Okay, good evening. The October 29, 2026 special meeting of the Planning Commission is called to order.
Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance?
Will the Secretary please conduct the roll call?
Yes, Chairperson.
For the record, we have Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Nay, Chair Atahada, and...
Sorry, give me one second.
We have commissioner Solis is expected,
but it's not present yet.
And we have commissioner Zugra absent
and Commissioner Mendoza is present, sorry about that.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
This special meeting has one public hearing item
consideration by the Planning Commission. If you wish to speak before the
Planning Commission please submit a speaker card and state your name and
address for the record. Meetings of the Planning Commission are recorded and
televised so please speak clearly for the record. The hearing item is agenda
item 7A consideration of a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt
ordinance amending San Leandro code to allow cannabis dispensaries subject to a
conditional use permit in commercial and industrial zoning districts outside of
the downtown area zoning districts. Maybe please have the staff report. Yes good
evening commissioners. Can we get this? There we go. The item before you tonight is an item that we
received a direction from from City Council to bring before you. There we go,
advance. The screen you see before you right now includes some of the
background of actions the City has taken on cannabis dispensaries over the years.
San Leandro was an early adopter of cannabis dispensaries. The original
ordinance was fairly restrictive. Over time the City's relaxed restrictions
has become clear that dispensaries have a fairly minimal disruptive effect on
nearby properties. At this time the City has four dispensaries with operating
permits and there are three active dispensaries in the City. City Council and
the Rules Committee have deliberated over the course of several meetings
about potential code revisions for cannabis dispensaries. Staff was given
direction at the September 14 City Council meeting to prepare specific code
amendments to bring before you this evening. Regulations for cannabis
dispensaries appear in both municipal and zoning codes. The first three items on
this on this slide are items that council has provided direction for but
they are a part of the municipal code so they're not before you this evening the
last item expanding the zoning districts where the dispensaries are allowed to the
CUP is what's before you tonight this one is in the zoning code so as we have
structured the zoning code amendments the dispensaries would be allowed with a
The CEP in all of the districts that you see on screen essentially is all of our industrial
districts and almost all of our commercial districts.
The exceptions are the downtown area districts, so DA1, DA2, DA3, DA4 and DA6.
Those are accepted from this.
So we would only have it out in areas that are less walking oriented.
The maps here, the ones that were presented to City Council in September, they're intended
to be illustrative rather than very specific.
The map on the left is showing you what the landscape looks right now for a dispensary
operator.
This is roughly the area where you can look for places to go depending upon the zoning
specifically.
There are other restrictions in the municipal code.
aren't really shown here because they change from time to time. Things like youth centers
might come and go. So this is what it looks like. The map on the right shows you the more
expansive view of where we would be allowing dispensaries. Again, without the restrictions
in the municipal code, those would be applied in any case. But this gives you a better idea
of the area that would essentially be eligible for dispensaries, to make them a lot easier
to find locations. Naturally, it depends a lot on what property is even available. So
even though on the left you see almost 400 parcels, many of those properties, most of
the properties are already occupied. And so it's very difficult to cite a new dispensary.
So, excuse me, as I stated earlier,
the city's initial restrictions were quite restrictive.
And over the 10 or 12 years of the city, 13 years now,
city has had dispensaries in town
or has had the ordinance in place.
The dispensaries have been proven to have a very minimal
impact on the properties nearby
and essentially minimal impact on public safety as well.
And therefore council would like to relax
the zoning and municipal code restrictions.
In every case, regardless of any of these amendments,
there will be a CUP for dispensaries.
So the Planning Commission will retain authority
over approving dispensaries, adding conditions.
You'll have the ability to evaluate those
under any and all conditions.
There will be CUPs for these.
There's no place where they would be allowed by right.
The zoning code amendments that we're suggesting tonight
are, excuse me, consistent with the economic development goals
policies in the general plan. Generally speaking they're about attracting jobs
investment promoting emerging industries and generating revenue for the city. This
is clearly one of those things that that would contribute to the economic
development status of the city. As for the findings we are recommending that
you make a finding that the zoning code amendments are necessary and desirable
because they would not be detrimental to public health safety morals comfort
convenience and general welfare and that the zoning code amendments are
consistent with the general plan policies supporting new industries and
enhancing local revenues. This project is exempt from CEQA because there is
essentially no possibility that there would be a significant impact on the
environment as a result of the zoning code changes. We're recommending the
Planning Commission tonight approve a resolution recommending the City Council
adopt an ordinance amending various sections of the zoning code to allow
cannabis dispensaries subject to a conditional use permit in the city's
commercial industrial zoning districts excluding the downtown area zoning
districts and with that you have to take any questions you might have Eric
Engelbart's also here from the city manager's office to answer any
questions that that are above my pay grade thank you for that appreciate it
short and sweet any questions from the Commission first down yes we do let's go
comments. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Commissioner Rich.
Thank you for the presentation
and for the packet. I'm seeking
clarity on where the cannabis
dispensaries are currently
allowed. And my understanding is
that they're currently allowed
among other places in the
commercial community. So it
showed on the chart that it
commercial community CC also in industrial general currently allowed
industrial park currently allowed and industrial transition is that accurate
I believe that is yes I think IL is the only one that where it isn't allowed
currently that's my only question thank you any other questions from the
Commission okay seeing none I've got a few questions myself here so just going
off the ordinance in the background. It's there's a statement there saying
that three dispensaries are operating today. However, the cap rose to four in
2025. The council is seeking to increase to six. So technically we have three
active. We have one that's pending active. So we have three that would be
entertained as potentially being added as part of this ordinance. It would
actually simply be two because there are four operating permits currently. You'll
be hearing an item next week to recite one of the existing operating permits to
a new property. Okay so the fourth one would be an item that we hear in the
near future then. Right. Okay. And that would happen with or without the changes of the
I understand and then in terms of getting to that additional two here from
the four to the six so the two that's included with this ordinance I mean it's
it's really if I'm looking at page two of the ordinance and the asterisk that
follows the definition of not currently permitted I think there's only two maybe
three one two three four four areas in the listing that don't carry an
asterisk so there's a grouping of maybe 15 just ball parking bullet points and
four of those are currently zoned right now and appropriate for cannabis
dispensaries so we're seeking to add 12 I'm just ball parking here looking at
the bullet points but we're seeking to add 12 different zoning classifications
as part of this ordinance that would extend out to cannabis dispensaries. Has
staff evaluated looking at the additional industrial areas within
industrial classification? So there's one, two, three, three additional industrial
classifications. If those were to be added, and maybe there's some sort of
map that you guys have to that degree, but if just those three areas were to be
added what does that do in terms of extending the amount of parcels that
would be available for cannabis dispensary so you know we're not giving
away the farm per se with industrial and commercial but we're just looking at
all of industrial do we get to those to that City Council is looking to have I
think it's a excellent question it's not something we've considered these
council gave a specific direction to include all the sounds that you see so
So it's not something that you guys looked at,
and I'm just looking at the overall quantity here.
I did a rough ballpark, but the map
that you had shown, 390 some odd existing parcels right now
that are eligible for cannabis dispensary,
and then shifting to what you're showing,
in terms of all zones, is roughly 2,000.
So that's a five times increase in parcels
that we're looking at to add two dispensaries.
Yes.
OK.
I think it's worth a study of sorts
to really dive into the detail.
Do we need the full 2,000 parcels to be evaluated?
Can we get the two dispensaries that city council
is looking to approve by way of just the industrial zoning
and not touching commercial?
Yeah, I'm gonna punt to Erick.
Thank you, Chair Tejada, for an excellent question.
I think when I was backing up the city council
as well as the City Council Rules Committee
went through probably a year and a half process
over nearly a dozen meetings between the Rules Committee
as well as the City Council over this very topic.
At those meetings, we did present to them
numerous various scenarios,
including such as the ones you were talking about
where just the industrial
or just certain commercial districts
or all commercial districts
and it was almost like nesting dolls.
And if you'd like, I can track down a copy
of that presentation that basically shows
all these different permutations.
And so the council had a very robust discussion about that
and ultimately landed on the desire to allow it,
potentially allow it in all these different zones.
But I would also add the caveat,
even though it may be true
that there are potentially thousands of parcels
within those zoning districts.
One also has to take into account a lot of other
just fundamental restrictions
that would substantially winnow that list
quite substantially.
First and foremost, one of the issues, of course,
the federal status of cannabis and as a result of that federal status, typically any property
that has a federally backed loan, so basically if the property owner has any kind of a federally
backed loan, they're ineligible to rent or to lease to a cannabis entity.
So that in itself slashes quite a few off the list, so you're basically cannabis operators
are either stuck finding, either purchasing a site outright or identifying a landlord
who owns the property outright without a loan.
In addition, the other challenge is,
in addition to all those, even though the zoning code
may say these zoning districts allow dispensary
when you overlay all those setbacks,
which are currently 1,000 feet,
but the council's directed that to be reduced to 600 feet.
And when you overlay all those setbacks
and those sensitive uses from all the different schools,
public and private, from youth centers, from parks,
from all those other sensitive use areas,
that further narrows down the list.
And so ultimately what happens in one of the challenges
and one of the things we've identified,
and I believe some of our public speakers
who are here tonight from the cannabis industry
who've been actively seeking alternative sites
under our current map can also attest to this,
that just the major challenges that we have
when limiting it to the industrial zone.
I think the other area that I would highlight
is just from a regional context perspective.
Our current map and our current cannabis regulatory structure
was set up on over a decade ago
and what I classify informally as the cannabis 1.0 era.
When cannabis was first allowed over a decade ago
in San Leandro as an early adopter
as Cindy referenced earlier,
it was kind of a scary thing.
Not a lot of organizations or cities allowed it
at that time, there was no statewide regulations.
And so we took a very conservative approach
and really limited it to just those certain
industrial areas effectively.
Because even though there was some commercial districts
that are technically allowed,
when you overlay all those setbacks
and distancing requirements that basically eliminated them.
And so that's what you had in the early days,
it was basically stick it out by the junkyard
deep in the industrial zone where nobody could see it.
But stepped forward to today in 2026
and you go to our neighboring jurisdictions,
you go to Oakland, you go to Alameda, you go to Berkeley,
go to Hayward, all of those cities,
you'll see now the cannabis is in the downtown areas.
It's in pedestrian areas because it's a retail use,
it's not an industrial use, it's inherently retail,
and in many ways not much different
in terms of its dist operations and other retail uses.
And that's why they're more typically now
in those other jurisdictions in those commercial districts
and not in the industrial areas.
So there's really been this kind of major change,
I guess, paradigm shift in terms of how cities
are regulating these and where they're focusing them
and to avoid having people to drive out
into the depths of the industrial areas
next to the junkyard or the industrial zone or the factory,
and instead putting it, tucking it into a retail setting,
which is kind of the more standard common practice nowadays.
So, I hope that it kind of just provides some additional context for this discussion.
Thank you.
If I may add a little bit about the question about industrial, industrial land and the
relative impact of expanding the map to cover the rest of the industrial districts.
industrial zones are, the vast majority of those properties are in zoning
districts that that dispensary, dispense could be permitted the CUP and the
proposal open up the the other zone, the other industrial zoning districts, the
other industrial zoning districts may open up some additional properties but
I think the effect of that is probably minimal given the relatively low percentage of parcels
that are industrial parcels that are not, where dispatches currently are not permitted
at all.
Okay, thanks for that information.
Yeah, to me, I still get kind of hung up on the fact that we're looking at a five times
increase for expanding the overall number of parcels that we're entertaining as part
of this this this ordinance and if I look at just the industrial there is
four new industrial zones that have the potential to meet the criteria for the
two additional cannabis dispensaries that City Council would like to see
implemented within the city. We've got three existing industrial zones that are
there now and it's gotten us to the point where there's three active cannabis
dispensaries from those three industrial zones. I'm kind of of the
opinion why wouldn't we explore the other four industrial zones see what
that gets us if it gets us to the two that the city would like to have in
place then I think we're all for the better if we're only touching industrial
and we're keeping it you know kind of confined to the industrial limits
expanding out, meeting the city's City Council's goal of two dispensaries and
at the same time we can monitor this on a progressive rate where we're not and
I hate to use that term we're not effectively given the farm away by going
with all of industrial, all of commercial, but we're rolling it out slowly with
industrial first seeing what that does, statusing in the years to come. Did we
meet our two quota that the City Council was looking for? If we did great then at
that point in time we can have another discussion about where the city wants to
go expansion wise with cannabis but I think right now a slow progressive
moderated palatable palatable pace with this is would be recommended in in my
opinion and again I appreciate what you're saying there Deputy Deputy City
Manager in the sense of the discussions that have had have been happening for
the past year it would have been great to see some of that detail come through
in this presentation. To not have the backdrop and not see scenario one,
scenario two, scenario three, that puts us at a bit of a disadvantage. We're just
looking at a blanket drop from 396 to 1996 without any sort of pick-and-choose
scenario in between. So it leaves me misinformed. Okay I guess any further
comments from the Commission yes Commissioner nay I think you might there
we go nice nice sorry there you go so I have a quick question on this so the
goal of the city is to actually have six cannabis storefronts correct I mean
because we works we're voting to extend the zoning in order to achieve that
right I'm not sure if I would necessarily characterize it is a goal to
have six versus we would like to give six the opportunity to be here mm-hmm
okay okay and if I may Commissioner also to provide some additional clarity the
council basically had a lot of discussions about what would be the
outer bounds of what they would they would be comfortable seeing and there
was a lot of discussion on that both at the rules committee level and the
council level and ultimately they settled at six is really that outer
bounds and being an up to up to number and there's actually not even
necessarily an established path right now ultimately even for the other two
because we have another one the fourth operating because ultimately of this we
have a dual licensing structure so the first step is the business has to get an
operating firm from the council so there's only four entities that have an
operating permit from the council and then once that operating permit is
secured they come to you all for a conditional use permit and there's no
path even there's no identified path right now for the council to issue those
additional to yet so it's really kind of a prospect of outer bounds discussion
at this point and again knowing even with all those potential thousands of
parcels but again I think once you overlay all the setbacks and all the
federal restrictions and all the properties that are actually available
on the market it's gonna be a much much smaller universe and so I guess the
point I'm just trying to make is it's it's you know ultimately all we're
talking about is two more permits in entire city at most right no I
understand but it I have looked at the expansion so originally there was only I
think in 2013 there was two and now we potentially we have four but we're
expanding it to six so we are kind of growing with the dispensary expansion
right okay okay okay any other comments yes okay Vice Chair Mendoza yeah I just
wanted to comment that I understand the planning or the the department's
position it makes it makes sense to me and also I agree with I don't see
dispensers anymore like we used to see them you know ten you know twelve years
ago so it basically like a retail place so I for one I'm okay with going from
396 to almost 2,000 and given the way you explained it it makes sense to me
and I just wanted to say yes you might have mentioned that. Commissioner Nye I
I see you still in the queue or no?
Okay, let me clear that out of the line.
Yeah, just lastly for me before we open up
to public comment is again, I feel disadvantaged
in not being able to see what the scenarios are.
A point and case example, if I'm looking at district four,
outer limits, Grant Avenue, that's pretty close
in proximity to where a Royal High School is
and that's a lot of foot traffic,
granted the setbacks that are being proposed
come into play, come into play,
but that's not to take away from foot traffic
from students that walk home from a Royal High School
every single day and foot traffic is there.
And I know for one, representing my district,
this is a concern, the growing expansion.
So I'm here on behalf of the constituents
from my district voicing that concern.
And I think taking a calculated measured approach
is the most sense, makes the most sense.
It's not to say that we can't expand further
down the road when we get to having a second evaluation of this but for right now if we're
looking at industrial only and seeing a scenario what that does that I would probably have
to say would get us the two that we're looking for I don't think we need to grow by five
times to get the two is what I'm getting at all right is there anyone from I think we're
closed on Commissioner comments oh no Commissioner rich yes I just want to clarify there will
be a chance for us as the Commission to have comments later on or we're doing
the comment period right now. Just the question period we're doing right now?
This is the question period, yeah. So we'll do deliberation afterwards, yep. Okay, and is there anyone from the
public who, thank you for the presentation, appreciate it. Is there anyone from the
public who wishes to speak on this item? Do we have any speaker cards? We do, okay.
thank you I will now call our first speaker apologies if I get your name is
mispronounced first name I have in front of me is Darlene Evans I think it's
Darlene you want to be the third one sure let me just shuffle these around
there we go okay now it looks like first person is Mario Rivera Marco Marco thank
you for the correction. Hello. Hello, everybody. Marco from
Harborside. First, I'd want to say thank you for considering the expansion,
hopefully moving the council in the right direction tonight. On behalf of
Harborside, I just want to, you know, give my personal experience and, you know,
Harborside has given a career path and I'm excited to hopefully, you know, give
that opportunity for other fellow citizens from San Leandro. I think you know it's created
a path that you know it's unimaginable and yeah really thank you guys for just considering
it and giving this opportunity to speak and you know show what we bring the community.
Thank you.
Okay, I'm gonna hold Darlene for last and go to Stephen Schneiderman, okay
Good evening chair and commissioners
I'm Steve Schneiderman vice president of corporate development at Statehouse
We operate Harbor side here in San Leandro, and I lead our corporate development and retail expansion here in California
I've spoken to the council on this topic twice before so tonight. I'll keep it short and sweet
We support this proposal and we want to say thank you.
What's in front of you tonight is a result of a long and careful process as we've discussed already
that over the last year and a half staff and council have worked through zoning, setbacks, and licensing in great detail.
We landed on a measured and what we felt was a conservative compromise.
It doesn't change how San Leandro looks or operates, but it modestly widens where a licensed
canvas operator can locate.
For harborside, that matters.
Our license here goes back 10 years, and we love to grow here with a second location just
as the city has already allowed another operator to have a second license.
Under the current map, that has been very hard to do.
We ran a structured search, multiple brokers,
and walked a lot of properties.
The problem is is that they work great as real estate,
but almost none of them clear the current rules
as they're written.
The expanded areas let a second store serve residents
who aren't well served today in areas closer to Hayward
and closer to the border of Oakland.
Instead competing with existing stores in the same corridor and clustering them together.
That invites increased cannibalization of your existing sales in the city and doesn't
permit expansion to reach underserved customers.
It's better for customers, it's better for operators and importantly it's better for
the city.
means more tax revenue for San Leandro from an operator who has been here for
over a decade. So thank you to staff and to council and to you commissioners for
the time and care went into this. We support the recommendation and look
forward to working with the city on next steps. We intend to be a partner the city
can stand behind. Thank you. I'm here to take any questions. Thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
All right, last speaker is Darlene Evans.
I'm old, I'm 79, a 19-year-old died of drugs
and he was a relative of mine many decades ago.
And there is in the family someone who's blind.
Now, you are not really mentioning
about the medical aspects of this.
I worked for Blue Shield Blue Cross
Pedal Medical Insurance for a year.
Saturdays when I put away alphabetized cards,
it could be 5,000 in San Francisco.
That was one office.
I don't see any statistics from the San Leono Police Board
of anything about what's happening in San Leandro.
Where I live is new, it's next to Sprouts,
which is about four blocks away.
We once had a fire at 10.30 at night
because the homeless people who do many drugs
and various things are in our city downtown.
This, what I got out of, I only read this on Monday night,
and that Bloem wants another place.
Well, they have San Francisco, they have Hayward,
they have Oakland, if they have another place.
Here's the thing, is that there is a place
essentially three blocks from Sprouts,
and it's a rehab place for drug addictions
and stuff like that.
Here's an example, twice in one day,
Sprouts has got security and they haven't even been there
a year at the front door.
And somebody gets a whole big thing of meat,
I know that's not cannabis,
however, he messes with the front door.
We do not have enough police in this town to do this.
And you don't have enough statistics
of why we should have another one.
That Blum already has one and they,
you've got a whole association in California.
you don't bring us the whole concept of California.
And yet it is the one that allowed you to do this.
Okay, that concludes our public speakers.
I will now close the public hearing
and bring the item back for discussion by the commission.
Do any commissioners wish to discuss the item?
I also heard from Mr. Secretary here
that I think there's some supporting slides
that staff has ready for potential purposes here
with our discussion and deliberation segment.
Thank you, Chair Tejada. Yes, if it would be of assistance to your commission, we do
have those zoning scenario maps available. We can pull them up on the screen, if you
so desire. Sure, that would be helpful. Okay, certainly, just bear with me one moment while
I pull those up. Thank you. Yeah, keenly for me, the industrial-only scenario, if that
slide could be pulled up. While that's being pulled up, my apologies. I know I
I probably passionately got into more of the discussion
and deliberation earlier during the staff question segment.
So if we wanted to start that now,
we certainly can while the slides are being pulled up
and just a discussion purpose here between the commission.
Okay, thank you for your patience.
Took a moment just to find the file,
but we have it right here.
So if a clerk could just pull up on the screen here.
Okay.
So what we have here is I would classify this.
So I'll kind of give you a broad overview
and then we can kind of hone in
on which slides you'd like to see,
but I would kind of classify these as like nesting dolls.
So essentially you have,
this is scenario one is the existing zoning that's allowed.
And this does not take into account setbacks.
This is basically just a visualization
of all the parcels and the boundary areas
of those that contained within those specific zoning districts.
So you can see here the current rules allow
IG IP and IT and the commercial community.
Although I would note as a function,
even though technically community commercial
is allowed right now, as a practical matter,
it's disallowed by virtue of those
sensitive use distancing requirements.
That's one of the challenges
that our industry partners have had
is that under this current map,
some of them have been looking for several years
and not have been unable to identify sites.
This is scenario two, which added downtown,
which at one point was under consideration
by the Rules Committee,
but ultimately the council decided it was not interested
in any allowance downtown.
And that was also informed by some discussions
with the Chamber of Commerce as well as SLEA.
And then you can see here, this is scenario three,
which adds the north area and the south area zoning.
And then scenario four adds the Bayfair TOD,
slide five adds that light industrial.
And then slide six adds the additional commercial.
I know the chair, you were asking about industrial only,
just the way this nests, it's hard to,
I don't know that I can only show items one and five,
but you can certainly look at it through the way this nests.
So you can kind of see, so for example,
with the Delta between this slide and this slide,
you can see where those additional industrial areas are,
where it's added right here.
Okay, I guess what I was looking for is in the let's see the industrial limited area limited assembly overlay
Industrial Park assembly overlay and
industrial transition
So that is so this this map captures all those scenario one and we let it if you're able to
Speak to some of this in terms of the is am I correct when I the way I'm looking at this essentially though
these are the existing industrial zones and then you're ahead.
That is the, if I remember correctly there's there's a few a few parcels that
that have this AU overlay where and this is a very small like small number of
parcels and our collection is included in that slide that captures the IL so
that just picks up the remainder of the industrial parcels in the city as much
or a recollection of that slide worked.
All right, okay, and then following along.
Dark purple is the industrial,
the light industrial that's potentially being added here.
So zoning CC, CN, and CR.
Where does that show up here?
I guess more specifically CN and CR
since those are currently not part
of area zone for dispensaries.
CN and ZR.
It looks like CN is this red neighborhood commercial.
And then I don't know if our secretary can speak to CR or not.
While you're doing that, South Area is basically
running through East 14th.
Is that what that stretch is on South Area?
Yes, that's that.
I think I would call it the kind of the charcoal.
Here we go.
So yeah, so this, I think, is the South Area.
This kind of runs down the spine of East 14th Street
on the south end of town.
So you've got south area and north area.
And then we're discontinuing downtown area.
And OK, that's Bayfair TOD that you just added.
And there wasn't any sort of study
to look at just south area, north area,
or the rules and regs expanding out dispensaries.
What would that do in terms of potential parcel options
within north area and south area alone?
I have to imagine that stretch of East 14th
kind of opens up a wider bank of options.
Potentially, I would say this is these maps
that you see before you that we're going over right now
are really the extent of what was asked for by the council.
The other challenge is generating these kind of maps
is extremely labor intensive
and identifying parcel by parcel eligibility
is extremely, it's a very challenging thing to do.
And then the other issue also is overlaying
all those setbacks, and in particular like youth centers,
which can come and go over time.
And so it's really, I don't know if it was,
it was when we had conversations with our GIS mapping staff,
it was extraordinarily labor intensive.
And I know just even creating that purple and yellow map,
I think that we looked at earlier, this one,
this one attempted to actually incorporate
some of those overlays and was a monumental undertaking
to create these maps when you get
to this level of granularity.
And since they were all hypothetical scenarios,
It was just too labor intensive and not determined
to be infeasible by our IT department
to actually do a parcel-by-parcel scenario kind
of exploration.
And knowing that ultimately, even if, say,
hypothetically, this proposal, the staff recommendation
were to move forward, and then a dispensary operator
got a permit from the council, identified a landlord,
identified a property that didn't know the federal issues.
Even if they submitted an application
and the neighbors didn't like it, as you know,
but still subject to that conditional use permit.
And so ultimately, your commission would have robust authority
to review that for conformity with the findings
and potentially deny it if it's not,
you know, can't meet the findings
or if there's, you know, major community concerns.
And ultimately, even if it were approved,
you know, a neighbor could appeal that to the city council.
So ultimately, there's like a lot of checks and balances here.
So even if this map moves forward
and technically these zones become potentially allowable
by virtue of all those setbacks, the federal requirements
and the CUP process and the neighborhood notification
process that creates all those checks and boundaries
where the city, including your commission
has brought autonomy to say no.
Yes, I'm just trying to share that there's,
it's not necessarily like when we approve this map,
it's a by right situation.
It's not that CUP is a huge, important kind of hurdle
that any applicant would have to surpass.
As far as the commercial community,
Can you explain again, there was some dynamics
that you were alluding to at the beginning of this.
Can you repeat that once more?
Certainly, so one of the challenges that we've heard
from our industry applicants is that our current code,
which has been in effect for over a decade now,
technically says that CC isn't allowed location
to set up and establish a cannabis dispensary.
But the challenge is under our current setback requirements,
the sensitive use distancing requirements.
When you overlay them, it actually essentially de facto,
it blows out every single,
nearly every single one of those parcels.
So as a practical matter, even though the map,
even though the zoning code currently says,
theoretically one can be able to seek approval
for a cannabis dispensary in CC as a practical matter,
you can't because the setbacks disallowed.
Because it's like another overlay of restrictions
on top of the zone.
Zoning, I always think of that as like this layer
regulations and hurdles that people have to get through. Like step one is it in
the right zoning. Step two overlay all these setbacks. Is there a youth center?
Is there a school? And the current code also has a residential setback, which is
would prove to be very problematic because most of these like community
commercial shopping districts and neighborhood commercial are meant to
serve the adjacent neighborhoods. So by they always they ended up just not
meeting the neighborhood, the commercial, the residential setback. And so as a
a practical matter, it's really like not real.
Like this CC allowance is actually de facto
under the current code, not actually possible.
Sounds like there could be a cleanup measure there
so that the rules and regs that are in place
kind of disallowing commercial community
from even being entertained is rectified
so that the zoning is true and proper to IG, IP and IT
really the de facto zones where cannabis dispensaries are allowed if what if what
I'm picking up on what you're describing is true the sense that commercial
community although it's there in the zoning code as an allowable area the
rules and regs tied to it with setbacks and criteria that need to be adhered to
prevent it from even being entertained at all there might be a cleanup measure
that we could exercise there is I mean although that and that cleanup is part
of the package of municipal code amendments that the council has directed
to move forward with it just because there's those sensitive use distancing requirements
live in the municipal code they're outside of the scope of the planning commission essentially
and so they'll they'll go straight back to city council okay but there is definitely that you
know there's a proposal direction from council to reduce from a thousand feet to 600 feet from
those sensitive uses to to really which kind of speaks to your point earlier about trying to
to address some of those inherent kind of paradoxes
with the current code.
Mm-hmm, understood.
Commissioner, I see you have your hand up.
Oh, okay, okay.
But I have my hand up.
Commissioner Rich, there you go.
Thank you.
I appreciate the clarifications.
I appreciate the comments from the public.
I would be comfortable personally extending it to downtown.
I think that would be appropriate and consistent
with what we see throughout the Bay Area.
But I don't want to substitute my judgment
in place of the city council's judgment.
The city council came to us with a proposal
and for us to evaluate, and if we can make the findings,
we've got that opportunity to approve it.
I am persuaded by the checks and balances
that the operating permits go to the city council,
each and every one.
The conditional use permits come back to us.
And so if we're concerned about the proximity to Royal High,
that would be evaluated by if someone came to us,
if there was a property owner and a business owner
who wanted to do business in that location,
that would come back to us.
So I think that is the bite of our apple,
the bite of the apple for us,
rather than creating a bright line rule here today
that absolutely prohibits it regardless.
I'm also persuaded by the fact that as I understand it,
Chamber of Commerce approves this, they're endorsing this without
downtown, they're endorsing this proposal. I'm not always on the same
side with the Chamber of Commerce but this time I am. So with the checks and
balances, with the state regulation, with the City Council oversight, with our
oversight, with the separation, with the security requirements, I'm persuaded that
that this works and if somebody does decide
to try to open one, we'll be back here
and we'll be discussing that particular project
at the time on its merits.
Any other commissioners, discussions?
Go for it.
Just to say that I agree 100% with Robert.
Okay.
Yeah, again for me, I think my position
still remains the same.
It's a benefit now that we can see the graphics
and we can work through the scenarios.
Previously that was a disadvantage of not being able to see because now
My whole mindset is actually shifting and I can see the benefit of having South area and North area on the East 14th
Corridor open and extended for cannabis dispensary
And I think I haven't done the metrics and I know it takes some time
But if you just open up those two
You can get the two additional dispensaries with the rules and regs put in place that City Council is adopting
So my point still remains the same that we don't need to open the floodgates and
Extend this out by five times from the current
Available parcel listing that we have to now 2,000
I think we can accomplish the additional two dispensaries that City Council wants as part of their directive
By outstretching the south area outstretching the north area and including any of the straggling
Industrial limits that weren't originally included
But I don't think we need to touch any of the commercial any of the you know
Proper locations that may be in that family setting family setting of commercial business happening
Again, I speak for the constituents of my district
And I know this is a concern for them where they're not necessarily keen on having family business family dinners conducted
Within a line of sight to something, you know of a cannabis dispensary adjacent
Not to say you know everyone's you know
Entitled to their own prerogative. I am not here to discuss that. I am just here to
Discuss what the constituents of my district have voiced to me as their concern
And I'm trying to find some sort of middle ground, but again just having this today is helpful is very helpful
I wish it was available earlier
I wish it was part of the actual proposal package so we can sink into it and come
Prepared of this discussion versus dealing with it kind of on the fly
So that's where I feel a little bit disadvantaged
but if I
Was to just interpret the data
I would have to imagine North area South area all of industrial we can find two parcels to get to the city's limits
Without needing needing to give the whole farm away. So that's still my position
So we are where we are
All right
Any further discussion or do we want to move forward with?
a motion or resolution
Commissioner rich I would like to move to approve the resolution as submitted by
Staff as submitted to us by the City Council and as presented here by staff tonight
It has been moved by Commissioner rich and seconded by Vice Chairman doza
To adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending San Leandro zoning code to allow cannabis dispensaries
subject to a conditional use permit in the in commercial and
Industrial zoning districts outside the downtown area zoning districts
Please cast your votes
Three yeses and one no
So at this point the motion has failed at this time if any commissioners have any other motions
They would like to present to the Commission
You may for example if anyone feels so inclined to motion to approve the resolution with any additional
Changes or recommendations that they have we can certainly
discuss including
something if you don't fully agree with what was presented to you today. If no action is taken,
I'm going to lean on the secretary here, but I believe that the item still advances to the
council just without a recommendation from the commission. We would, the staff would convey the
discussion, try to capture the discussion at the commission and capture the concerns and interest
from from all the commissioners. Thank you for that clarification explanation.
Since this ultimately would be discussed at a later date by City Council and it
would follow a path of discussion and coming back to the Planning Commission
similar to what we're entertaining right now, I would like to move to adopt the
resolution as it currently reads and modify it such that all of commercial
is removed from the listing all of commercial that's not currently zoned
for cannabis dispensaries is removed from the listing and the remainder of
the zoning areas remain which would be north south and everything else that
that carries an asterisk next to it?
If I may, Chair, I'd just like to check with the Secretary
that the language of that motion is sufficient
to be able to go into the resolution later
and change it should the motion pass.
Because I do know that occasionally we do continue an item
to have time for staff to prepare a different resolution
than what was presented.
So I just wanna make sure that we're able to make those
changes on our end after the meeting should the motion pass I feel
comfortable capturing that in the resolution okay thank you all right
motion on the floor any second Commissioner Rich I was seeing a
clarification from the assistant city attorney that any action by the planning
Commission requires four votes regardless of the number of planning
commissioners attendance yes that's correct thank you okay
Seeing no second, motion on the floor dies.
So back to an impasse with where we're currently at.
Commissioner Rich.
I'm going to propose an alternative modification,
and that would be to approve, as submitted,
except remove commercial neighborhood,
which I believe would address most of the concerns
from the chair.
For example, I think in the manner it would that is commercial neighborhood. They're in the manner not
Whatever the CC is it's CN not CC. So I'm proposing
Approving what the City Council submitted to us what staff is presented with one more exclusion and that's CN commercial neighborhood
I guess clarification on that end from
city staff
What would still remain then is commercial recreation?
commercial recreation. Does that extend to areas, parks, communities, aquatic centers? I think
recreation, that's what comes to mind. I believe commercial recreation is generally limited to
the open space areas near the shoreline. Open space areas near the shoreline.
So on this map, the CN is this darker orange, or CC, yeah it's this one here. So sort of a reddish
orange. So let me scroll around. Okay, I mean to do that. I
couldn't find this late earlier. Does somebody know where to
find the zoom out? inadvertently zoomed in?
Oh, here's all got it. Thank you. Nope, that's earlier extent.
And I would also note that the even with the modified
Distancing require a sensitive use distancing requirements that the council's directed us to move forward with it does retain a distancing require a 600-foot setback from
parks
Here you can see some CN you see
Here this has an overlay of s. Here's some CN here. I want to
Here's a little CN down here
Let's say it's RM
It's also RM. Here's a CN bit here
down in this area
There's probably a little bit more up this direction
So then primarily the CR would extend out like you said to the shoreline marine area is what CR?
incorporates
Is this green right so you have this area and this area and so on
There's also one area
Near the marina or covering the marina the Pacific Recreation complex next to the Marina Square, right?
So those are the choose here. It was a leave
Area zoned CR from a practical matter because of the setback requirements
I
don't believe that
including CR or non-quity CR will make additional parcels available for a dispensary.
I mean with the description and the map that's shown, I feel comfortable with the motion
that Commissioner Rich is presented. So we're effectively allowing commercial
recreation, disallowing commercial neighborhood, and commercial community
was already included within the listing but as you said deputy city manager
there's probably gonna be some cleanup there that needs to happen anyway with
with that area with that zone yeah I feel comfortable with that I would go
ahead yes could you move over to the key I thought there was other commercial
besides commercial CR so there's a CRM and a CS the CRM as far as I can tell
has completely been converted to be Todd but for some reason okay this just
never got cleaned up in the zoning code and Pete and be Todd is included in the
motion yes it is so all this area here and similarly there are no parcels on
CS this is part of my ongoing education so I appreciate that given that that
there's no distinction between this and the prior motion I would like to
withdraw my motion I thought we thought that there was a middle ground that we
were finding here but in reality it's it's the same as prohibiting it in all
commercial aside from cc which is currently permitted with a conditional
use permanent nothing committed permitted by right everything
discretionary subject to coming back to this council this planning Commission
okay so that motion has been pulled there was never a second so the motions
pulled from the floor. And again, just to clarify, Mr. Secretary, if we can't come to
terms on a consensus here for a vote, the item will go forward to City Council, but
just with the record of the conversation that took place by the Planning Commission and
the City Council can determine from that point what occurs.
In the staff report, we endeavored to include what happened to the Planning Commission,
regardless of what the action whatever action the commission takes.
If I may chime in, yeah, effectively, it's a recommendation that you all are
elevating to the council. And so to the secretary's point, we would we would
memorialize the conversation that took place. We document the motion that was
made and then that did not pass. And then we would elevate that for the
council's awareness so that they had an informed decision about what they wanted
to do when the item is presented to them.
And at that point, it would really be
at the council's discretion what they wanted to do,
if they wanted to further modify it or send it back,
or they have ultimate prerogative at that point.
But they would have full awareness of the discussion
that took place here tonight.
Sure.
Yeah, just being able to see the scenarios is helpful.
So I appreciate city staff for on the fly,
pulling up the information and providing
what you guys did tonight that's that's very helpful it just seems like from my
perspective kind of a forced decision if I was to make a decision or
recommendation one way or the other right now I would be open to revisiting
this item at a later date after City Council potentially has deliberated and
if their discussion is to send it back to the Planning Commission with more
data on the scenarios and the potential outcomes that north area and south area
just maybe those two parcels alone in zoning what do those two areas with
available options do in terms of getting us to meet that two additional two
dispensary quota that the city is looking for factoring all of the rules
and regs and everything from items one through three outside of this item
number four on the zoning code itself, entertaining this at a later date would
be okay by me just being informed and having the scenarios in front of me so
that I know I can have peace of mind in voting that for X scenario we can
confidently meet the city's quota of two. For Y scenario maybe we'll be short or
maybe we'll be in excess by X amount. I just don't have that data in front of me
right now and I can't confidently say in a swath for the entire listing that's
shown here I can approve. So since we don't have a motion and it doesn't seem
like we're going to come to terms on a motion that would be my recommendation
is ultimately City Council hears the record tells the tape of what we
discussed today at their discretion they can opt to either vote I'm assuming they
have that privy to either vote as is or send the item back to the Planning
Commission with additional data and with the scenario backup in place. Mr.
Secretary I'll pause there if there's any sort of like formalities or items to
this particular matter that needed to be discussed further. Now if there's if
there's no motion there are no other items on the agenda and we can join the
All right, thank you for that. The time is now 807. This meeting is adjourned.