript correctly reflects what was said. Do not rely on the transcript alone for quotation, reporting, or any other purpose where accuracy matters.

City Council work session at 7 31 I'm calling to order the San Diego City

Council today's a work session it is Monday September 14th and at this point

in time I will go ahead and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please stand if

you're able to. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So Madam Clerk would you please take our role to establish quorum? Council member

James Aguilar. Present. Council member Victor Aguilar. Present. Council member

Dylan Bolt is absent. Council member Suable? Present. Council member Fred Simon. Present. Vice mayor

Mr. Mayor, Viveros-Walton.

Present.

And Mayor Gonzalez.

Present.

Madam Clerk, I guess I'll start with my announcement.

The City of San Leonardo conducts orderly meetings

to fulfill its mandate, discriminatory statements,

or conduct that would potentially violate

the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,

and or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

California Penal Code sections 43 or 415

are per se disruptive to a meeting,

and will not be tolerated.

Please see the City Council Handbook

and City Council Meeting Rules of Decorum

For more information let him clerk your message, please

If you would like to make a public comment during the meeting you can do so in person or via zoom

If you're present at the meeting, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the city clerk before the item is presented

If you wish to participate in public comment via zoom

You can use the raise your hand tool when the item is called

During the public comment session speakers will be invited to speak and will have a set time to share their comments

countdown timer will appear for their convenience and when the time is up the

microphone will be muted. All raised hands outside of public comment will be

lowered to avoid confusion. Once public comment is opened hands may be raised to

3. Report on Closed Session Actions Taken

speak. Okay so coming out of closed session and thank you public for your

patience we should have started at 5 o'clock but we got through what we needed

to get through. There's one reportable action there's not so much reportal

We are working on the

documentation of the exact

precise terms and conditions of

that extension and we will be

presenting that at a public

session in the future.

4. Presentations

Item number four.

So we do have a presentation

today and I believe deputy city

manager Eric Engelbart is here

to introduce our item on

proposed draft code.

introduce our item on proposed draft code amendments.

Good evening, mayor and council and members of the public

joining us in person online, pleased to be here tonight

to present this discussion related to cannabis policy

and potential draft code amendments.

Before we get started, I would remind that tonight's

presentation does align with the city council's

adopted economic development work plan.

And before we dive in, want to provide a little bit

of a refresher on how we got in here tonight

and some of the prior actions that led us

to tonight's presentation.

As you all may recall, May 19th of last year in 2025,

in these chambers, the council ordered

a fourth retail cannabis operating permit to nug wellness.

And as part of its action, the city council

also directed staff to bring to the rules committee

some other related items, including potential expansion

of the number of cannabis retail licenses,

along with the related process for awarding them,

as well as directive to treat other dispenser operators

comparably.

Based on that referral,

staff brought forward this discussion item

to the Rules Committee.

Approximately three meetings of the Rules Committee

between June and December of last year.

And that process culminated with a package

of recommendations that the Rules Committee

directed staff to bring forward for council consideration

this past March and March of 2026.

As we'll get into a few moments,

You'll see there were some areas within that package

where there was broad consensus

among the Rules Committee members

and there was other areas where there was a lack consensus.

Then in March, the council and these chambers

considered that package of items.

And similarly, the council,

there were some areas where the council did have consensus

and there was areas where there was a lack of consensus.

So the item was referred back to the Rules Committee

for further discussion and direction.

Based on that rereferral of the rules,

We discussed this item forward beginning in April,

and we had discussions about it in April, May, and July.

And just to get on a quick synopsis, you can see in May,

there was kind of a revisiting of some of the earlier issues,

including related to the definition of youth centers.

And there was also a proposal that was raised

at the May meeting about the possibility

of focusing cannabis retail operations

or potential future permit awards

only into certain council districts.

And then there was also a consensus was reached

to avoid and remove downtown or downtown area zoning

from consideration of potential cannabis expansion areas.

And then in July, which is the last time

that this item was discussed before rules committee.

And the committee directed us,

and this was based on legal analysis,

to set aside that proposal related

to focusing on council districts

and to instead focus on zoning districts.

And one committee member at that meeting did, again,

and raise some concerns about use centered definitions.

So out of those items I just outlined,

I'm gonna take a little bit of a deeper dive on each of them.

And we're gonna start off here with some of the areas

where there's been broad consensus,

including one of them here is what I call this

is the proposed modification to our code

that would add some additional flexibility related

to our distancing requirements for context.

As you all may recall, as a typical practice,

there's setback or distance requirements

between sensitive uses that must be retained

order for a can of dispensary to be eligible to move forward through the

permitting process but right now the code is written with very strict

requirements where we basically have to take as a crow flies distance and it can

even be from the outer bounds of property lines and so what that can

create is some it can create some real challenges and so what we're

recommending is basically to allow some modifications to that with discretion

when there's physical barriers in the way for example freeway or a railroad

track or something along those lines and again there was broad consensus to

support this both at the committee level on the council level this next item here

was the work with the direction to package in some code amendments that

would allow for the issuance of not more than two more permits so as you

recall we've already issued the council is already issued for operating permits

and so there is consensus both at the rules committee level as well as before

the council last time about increasing that to six for a total of two more

that's the universe we're talking about this point beyond the existing operating

permits that are already out there and then you can see here on the definition

of a youth center we've been recommending staff has been recommending

to clear provide a clearer codification of what's the what's the definition of a

youth center our current code is is somewhat vague in that area and we did a

survey of all the cities here in Alameda County and we did identify that the city

of Alameda went through a very robust public process with regard to how they

defined youth centers and so we've basically mirrored that on the screen

here rather than reading it aloud. I'll try to encapsulate it but the key highlight here

is essentially that if it's more than five hours a day that a particular use is basically

serving youth that would be deemed a youth center in basically more than half the day.

This slide, this matrix may also look familiar to you. It was presented here in these chambers

as part of that March discussion before council and also included in the agenda packets for

for all of our rules committee meetings.

And this is really just again a survey

of all the cities here in Alameda County.

You can see here at the top,

all those with the information filled in the cells

are the cities that allow cannabis retail uses

within their jurisdictional boundaries.

And you can see those distancing requirements.

And in particular attention,

I'd like to call your attention to these last two rows here

with information filled into the fields.

And what you'll note here is that,

as we discussed previously,

because San Leander set up its program so long ago

when we were such an earlier adopter.

And those code restrictions still remain in place.

We have what I would classify as a very conservative approach

with a very significant and expansive setback

distancing requirements of a thousand feet

from a whole range of sensitive uses.

And when you look around at the other cells,

you'll notice the more typical distancing requirement

is in the order of about 600 feet.

And that also aligns with state law.

Other cells that I wanna draw to your attention

is this residential setback,

which has proven to be particularly problematic

or some of our operators who've been seeking out

alternative locations to establish a dispensary.

And you'll see that most other cities

don't have a residential setback.

And the reason for that is because many commercial

and particularly neighborhood commercial

and other commercial corridors in our city

are set up adjacent to residential areas

to serve those residences.

You can imagine you thinking about

your typical neighborhood store, convenience store, et cetera.

They're often set up right next to the residences

in those commercial areas to help serve them

and make them walkable, et cetera.

And so that's, and that one has been particularly

problematic for some of our operators.

And that's why we're recommending aligning

with that regional context.

And so you can see here in the blue cells,

that's what the recommendation here is to basically

eliminate their residential setback

and then modify the other setbacks down

to that 600 foot standard.

This slide should also look familiar.

We did present this back in March on the left side.

And again, I want to, before I dive into these maps,

I just want to add some context.

This is kind of our best estimate of potentially eligible parcels, both on the current map

here on the left, and then the purple map on the right is what was the proposal that

was under consideration.

And as I noted in the prior slide, we have a limited number of commercial and industrial

zones that we currently allow cannabis to take activities to take place in, and this

map on the right shows what it would look like if we were to allow cannabis retail in

all of our commercial and industrial zoning districts.

But even with that said, the other caveat that's very important to be aware of is that

just because the property shows up as a purple cell here and a purple zone, meaning that

it might be...

It's really potentially allowable.

So if an operator were to come in to say apply, they would still have to go through the conditional

use permit process, which is a very expansive process that has lots of neighborhood outreach

to be native road notification and ultimately a public hearing has to take place before

the Planning Commission. So even if a property were identified that technically met the zoning

and met the setback and distancing requirements, it's not a shoe in that they would be issued that

conditional use permit and the Planning Commission has broad authority to deny it based on subjective

findings about whether or not it's an appropriate location. And of course neighbors would be notified

and have the opportunity to present their concerns if they had any. And so kind of now that I provide

an overview of those kind of different issue areas that the rules committees

been diving in on and potential code amendments. This is really just meant to

encapsulate the summary because there has been a bit of this back and forth

between rules up to council belt corals and just to kind of go over those in a

summation format again the areas where there was clear consensus back at last

December of the rules committee and that was baked into that package that we came

before you in March there was clear consensus to allow for up to two more

permits. So a total of six allowing the setback modifications to account for the

physical barriers and then to also to codify a clearer youth center definition.

However as part of that package that went to council in March there were some

of those areas as I mentioned that were net there was a lack of consensus at the

committee level including those distancing requirements that I just went

over a few moments ago in those cells that possibility of expanding the zoning

to include all commercial industrial zones. There was a lack of consensus there. And at

that time back in December there was still a lack of consensus as to whether or not to

allow cannabis retail downtown. Then when we took it to council, again these

first two cells, these first two bullet points should look familiar. There was clear consensus

at the council to allow those things including going up to six permits and allowing for the

physical barriers. But there was some areas where there was also similarly a lack of consensus

here in these chambers by the council.

And related to the distancing requirements,

the potential expansion to all those other commercial zones

and industrial zones and cannabis retail downtown.

And that's what ultimately led to it being referred back

to rules.

And so this slide here, slide 10 is really meant to provide

you this refresher as to where things,

what has happened since the referral went back to rules.

And so some areas remained unchanged.

Again, these first two bullets,

you'll see a recurring theme where there's been

Consistent direction on that about allowing two more permits and you know accounting for physical barriers

So I'd say those are like the the areas where there was there was you know broad consensus unanimously

There's some items that did change though since March as I mentioned the initial package

I went to council back in March included a recommendation from rules to adopt that youth center definition based on alameda

But then when it went back to rules for the second time, there were some concerns raised about it

The other area the change though is that there was clear consensus among all the committee members to simply just exclude downtown

our downtown area from consideration and that recommendation was also informed by

letters that were written by both the

Sandlander Chamber of Commerce as well as the Sandlander Improvement Association

Both of whose boards although they were broadly supportive of our efforts to expand our cannabis program and modify and update our codes

They were supportive of that in general, but the one area they were opposed to was allowing

it in the downtown core.

And so that information I think helped inform some of those recommendations from rules.

And then again, you'll see here again some of those areas where there continue to be

a lack of consensus that the rules committee relates to that, you know, modifying reducing

those setbacks down from 1,000 feet to 600 feet, as well as that potential expansion

to the full array of industrial and commercial zones.

So this is our last slide here for this initial presentation and what we've attempted to do

at the staff level is because this is proved to be a complex issue is to provide you with

these different option paths and the way I would kind of frame these is almost like nesting

dolls.

So you see under option A this is meant to be like the most minimal change with the simplest

path forward where there's already we've been demonstrated both at the council level and

at the committee level to be broad consensus and that's allowing for the total of six permits

and to modify the code to account for the physical barriers.

This option B, which I classify as the middle path,

is basically saying, OK, in addition to those two areas

up above here, these first two bullet points in option A,

in addition to those, we also would

incorporate an alignment of those distancing requirements

to 600 feet, just as shown in that slide 8

that we just went over that matrix,

as well as incorporating that youth center definition

to provide more clarity.

And the other thing that's similar between option A and option B is all of those things can be handled at the council level and

Here at the staff if you were to direct us to move forward say with option B

We could we could come back pretty

Pretty short order with the first reading ordinance and then your council would have exclusive domain over those amendments versus option C

Here which is the most expansive and that is basically taking these first four bullet points from A and B

And then in addition to that adding these modified zoning districts to include all the commercial and industrial zoning except for downtown

And because that I met I just started zoning code

We also first have to take that to the planning commission for their review and recommendations

And so that's really the overview of it. And I think it's also though important to take note of this last item

Essentially in order to move forward with any of these options or another option if you so chose today

we will ultimately need four affirmative votes for any action and in the absence of four votes

we will take that as direction to cease all efforts on this policy topic and so with that

that concludes my presentation but again happy to answer any questions or take a deeper dive on

these items I've just presented thank you. So thank you for your presentation we will take

questions first and move to public comment and then come back for deliberation on this item.

So do we have any questions beginning with the councilmember Victor Aguilar

Eric, thank you for the presentation. My question is I think we're given three options

Why not I know there's been discussion in rules

but did we see any issues or

Would we be able to make a recommendation or would I be able to make a recommendation to?

put forth

The Union City model which is a hundred

Feet pretty much all across across the board

Certainly, I would say that is absolutely

Within the authority and the prerogative of your council if you do want to direct us to do that

We could certainly do that and I think the structure of tonight's meeting as a work session

Really is intended to give you that latitude

So yeah

certainly if you wanted to make a motion for that and the board and the council majority wanted to move forward with that that is

the direction we could take and execute. Thank you and with regards to the city I think do we have any

any information of uh let's see they have three dispensaries that's how many are allowed by their

code okay those are my questions thank you thank you any other questions from council members

council member simon please yeah can you clarify that the 600 foot statewide requirement

as right now, San Leandro is 500 foot in one place.

So are we out of compliance with the state?

No, we are definitely not out of compliance with the state.

What I would clarify actually with that 600 feet

is the state does not get into this

like prescriptive level of detail and breaking it down.

Basically what the state is saying

is kind of a statewide standard.

If you wanna adopt, well, they're basically the same,

the statewide standard for setbacks from sensitive uses

as you, the locality, define them as 600 feet.

But cities have brought autonomy to reduce that

increase or modify it. So they don't get into this level of detail though about

oh you have to be this from this type of sensitive use or that type. They

leave basically leave it to the local authorities to define what they define

as a sensitive use. And if we don't define it then it's 600 feet. Well

ultimately I would say our we have brought autonomy to modify it. But

there's no it's not like if we didn't define this it's not like it's going to

this is going to default to 600 for residential because ultimately it relies

on our definitions, and our code already defines what sensitive use categories

it's applicable to. Okay, I'm trying to understand where does this 600-foot, where

and how does it apply, if not to us, where does it apply. Well, I would say

again, it's a deep, the state basically says, it, and when you adopt local

requirements, you should have, you should have a 600-foot, my understanding, again I

don't work for the state of California, my understanding is the default standard

is 600 feet from sensitive uses but it doesn't again the state code doesn't get into these

definitions so if we if say for example the city decided that the residential zones are

not a sensitive use then there'd be no setback from it so essentially it's deferring to the

city's to how we define what a sensitive use is got it okay thank you going to councilmember

Bowen please. Thank you Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. A few questions. When

is, to follow up on Councilmember Simons, questions around our setbacks, when did

we, when was the last time that we updated these? It's been over a decade.

Okay. These were established at the very beginning of the program and from

something like 2014. Okay, and if I remember correctly in the rules you had

mentioned that we were one of the earlier jurisdictions that actually came

up with the ordinance and so would you say that I mean even just looking at

these numbers were we more conservative in our and rightly so at the time given

the unknowns versus ones that came after us? Yes I would say we were a very early

adopter here in the Bay Area region and in Alameda County and at that

time there was no state level regulation whatsoever and so in an abundance of

caution and because we're such an earlier adopter and we had never had

this use type before and in fact that was before adult use legalization even

existed we were still in a medicinal cannabis only environment in that era

and in abundance of caution the city a double chose to adopt what I would

classify as a rather conservative setback standard and and since that time

and that over a decade that's past they say our code has remained unchanged but

the environment has changed dramatically around us. Great and one of the reasons

why you would go back and adjust change iterate is to identify things you didn't

know before or how things could be improved and so in looking at the

potential changes what can you share would be some potential advantages or

benefits of making these adjustments to the setbacks or increasing the potential zoning

to other areas. And then specifically what sort of challenges would these solve? If you

Yeah, sure. So I definitely start off there's a number of areas here and benefits to the

both the city as well as our industry partners. So if you were to move forward with these

recommendation shown in the blue cells.

First and foremost, referring back to that second slide,

we have an economic development work plan

that's been adopted with goals

to support our business community

and support a dynamic local and thriving business climate.

And one of the challenges is based on feedback

we're hearing from some of our local dispensary operators,

some of whom have been looking for other sites

to find an alternative site,

as well as some other potential perspective retailers

who would be interested.

And the feedback we've received from them

essentially when you overlay all these setback requirements it just it really

it just narrows the map and so for example you can see here on the right

side you have this list of all these commercial industrial zones where we

allow it technically but when you overlay all the setbacks you essentially

create a de facto ban in those areas in spite of the fact that we say it's

allowed there because when you just overlay all those circles it really just

tucks tucks all of it into certain to our industrial areas and in particular

for example, all three of our current dispensary operators

are basically in one council district right now

and council member Victor Aguilar's district presently.

And that's, I believe, a part of the function of that,

just the tightness of the map.

And so that's kind of what's informed these recommendations.

And basically the other issue is just from the members

of the public, either medicinal patients

or just retail adult use customers,

the challenge is that it's all kind of clustered

in that industrial core area.

And so that other members of the public

who live far away who were in the city

have to travel greater distances

by virtue of all these setbacks,

which is basically disallowed the ability

to have these dispensers distributed further afield

in different parts of the city.

That's super helpful.

And then the last thing is on slide eight.

And we could even, if possible,

to zoom in on my district, for example,

District Five on the potential new slide.

At the bottom of the slide, I just wanted to ask

for further clarification just because we've had

numerous conversations about this

and because the rest of the council is not...

Actually, only two of the other members right now

haven't been in these in-depth conversations

on the rules committee, but it says viability

could be further impacted by individual site constraints,

excludes youth center overlay.

Can you clarify, I think I understand what the first part is,

can you clarify that second part

then kind of walk me through what this map actually means because I know those

purple businesses that area really well in my district and if I were to go point

by point along our setbacks I'm not sure one could even be eligible in the

majority of District 5 even if we said it could expand that way I just I want

to make sure we understand what this map actually means certainly happy to

address those those comments and questions so yeah I think first and

foremost what our GIS staff mapping staff attempted to do is to overlay the

all the commercial and industrial zoning districts and the parcels that lie

within them and then apply the current thousand foot setback requirements and

then in addition to that well where where was it where it was able to do so

and then it but the challenge we've had a couple challenges one is the youth

Center overlay they weren't it wasn't even possible to overlay that because

by virtue of the fact that we don't have a clear definition what constitutes a

youth center and that in some kinds can become to the eye of the beholder in the

absence of a clear definition right giving an example of a gymnasium that

might you know for one hour a day offer youth karate lessons well suddenly is

that to some people that might be a youth center or they you know they sell school

uniforms for youth is that a youth center right in the absence of clarity

So we didn't even attempt to put that overlay on there. So that alone could could disallow quite a few of these parcels

the other issue as I mentioned earlier is

The conditional use permit process is very robust and in addition to that's just to apply to get in the door with a violet application

Essentially, you're gonna have to demonstrate that you meet the setback requirements

But that's just step a in a long list of other steps

You're gonna have to go through with that neighborhood notification as well as subjective

Findings that the planning Commission's gonna have to make that are very subjective and they're not even numerical based

They're just talking about is this an appropriate use is this an appropriate location to have cannabis?

To the neighbors have concerns about it notify all the neighbors see what the community thinks

And so there's broad discretion on the part of the planning Commission to deny a site

Even if it shows up on this map and then lastly the other piece that we haven't gotten into tonight

But we've discussed in past forms

Relates to just the landlord challenges that this industry faces and by virtue of the federal issues and the federal status of cannabis

Our understanding is the many properties if they have a federally backed loan

The landlord is unable to even rent to a dispensary use so that that right there also will basically disallow

Huge sloths of properties you really get low like kind of reduced down down to either

Property owner who either owns the property outright without a without a federally backed loan

Or they or the property owner just owns the property free and clear

And so that also will make it difficult and then some landlords even if they meet those criteria

Just don't want this use type

And so when you overlay all those things really is what's gonna happen is this map is gonna become sure it's gonna become smaller

It's smaller and they really are gonna become just little pockets of eligibility. So again, I don't want this map to be

perceived as somehow any any single parcel shown in purple suddenly gonna have a dispenser there and keeping in mind that the

Recommendation from rules was only two more permits at this point

So we're talking about the whole universe of the city. We're basically talking about two more permits beyond this

Okay, I just have one more follow-up, but I can go back around

Why don't you go ahead and take it right now?

It sounds like with this excludes you center overlay because we don't have a definition of it

It would be necessary to have one to actually I guess if we don't have one

Is there not a setback requirement for you center currently?

And that's why we can have it in the one on the left

But what I would say is this we currently do have a youth center setback in our code, but the challenge is that

And we're at a thousand feet

But essentially the way we do that through analysis is when an application comes in and we actually have a property identified

with a landlord letter saying they're amenable to the use they've come in the door at that point then our

Planning staff when they're processing that permit can look at it site by

Specific and they can draw the thousand foot radius around it and then they can really hone in on what's around there

And then you can get into that whole discussion

and conversation about is this a youth center or not.

I mean, we have some, we do, I believe,

have a nominal minimalist definition about, primarily,

about serving youth, but it's, it opens,

it just leads to a lot of ambiguity,

and so that's why we're recommending more clarity,

as well as also to make it,

because by virtue of the absence of clarity,

it also just, it potentially disallows so many more sites,

and based on that feedback we've heard

from our industry partners is that it just,

it's really difficult to find a viable site right now,

So we're trying to kind of address some of those concerns that have been raised and

And open up the map a bit more with different tools that are available in our toolkit using practices

We've identified from other neighboring jurisdictions. Thank you

So do we have other questions it does not appear that way

Okay

Council member seven, please. Can you show on the map to the left where all the existing?

the spintries are located just kind of point I mean they're both they're

basically all tucked into district three so I can tell you offhand I mean the

address they're basically there's one on well we have okay so we have no this is

not to pull this from memory but essentially they're all tucked into

district 3 I can just tell you that they're all tucked into these industrial

areas here so there's one on fairway we have another one on verna court which is

off of Marina Boulevard and then can you point to it with your alvarado with

your mouse tea garden excuse me tea garden okay so are are there's only one

of them west of 880 or are there two west of 880 I believe it's only harbor

side that's west of 880 on marina Boulevard okay okay so there's we can

to pull up the addresses.

Two west, that's okay, two west of 880

and how many are east of 880?

One. One.

There's actually three in operation right now,

although there's been four operating permits issued.

Okay. Are there any in the works?

There is one pending application

that's scheduled to go to the planning commission,

I believe in the fall.

I'll look to our planning manager

to provide a status update on that.

That's correct, we do have one application process,

which we do anticipate coming forward

to the planning commission sometime this year.

Where can you can you share where that one is proposed?

Let me find the address. It's

Thank you, is that the end of your question? Well, I'm just curious to the north. There's such a large

Orange area and there's nothing up there. I'm just curious. Why is there nothing to the north?

And they're all clustered in that kind of I

Don't want to speak for our dispensary operators

And there's a number of them here in the audience who might be able to speak to it during public comment

but I can just share that, you know, they I know that it was challenging for all of our operators to find viable sites and

get through that conditional use permit process and like the tightness and the conservative nature of our map with a major factor in that

coupled with those other issues with the federal

You know prohibitions etc and the other they're just the challenges of the landscape in general finding a landlord or a property owner

Who's amenable to having this use type

Are there set back restrictions to the north the orange areas in the north that shrink it down considerably?

When you say the north are you talking? I mean, there's five

District six. There's a lot of orange

North there's a lot of all that. Yeah, why I can't speak to I mean

I'm hesitant to speak to why the private but from a setback restriction you said setbacks can really shrink this down correct

So this is a generally a very industrial area you have like the I think it's called the Adams tracked over here in this area

Which is very heavily industrial and so they don't have as many of the setback issues because it's primarily industrial uses out there

They don't have churches and centers and things of that nature back there because this is really tucked up in a heavily industrialized area

And I know I can share it back ten years ago when the applicants were initially looking

I know they were a number of them some of them were scouring this area for available property

and they just weren't on it.

My understanding, my recollection,

is they just weren't able to identify a property

that was for sale or for rent

with them at the other criteria.

Okay, so I've got one question,

or one series of questions specifically

around the youth definition.

I wanna make sure that I understand

what we currently have.

When I see that first line,

I see the word exclusively.

So I wanna, so first line,

use center means public or private facilities exclusively used. So if I have a let's say

a martial arts studio or a dance center that primarily serves young children, but they

do offer an adult class for the parents of the children, that would no longer fall in

this exclusion, even if that's what they do full-time, there's lots of kids there

and all that kind of stuff, that word would mean that the moment they offer

any type of adult programming, they are no longer considered a youth center as

written right now. I would point to the language of the text, I'm sorry, I would

just point, yes, I would point to the text of what's borrowed here from

from the city of Alameda. I acknowledge that there's different ways one can read

that but I don't disagree with what you just described.

And then the second thing that has bothered me

for months and months and months is the B part of this,

letter B.

So a youth center does not include any building location

or facility where any programs, activities or services

involve martial arts, combat sports,

cultural or similar education or physical fitness.

So even if you're doing all of that with youth,

it's no longer a youth center.

Is that, am I reading that correctly as written?

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the code.

And I would share it to the extent the council

desires to recommend changes to this code

will certainly take that direction.

Perfect.

At this point in time, we'll take public comment

on this item.

Mayor, we have received four comment cards

from in the room, and there's presently two hands raised

online.

We're going to begin in-person.

Our first in-person speakers.

I'm going to pause you for just a second.

If you would like to speak on this item online,

now is the time to present yourself,

because I may adjust the time slightly.

I want to know who's going to be speaking, how many total.

currently have three hands raised. Okay we're going to give you ten more

seconds because we're going to identify those people and then we're going to

create a little bit of latitude here because I know this is a slightly more

complex topic. Okay so who are our online public speakers because I want to take a

note of them. They are Douglas Spalding, Steve Schneiderman, and San Leandro

Chamber of Commerce. So those are the three that have identified themselves

for public comment. Let's actually begin with them. They have three minutes. Our

first online speaker is Douglas Spaulding. Well thank you very much Mayor.

I lucked out because I'm supposed to be in a different meeting and and good

evening everybody. Well I am certainly someone who has supported the

legalization of marijuana and I personally I became convinced of the

need for medical marijuana when my dear very dear friend Rose was diagnosed some

years ago with glioblastoma and and while never having been a smoker of

marijuana or anything that was the only relief that she could find before she

she eventually passed away. I appreciate your efforts. I think it is important to

regulate this market and these businesses. I have to say, from my

standpoint as a teacher, the whole debate about offsets

impresses me as being rather meaningless.

Kids don't generally obtain marijuana

by hanging out outside dispensaries.

They get it from home, from their parents or guardians

who've gone to the dispensaries.

I'm not terribly worried about

crimes surrounding these locations.

I think our police department has that.

I mean, I know crimes have happened,

but I think they kind of have a good handle on that.

But I am questioning the number.

You know, like, we got one high school,

we got two middle schools, we got three fire stations.

Do we really need six dispensaries?

Seems like we're starting to rival

the number of boba joints in town.

So, you know, I understand the attraction.

We're trying to get business to drive up city revenues.

But, you know, I just think,

can't we focus our efforts elsewhere?

I don't know that we need a fifth and a sixth dispensary,

and at what point does it become like saturation?

At what point are you kind of, when I say suppressing business,

depressing business for these potential dispensaries?

So those are my thoughts, thank you.

Thank you.

The next online speaker is Steve Schneiderman.

Hi, thank you very much.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Steve Schneiderman, VP of Corporate Development

with Harborside, where I lead our retail expansion

in California for our parent company, Statehouse.

I'm here tonight to discuss two key points.

One is our search process for our second location

in San Leandro, and number two,

why the map needs updating.

So we have run a real structured search.

We've hired multiple brokers,

took a look at numerous properties,

walking them, inspecting,

and taking a deep dive

into the city's commercial corridors.

So as Eric pointed out during his presentation,

cannabis zoning is extremely limited

and has resulted in very few viable options

of which almost none of them clear the setbacks

as are currently written today.

As an example, every potential lease,

and we've acquired about in the last eight months

within the currently zoned areas

have been rejected because of cannabis.

The commercial math and the cannabis rules

are pulling us in opposite directions,

and the rules win every time.

As such, we're not here with a specific address this evening,

and that's simply the honest situation.

It's not a gap in our effort or a gap in the market.

It's a gap in the map.

And, you know, if I'm being honest, you know,

that map was built for a different time

because our license year goes back 10 years.

When cannabis was new,

a lot of people were uncertain about it.

This is why operators like us had to go

into those industrial pockets off the main corridors

away from the residents we surf.

It was an understandable instinct then,

but the ground has shifted.

Cannabis is being rescheduled as we speak

on the federal level.

And despite that progress, the rules have stayed frozen

while the reasons behind them have moved on.

Updating the map isn't undoing anyone's work.

It's letting the zoning catch up to today's environment,

or in some cases, just letting us go across the street

from where a currently permitted zone is.

Bottom line, we support expanding the zoning

and adding setback flexibility

where there's a real physical barrier that exists.

And it's consistent with Eric and the staff's

own data-driven analysis points.

The market's ready, we're ready.

We're just missing a workable map.

Give us one and we'll bring San Leandro

a location council can stand behind.

Thank you.

The next online speaker is San Leandro Chamber of Commerce.

Hello everybody.

Good evening, it's Emily Grego,

president CEO of the San Leandro Chamber of Commerce.

We submitted our position to the city council back in March

and I sent you all an email earlier this evening,

just kind of restating that position,

which is that we support modernizing the ordinance

and aligning the setbacks with state standards,

allowing additional permits and expanding the areas

where cannabis can operate.

with one caveat that is we, which is our downtown area.

So the chamber is not opposed to cannabis

or cannabis businesses.

We recognize it's a legal business

and it should be able to operate in San Leandro

and have more opportunity.

But we also know that our downtown has been working

for many years now to bring this vision to life

of a revitalized downtown that's pedestrian friendly

and family focused.

And so we want to find a balance to support both of those.

So that's why we've supported it as much as possible

without it going to downtown.

And I believe that's where we're gonna stay.

I know that we also serve, I serve on the SLEA board

and I know that that's where they are.

So that's what we'd like to see.

This vision that downtown has had for a long time,

we want to see it too fruition.

And I know that there's been some arguments

that folks will come downtown

that go to their cannabis retailer

and then they'll spend money in our restaurants or whatnot.

But I've talked to surrounding chambers

that have cannabis in their downtowns

and they said that's not really what happens.

So that argument, I don't know

that we've seen enough evidence

that that's a viable reason to bring it downtown.

So we say, Canvas, please, you know, yeah,

let's expand the ordinance or modernize it,

whatever the word is, and more permits,

if that's what's necessary to create more of an opportunity

in San Leandro, and then align with the state

because it's a lot easier to manage an ordinance

when all the businesses know what are the rules.

So let's just go with the state and leave it at that,

but that is where we are.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor that concludes our online raised hands. So we will close

public comment online and bring it in person. Thank you. Our first three in

person speakers are Gordon Galvin followed by Nicholas McIntosh followed

by Marco Rivera. Good evening, Mayor Gonzalez, members of City Council. I'm

Gordon Galvin. I'm here this evening representing NUG Wellness and we're here

tonight to ask you to initiate a process with regard to the third cannabis

permit issued in San Leandro. This permit was issued almost a decade ago to Blum

who is now out of business and no longer holds a state license. However, they have

sold or transferred this San Leandro permit twice. The current permit holder

has transacted hasn't transacted business in San Leandro and has never gone

through the process that harborside and we went through to become licensed. I'll

just say at this point I have multiple liquor licenses and I've bought some

from restaurants or bars that have closed that didn't preclude me from

going through the process even though I have a liquor license I still have to go

through the same process, the same background checks. But more importantly,

no business has been transacted under this permit for 19 months and counting.

That's three times the length spelled out in your ordinance as grounds for

revoking the permit. Your ordinance states clearly that revocation can occur

after six months of a license being dormant.

Now it's come to our attention that this group

is applied to go through the CUP process for a new location.

What we're asking for here is there to be some process

regarding the status of the license

before a CUP process can be considered.

We have provided written correspondence about this subject

and we can provide it again to the clerk tonight

for distribution to you.

Further, on the broader spectrum

that you're talking about tonight on the ordinance,

we would offer a suggestion that you consider

a 1,000 foot distance between dispensaries as well,

to allow for dispensaries to locate in other parts

of the city and not be clustered together.

Those are my comments.

Thank you.

The next three speakers are Nicholas McIntosh,

Marco Rivera, and Nara Delbaca.

Good evening.

My name is Nicholas McIntosh, and I am representing harborside.

I'm here to tell you guys about the opportunities

that that club has given me.

I started from nothing.

I started from a temp agency.

and they seen how hard and how diligent,

how non-complacent that a person can be

and what it can do for a community.

Just coming from the youth

and coming from a very hard street

to becoming very successful in life.

This club gave me the chance to become successful.

I am now the operations manager there.

I operate all over the company.

I take care of all facilities as well as take care of anything as far as our employees,

the employee morale.

I believe that this club, our club Harborside can boost up the morale in the city.

It can honestly bring the revenue that the city is actually looking for to help the city

become way better than what people will honestly think.

When I first got to San Leandro,

I thought it was just a beautiful city that is upcoming.

The people here are very beautiful.

And if we give them the opportunity to join cannabis,

I think that it would just become more of a livable,

I would say, because it would be fun.

they would be upbringing, uplifting,

that's where it brought me to.

It brought me to becoming more of a uplifting person.

I come out here and I try to reach out to the community

and I try to give them the same opportunity

that was given to me.

And all it took was somebody to step to me and say,

here, we're gonna give you a shot and a chance.

So now they put me in the position

to handing out jobs and saying here

to whatever stranger that comes up.

And here's a job.

We're gonna give you a chance at success.

We're gonna give you a chance to change

and not just change yourself, help change the community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The next two speakers are Marco Rivera and Nara Dabaca.

Good evening, mayor and council.

My name is Marco Rivera.

I'm the district manager for HarborSight.

as well. With the short time that I've been in the city as well, we've experienced not

only major setbacks. One of our biggest setbacks was our opening times. While our competitors

were open an hour earlier than us, we were able to come and connect with you guys and

and we were able to get in line with our other competitors

and open at 7 a.m.

Opening at 7 a.m. has brought our business week over week

over 20% business revenue.

And I think it's, you know,

kind of what Nick is saying is bringing the opportunity

for business development to our city

and the people that we serve are,

you know, our day to day, you know, nurses, teachers,

you name it, we always serve them at our club.

And they realize that the friendly and kindness people

that we are, and we wish to bring that

to different parts of town, the east side, north side,

whatever you guys can comply with us and help us out.

Running a cannabis business is one of the toughest,

I would say a tough business to run,

And just certain limitations as well within the city

sets us back much more than that.

Same place coming from Nick, I started a line level position.

Now I'm the district manager, creating a career path

that a lot of industries don't even let us enter.

as the Bay Area, like a lot of tech businesses

and things like that.

The cannabis industry is also growing.

And we face challenges where we can't promote on the internet.

We can't promote outside of our shops.

Signs get taken down by other businesses

because they don't wanna create that aspect

that they have cannabis around in the premises.

We can't go to public eventings

and even let them know that we're there.

So expanding licenses is going to help us promote our club,

promote the kindness that we bring to the city,

and show that we're here for the growth of the city

and business developments.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Nara Dalbaca.

Hello, good evening, Mayor Gonzalez, members of council.

We've been here a lot, been to rules a lot.

This conversation started because NUG was granted

second location last summer and we came to that meeting

and asked for an expansion in the name of fairness

that if one long-term operator received a second location

that the other long-term operator would also be able

to have a satellite location in the city.

That fairness issue hasn't been addressed yet,

so we are still asking that the city grant

a second license to Harborside,

and in order to address that,

both NUG and Harborside went through a rigorous process

in order to get approved to run in the city.

They've both been long, compliant operators,

and Harborside would really welcome the location,

the opportunity to have a second location.

So I did want to talk about that.

That was part of a letter that I sent back in July.

Again, asking the city to reserve

one of those additional licenses for Harborside.

Right now, you're right.

The cannabis businesses are clustered

in Councilman Bragular's district,

Councilmember Victor Bragular's district.

Folks on the north side of town, on the east side of town,

probably go to Oakland, or they go to Hayward,

or unincorporated areas, or they buy from their plug

down the street.

I mean, there's a reason that there was a proliferation

of smoke shops selling untested cannabis products.

And that's because there was a need for additional access.

And those are businesses that don't check IDs.

They're not testing their product.

And that's where E-valley came from prior to COVID.

I don't know if we remember E-valley,

but folks were getting really, really sick

because they were buying untested unsafe cannabis.

And that is for sale at probably every smoke shop

in the city right now.

But licensed cannabis isn't,

and it isn't in some of these areas

where they'd like it to be.

Harborside has looked at talk to some

of the larger property managers in the city.

of the city. Um and so I think

anyone who has a federal loan

on their property can't lease

to cannabis. And so it's very,

very hard to actually identify

a property where there's a

single owner. Um and they can,

uh, they can actually their

lease or purchase it. Um, so

the setbacks definitely need

adjustment. Um and, uh, to

answer one of the previous

is to ensure that Harborside is given the same fair shake that that nug was given and the opportunity to open another location that isn't clustered in the same place where all the businesses are cannibalizing each other.

Mayor there are no more cards. Okay, so we will close public comment at this time. We'll come back to council members for discussion of our options or possibly a modification of one of the options that's up there.

Councilmember Victor Aguilar. Thank you Mayor and thank you for the public for

commenting. My question is with regards to option C. I just need some

clarification with regards to in addition to bullet points in option B

does that also include option A to allow the for the issue and so if I say

let's go with option C which includes the bullet points in option B does that

also include allowing the six from option A. Yes. Okay. Yes. So C includes all of A and

all of B. So I think we've I think we've heard from the community. I think you know we in

San Leandro we are probably one of the most restrictive as to where we allow cannabis

to be sold and when a few years ago you know I love going to Thailand and

exploring and there was there was a point where cannabis was not allowed

never allowed it now I go back and there's literally a cannabis shop on

every corner so you know they say the revenue that they're making from it and

and how it's impacted and crime has not increased.

I think cannabis has this negative connotation.

I think we're moving towards, it's just medicinal.

And we're trying to make sure

that we're taking into consideration

that we're not selling it next to schools.

But I think this is something for rules or planning

that we lower the setback to 100 feet.

I would advocate for option C for the most expensive

with 100 foot setback and to allow for downtown.

Get rid of that except for DA downtown area.

I mean, that would be, my motion is to move forward

with an option C and strike out except for downtown,

but to include downtown.

That's my comment.

Thank you.

Anybody else want to speak on this item?

Councilmember Bowen.

Yeah, I have a question around the operating permits

versus the CUPs.

Is it, do we currently, do we have a cap

how many conditional use permits we can give. Thank you council member or vice

mayor for your kind of council member for your question. So basically we have a

de facto cap on the number of conditional use permits by virtue of the

fact that you one needs to have an operating permit from the council before

it's even eligible to apply for the CUP. So we would not have to change

anything for the CUP. Correct. Because we said four back last summer

It's now for correct. We just need to be able to find a fourth location or a fifth or six depending on the number of

permits and

The allow for the students of two additional cannabis operating permits for tool six. That's based on

past

Discussions by the City Council and that's why the number is six

Yes, thank you

And just quickly to clarify

Are you saying that?

To have a

There's a trend identify a fourth location right now is the operating permit by location or by operator

It is by it is it is the operating permit goes to a business entity

With no location tied to it and in order to effectuate the operating permit and actually open one stops for business

One has to then go get a conditional use permit from the planning Commission with an unidentified site

and just one last clarification. Does each location, physical address need a

separate LLC or legal structure? The CUP is really authorizing a land use. I'm

sorry I'm talking about operating permit. So just for example, so hypothetically

that we have an entity that has the permission to operate in the city as an

operator. Can they, because we currently only have three locations, can that

operator say, hey, I want to open up another location without getting an

extra operator permit? The only way they could do that is if they ceased

operations of their existing site currently, because each location requires

a separate operating permit, but they couldn't, yeah. Okay, thank you. I just

want to make sure that every location requires a separate operating permit and a conditional

use permit. Correct. Thank you. So is there any clarification that's needed on that? Okay.

Thank you. Are you done, Councilmember Bowman? Okay. Thank you. Coming to Vice Mayor. Thank

you. Just a one, my gratitude to the representatives from the industry that came to all of our

Rules Committee meeting and to my colleagues that serve on Rules, thank you for getting

us to this place. One, I wanted to get a little bit of clarification on slide 6, which is

the definition of a youth center. And I'm also concerned that the word exclusively,

I think I would be supportive of something

that is like primarily.

I don't know how that would kind of,

how one would measure that, but it's just, anywho.

And then the sentence where youth centers,

one, two, three, on line five,

youth centers does not include any building location

or facility, and then there's A, B, and C.

I understand why the private residents,

but I'm just trying to,

this is stated in the negative

and I'm trying to kind of understand what it actually means.

Can you give me an example or I'm just trying to,

I'll just be explicit.

I don't quite understand it in the negative.

Can you explain it in the positive

so that I can understand what that means?

Thank you, Vice Mayor, for your question.

What I would share is this is right now essentially cloned

precise language from the city of Alameda.

To the extent council members have concerns

with the way this is written and I acknowledge

it's somewhat inartful.

To the extent you all desire to have changes,

we would absolutely take that direction

and make changes to it.

Okay, so then to the chair,

can I ask our city attorney what,

can you explain then what this language would mean

in the way that it's currently drafted?

Yes, Vice Mayor.

So, youth centers first are defined in the first sentence.

It doesn't, so youth centers do not include,

and obviously it's a building location or facility,

where those activities does not include,

are offered to private residents, obviously, right?

Then the youth centers also do not include those

that involve in martial arts, combat sports,

cultural, social education, or physical fitness.

And then the final one is that

we're programming for youth are offered

for fewer than five hours per day.

So the exclusion of those items means

that a building, facility, or location

could be one of those areas

where a cannabis suspension operation could locate next to,

if it was a private residence that offered

a martial arts combat sports, yes,

or a location where there was some activity of that

that was less than five hours,

offered for fewer than five hours per day.

So that means that it's not a use center.

A cannabis operation could be close to those locations

under this definition.

We could clearly make it an affirmative

And as you know under the, if this were to not be,

this is not going to go in the zoning code.

This is just want to confirm, we're not gonna,

we're gonna change this to be operative in the,

in the Munich code.

If it were to go in the zoning code,

then we would make it, it would have to be permissive.

So we would have to define that this is the allowable uses

for land.

And I mean, certainly if that's the council's wish,

We can, it would be a longer process.

We'd have to go to the planning commission, et cetera.

So if we could redraft it so that it would be

in the affirmative to the exclusion of all other uses.

Thank you, thank you.

Those are, that's just my question on that.

I think redrafting this in order for clarity.

I know that it was lifted from Alameda as a model.

This whole thing about martial arts,

that seems very specific to that jurisdiction.

I don't necessarily think it applies that much to, anyway.

My other comment is just in terms of getting us to,

just for folks to know where I stand,

I am supportive of option C as it stands

with the, that includes the exception of the downtown area.

I think that the constituents that I represent,

both businesses and other folks who live around that area.

But only within, to be clear, the downtown area

is already an area with defined limits, correct?

So can you define for, I'm sorry, Eric,

I told you I was done with questions

and then I'm not done with questions.

Can you remind us of what that would define it?

Absolutely, excellent question.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Yes, the DA zoning district with downtown areas,

what the DA stands for, is clearly defined.

It has very clearly defined meets and bounds

that's adopted in our code and it has a clear boundary.

If you give me one moment, I can actually,

if you want to see a map of that,

but otherwise I can answer affirmatively,

it's clearly defined, there's no ambiguity.

There's a DA zone and we could take that out,

so it's not allowed there.

Okay, it was provided in the previous presentation

and then also in the rules,

So no need to pull it up.

So thank you, Eric.

And I know I'm out of time, Chair, Mayor.

I just wanted to let, for the purpose of getting consensus, I'm supportive of C. I don't feel

strongly about maintaining the state 600-foot standard.

I'm amenable to lowering that.

I don't know about a hundred, but I'm amenable to lowering it to below 600.

But I am firm on the exception for the downtown.

Thank you.

I was a little bit unclear on your commentary regarding the youth definition, kind of where

you ended up there in particular.

So let me punch you back in.

You're asking where I stand in terms of the definition as it stands.

Because you asked the question about exclusivity.

You were exploring a little bit about the martial arts.

And so I wasn't quite sure what the outcome of that is.

Yeah, it's not necessarily a holding point for me.

I just want the definition that is sampled here

is not really clear.

So that's where I was going with that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bowen, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

We've had seven meetings about this,

and I've learned a lot about cannabis in the last year,

so thank you for the education.

One of the things that we talked about in the very beginning,

and I tried to parse out tonight,

was why we're talking about this,

and why it would help us as a city,

and what the problem we're trying to solve for,

and what was repeated over and over again

by both city staff as well as public comment

was the very conservative nature of the map

and obviously the more conservative nature of the ordinance

and obviously being able to modernize that.

If we are going to increase the number of operating permits

and not increase where you could possibly find

a viable location, all of this to me

would have been a waste of time and energy

because I'm not so sure if we're not even able

to find a fourth location in any sort of like,

it's gonna always be a long process,

but unless we're, I don't see how it is viable

to be able to do so without updating

some of the setbacks and expanding the modified zoning.

I'm supportive of option C if we are going to be making changes to this ordinance so

that it actually keeps up with regulations, economic development, our city plan to be

able to make this more viable and support this industry as well as really where the

nature of residents and the population is, and the fact that it is highly regulated.

And in terms of the definition of youth center, I'm glad to hear the mayor speak specifically

about some of the issues that are called out. We were not able to do that in the rules committee.

I am actually fine with the definition. And the reason why I am saying I'm fine with it

is because there are so many setbacks and there are already so few places that would

actually be viable and it still has to go through the planning commission. It still

has to go through the landlord challenge I think that we're spending a lot of time and

energy talking about something that is actually not as problematic as we are making it out

to be and that's why I'm supportive of option C I think at some if I just I want us to be

able to move forward with this so I would make a motion to move forward with option

Okay. Councilmember Simon. Yeah. The first item I'll hit on is I'll back up a little

bit. We received a letter from the manner homeowners association. They had a discussion

on this topic of expanding the area for Land O'Kevins at a HOA meeting this year. And the

entire meeting, everyone in the meeting was opposed to it. They sent a letter to the council

few weeks back and documented that. So I'm supporting the manner and I do not support

option C. I don't want to force this on any one community just like the downtown area

doesn't want it forced on them. I wouldn't want to force this on any area that's not

comfortable with it. I think that's fair for the downtown association, downtown area to

do that. And if that's the case, I wouldn't force this on any community. That's why I

not support option c and I had brought this up as an option in rules if there

are certain council districts like councilmember Aguilar or councilman

Bowen where their communities are open to it then perhaps allow it there that's

fine with me but I understand maybe you could provide some feedback is that

legal is it not legal now where are we with that so I'm gonna come to legal

counsel on that and what's interesting about your question is framed is there

we talked about the zoning and we talked about the muni code and so can they

perhaps you can answer the question in the context of both if there's if there

is a difference because the zoning code and the muni code are tied that a

operator can't operate without both complying with the zoning code and with

the muni code there's no operable difference mayor so as we pull pine

before it is not a recommendation from staff or from my office that they be

defined by zoning districts it's rather a land use decision as to where to cite

them and it's better regulated under the zoning code as far as the conditional

use permit requirement because the cannabis permit is in is a business

permit it's an operating permit but what we're really talking about but you're

really looking to from a policy perspective regulate is the land use

locations and so that the council can direct staff to come back with

particular land use recommendations maps etc that to reflect the policy

choices that you all want to decide upon even if it pertains to how districts how

they fit within districts but that would be better handled within a land use

just context and discussion.

Okay, so if Councilmember Bowen's area,

is that the Broadmoor or Durant?

Whichever area you're referring to,

can there be a zoning district defined for that location?

I'm just trying to talk out loud here.

No, no, no, no, no.

So that's the question I think is to the city attorney

and or to city staff in general.

can we define a zoning district that ties to,

let's say, a particular set of streets?

And I think the context that I would add to that question

is that we clearly have a downtown zoned district,

and that's based on a geography.

Right, and that's within the context

of a council member's interest.

Like, I don't wanna step on Councilmember Bowen's area,

But where she's interested, can that be designated as a zone?

So I want to start with legal counsel and then move to,

you know, you can ponder, you can get collaboration,

you can phone a friend, whatever the case.

But I think that the question at its core

is, could a zoning district be defined

in a particular location?

That says the cannabis sales zoning district.

So the answer is, that is possible.

but again, it would take some analysis

and sort of fundamental planning policies

that you want to avoid spot zoning, of course.

So then, but it's not out of the realm of possibility

that such definitions could, for zones could be made.

I would want to point then to your staff

that they need to conduct the analysis

and again provide you with a map

to show you what available districts there would be

that would help define what those zones could look like

and what's affected.

And I'm sure your staff can be able to answer more

in depth about that.

I'm gonna actually start with city manager

on how you'd like to proceed with the staff,

City Council on 2026-09-14 7:00 PM - WORK SESSION - Sep 14, 2026

Agenda

1. CALL TO ORDER

4. PRESENTATIONS

5. ADJOURN

Agenda Items

Transcript