Okay, so it is seven o'clock and I'm calling to order to the San Landro City Council meeting today is a special meeting
It is Monday, November 9th, 2026. Like I said at seven o'clock, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance
Madam clerk, would you please take roll?
Councilmember James Aguilar
Council member Victor Aguilar
Council member Simon present council member Bowen present council member bolt here
Vice mayor of the veterans Walton here and mayor Gonzales here
So with all members present we are duly constituted conduct business
Let's say the San Lionel conducts orderly meetings with Philip's mandate discriminatory statements or conduct that would potentially violate the federal Civil Rights Act of
64 and or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
California penal code sections four or three or four fifteen 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
Madam clerk your announcement, please
If you would like to make a public comment during the meeting
You can do so in person or via zoom if you are present at the meeting
Please complete a speaker card and submit it to the city clerk before that
Then wait for public comment on that item to be called if you wish to participate in public comment via zoom
You can use the raise your hand tool
when
During the public comment sessions speakers will be invited to speak and we'll have a set time to share their comments
Accountant timer will appear for their and when the time is up, the microphone will be muted already
Will be lowered to avoid confusion once public comment is open hands may be raised to speak
Thank you
Just checking out there was that microphone cutting out during the process during that announcement read
Yes, okay
So if we can just kind of keep an eye or ear on that out of the tech room just in case we have other challenges
Let's proceed. So for item number three report on closed session. There was no action taken. Correct no action taken
Guidance was provided to staff
Under our consent calendar. Are there any items that members would like to pull from the consent calendar?
Seeing none. We'll take public comment on this item
Okay, let's take public comment on this item before coming back for discussion and emotion
Hey, mayor. I do have one hand raised online
Do we have Doug's fault? Do we have any yellow cards for in-person?
Public comment on the consent calendar. We do not so we are closing in-person public comment on the consent calendar
We're opening up online public comment on the consent calendar. Please proceed. I do have one online speaker Douglas balding
Hi, can you hear me? I'm using a new
Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Very good
Good evening council members and happy post-election period
that, um. Uh, I flubbed up my,
um, my public comments the last
few weeks. So so one of them
has to do with consent
calendar. I don't know if any
of you ever heard this, but
seeing the end or indeed has a
structural deficit. And one of
those structures is the way our
consent calendar has been used
over the past three or four
years. To pass through many big
projects, Big dollar projects
limits being a $500,000 total for any one item contract, and 10% on top of the original amount.
And if either of those limits is exceeded, then otherwise the item should go on the regular
agenda as an action item that is open to discussion and accessible to robust public
housing plan. Um it's not a
discussion because what happens
is in you know, two minutes
and five, six items can't
really comment on too much.
But I have a list a little bit
less than a minute. I want to
comment on two things. Uh, item
for see the citizen
participation plan concerning
housing. Uh there is an
organization in town called the
housing platform of San
Leandro. And we would welcome
the city to reach out to us and
involve us in the citizen
Then I like to jump to another meeting.
I just jumped out of the home grown habitat San Leandro,
because a part of 4D, the Washington Manor Park site
specific master plan includes a demonstration garden.
I would hope that we focus on native plants and nature trail
that hopefully would emphasize nature plants.
But another thing missing is in area 6 and 7,
the recreation building and plaza,
can we put something in for the Tai Chi grandmas
who've been asking for it for years, thank you.
Mayor that is all the public comment we have.
Thank you, and with that we will close public comment.
We will come to council member Victor Aguilar.
Motion to move the consent calendar.
Motion from council member Victor Aguilar
with a second from?
Yes sir, I would like to second.
Council member James Aguilar.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, please vote.
Excuse us while we work through a technical difficulty on our voting machine one moment, please
All votes are in
Item both passes unanimously
Thank you. So we will now move to our public hearing
This is a public hearing to conduct our first reading of two ordinances as presented in our agenda
We do have deputy city manager Eric Engelbart here to present on those items
After the presentation, we will take questions
the items. I will then open the public hearing to hear from the public. We'll
close that hearing and then come back for our deliberation and discussion. Thank
you Deputy City Manager. Good evening mayor and council members. Thank you for
the opportunity to be here tonight as well as to members of the audience both
here in person at home hearing this item. As the mayor just noted the primary
topic of tonight's discussion is the adoption of code amendments related to
cannabis dispensaries.
And tonight's discussion follows on the last direction,
the most recent direction received from council
back in September.
As another reminder, tonight's presentation does align
with the City Council's
Adopted Economic Development Work Plan.
Just a little refresher here, how we got here tonight,
what brought us to this action,
how we are culminating in this presentation for you tonight.
As you may recall, about a year and a half ago,
back on May 19th of 2025,
that's when the city council ordered its fourth
dispensary operating permit to nug wellness
and then as part of its action directed staff
to bring to the rules committee a potential expansion
of the number of licenses and the related process
for awarding them and to treat other dispensary operators
comparably and that was really that initial charge
from this council which then transitioned us over
to a lengthy discussion with the rules committee.
Then from June through December of last year
the rules committee deliberated on various potential
code changes related to cannabis dispensaries.
And then at its December 10th meeting,
the rules committee directed staff to advance
the project forward for full council consideration.
That discussion then took place in these chambers
before the full council on March of 2026, earlier this year.
And there were some areas where there was broad consensus
at that meeting and there were other areas
where there was a lack of consensus.
Ultimately, the council directed the item back
to rules committee for further discussion.
in between April and July of this year,
the Rules Committee deliberated
on various code amendment options,
and then ultimately at its September 14th meeting,
or ultimately the directions that came out
of the July Rules Committee meeting
were then elevated to the City Council,
and your council considered a package of options
at the September 14th, 2026 meeting,
just a little over a month and a half,
about a month and a half ago,
and ultimately a majority of the council
directed staff to move forward
with what we refer to as the option C package of amendments
the details of which I'll get into in just a few moments.
As part of that option C, there was also some elements
that did require an advisory review
by the City Council Planning Commission
and that review took place on October 29th,
about a week and a half ago,
although ultimately a recommendation was not made
and I'll provide additional details on that as well.
Just a little refresher from that September 14th meeting
and the council direction that was provided
to execute what we again referred to as option C.
And these bullet points here on the screen before you
are really kind of a high level synopsis
of the elements of that package.
And that included allowing for the issuance
of two additional cannabis dispensary operating permits
for a grand total of six,
out of which four have already been issued.
There was also direction to allow setback modifications
to account for physical barriers
such as freeways or waterways.
There was also direction to update our list
of sensitive uses and to modify the current,
what are currently set at 1,000 foot distancing requirements
and modify them down to 600 foot distancing requirements
to align with the state, the statewide standard.
And then just as a little refresh or two,
we've got here on the sub bullet,
a reminder of what the revised list of sensitive uses
would include basically public or private,
all public or private schools, youth centers,
parks and recreation facilities,
as well as childcare centers.
There was also a robust discussion by the council
about the youth center definition.
And based on the feedback and deliberation
at that meeting, we did modify that language.
As you recall, we had previously presented some language
from the city of Alameda,
but there was a number of comments
that that definition needed some further massaging.
So essentially what we've done is based on that discussion,
we removed any language
that formerly excluded Marshall Park Studios.
So essentially that exemption for martial arts students
has been eliminated and we also clarified
that any such youth centers must be predominantly used
for post-recreational social activities for minors
rather than exclusively.
So essentially what we've done is we've kind of broadened
that definition of youth center
so that it's more restrictive than the example
we'd given from the city of Alameda.
Additionally, the zoning code updates,
which is a separate package before you tonight,
there's basically two recommended actions
I'll get into a few moments.
The first is those changes that reside in the municipal code,
and then there's a second section
that reside in the zoning code.
And that's that second section
that went to the planning commission,
and that would be to allow retail cannabis uses
in all the commercial industrial zoning districts,
with the exception of the downtown area.
And then this last item I wanna call to your attention.
While we were in the process of updating this code,
it came to our attention that our local code
on related cannabis dispensaries
hadn't been updated in over a decade,
And there was a lot of what I would classify
as legacy provisions in there
that were no longer relevant or applicable.
Because as you recall from some of our prior dialogue
on this topic, when we first adopted our code,
there was no statewide regulation.
So our code was very prescriptive,
got into a lot of details that are now basically
preempted by the state or there's already
new robust statewide regulations.
So we use this as an opportunity to clean those up,
mostly very minor changes.
As I mentioned earlier, the second element of this,
those code changes related to zoning updates,
which would essentially allow cannabis retail
in those more expanded list of zoning districts,
that is subject per the zoning code
has to go through an advisory review process
by the planning commission.
Although I think it's important to remember
that that's again an advisory role,
and it's not a formal decision-making role.
And so essentially they're just making
a recommendation to you all.
But per that code, we brought the item
before the planning commission at a special meeting
on October 29th and at that meeting about a week and a half ago the
Commission had four members in attendance and one of the things to
keep in mind with that attendance level is that because it's a seven-member body
in order to pass a motion they needed four votes and ultimately what took
place was that a motion was made to adopt the resolution which would have
recommended approval of the code amendments as directed by the City
Council and that was there was a second for that and the outcome of that vote
though, was that it received three votes in support and one vote in opposition. And as
a result, because there was only four members present, it failed to achieve the four-vote
minimum for passage. Additionally, once that motion failed, there were efforts to identify
other alternative motions. For example, the second one here on the screen, a motion to
modify the resolution to exclude all commercial districts except commercial community in the
North Area and South Area districts, which are basically those outer ends of East 14th
street, both on the north end of town towards Oakland and on the south end towards Hayward.
But that motion ultimately failed due to lack of a second.
And then there was also a third attempt at a motion to adopt the resolution while simply
excluding the neighborhood commercial district.
But that was also withdrawn after further discussion.
So as I kind of alluded to, the commissioners discussed the topic for quite some time.
They did their best to seek a compromise that could achieve the four-vote majority, but
they were unable to achieve such a majority.
And so, ultimately, they did not ultimately adopt any recommendation either way.
And so, per the code with Planning Commission's Failure Act on its recommendation, the code
amendment still nevertheless advanced forward to the council without a recommendation for
or against.
And again, because it's advisory only, their role, the council still has the full latitude
to approve, modify, or reject the code amendments per the adopted provisions of the zoning code.
And that kind of now sums things up.
We're almost to the end here culminates in our recommended action, which is to adopt the municipal code and the zoning code amendments as
Directed and consistent with that direction that you all provided it at the September 14th council meeting
Which are included as attachments B and C respectively in the packet tonight and with that we'd be happy to answer any questions
Thank you for the presentation and as a reminder, this is time for questions not commentary
Will then take public comment on the item and then come back for our discussion. All right. Do we have any questions?
Okay, seeing no questions
I'm gonna proceed with one question and I think this can go to anyone who wants to field it. So I'll direct it to you
Assistant city manager and you can allocate accordingly
We clearly have some some districts that we have set up with specific definitions like the downtown district
and there was a discussion about excluding specifically in the downtown
district. Have we considered the legality or the possibility of creating a
district for this purpose? Thank you mayor for that question that is
something we have explored and I want to note that we have our community
development director and planning manager here with us tonight who can
probably provide some insights about a possible path forward for that using
what's known as a zoning overlay. It is feasible to create an overlay zoning
district which encompasses multiple districts or parts of multiple
districts. In order to do that we would want to hear a direction from the
council, what criteria would go into creating such a district in a map and
what features of each parcel which are regulating
to create that overlay zoning district.
What we want to avoid is just picking and choosing parcels
that don't advance a specific
governmental planning purpose.
But the concept of creating a district is legal
and it just goes to doing it in a systematic way
that doesn't violate individual parcels' rights.
That's correct. Thank you. Okay with that we will open up our public hearing.
There's a new question, sorry. I just thought of a question based on your
question. While it's legal to be able to create a new district, we could not
create a new district based on political districts, correct? I just want to confirm
that because the conversation has been that specifically throughout the seven
meetings we've had about this I'm happy to address that question that is
correct that such a concept was elevated and raised at the Rules Committee and
ultimately legal counsel responded that it was not legal to focus on political
boundaries specifically as the Nexus okay so with that being said we will
open up the public hearing it is 719 and the public hearing is now open who are
our speakers during the public hearing. In person? We'll begin in person. Mayor we
have four speaker cards. I have Marco Rivera, Steven Snyderman, Nara Dalbaca
and Anthony Tejeda. First we'll start with Marco Rivera. Good evening mayors and
members of the City Council. My name is Marco Rivera. I am a manager for
Harborside. I've been with Harborside for six years. I want to start off with
our store, what our store actually is. We're a retail shop. Customers walk in,
show their ID, they get help by our staff, and they go home. It runs like any other
store, which is why we think, you know, it belongs where other stores are at. A lot
of the people that we serve are older residents and medical patients and many
Many of them drive across the town to reach us.
An example of a customer is someone who's retired, who comes a few weeks for pain, for
arthritis.
And she told me the drive is the hardest part of her visit.
A second location would let us serve people like her closer to home.
And compliance is a part of our daily routine.
We check IDs.
We have securities in the premises at all times.
And we work hard to be a good neighbor and set that standard.
Harbor Sign has been a part of San Leandro for 10 years.
Many of them live right here in town.
And the second store means more local jobs for us.
So I'd ask you to adopt the full package tonight
so we can serve more of San Leandro.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next I have Steven Snyderman.
Thank you.
Good evening, mayor and council members.
I'm Steve Snyderman, VP of Corporate Development
at Statehouse.
We operate Harbor Side here in San Leandro
and have for the last 10 years.
I'll keep it short.
We support staff's recommendation
and urge you to adopt the full package tonight,
both municipal code and the zoning code changes.
This is direction that council gave us back in September
and after a year and a half of work
and more than a dozen public meetings.
The Planning Commission, the vote was three to one
in support, installed on attendance, not on substance.
When I last spoke to you, I said San Leandro
has a map problem.
This is still the core issue today.
Dispensaries are limited simply to industrial land.
On paper, that's thousands of parcels,
but in practice, very few work for a retail store,
the public walks into.
We ran a structured search with multiple brokers
and walked a lot of properties.
Plenty worked as real estate,
but almost none cleared the setbacks.
Now, the setback changes help,
but on their own, they leave us on the same industrial map.
The zoning change is what fixes it.
Smaller neighborhood commercial centers matter here.
That is where you find independent landlords
who can actually lease to a licensed operator
large centers carry institutional loans generally cannot. None of this skips a
safeguard. Every location needs an operating permit from this council then
a CUP with notice to neighbors. That is where site specific concerns can get
heard. A wider map lets a second store serve residents who aren't well served
today. Instead of crowding the same corridor that is better for customers
and most importantly for the city's tax base. Thank you to staff and the council.
We want to be a partner this council can stand behind. I'll take any questions.
Thank you. The next speaker is Nara Dalbaca. Good evening, mayor, members of
council, city staff. Been a long time to get here, but I'm thrilled that you have
the full package of both the ordinance and the zoning changes in front of you
tonight. It's been a thoughtful, engaging process and lots of opportunities for
folks to weigh in here. As folks who spoke before me have said, the issue at
the Planning Commission last week was one of attendance. There were four people
there. The vote was still three to one. Just couldn't get out without a
unanimous vote. The issue of neighborhood commercial, that seems to be the area
where cannabis business is going to be most likely to find a landlord because those are
the mom and pop landlords that don't have a large federal loan on their property.
Federal loan would preclude a business from, would preclude an empty business from renting
to cannabis and so a lot of those other commercial districts have those federal loans, the big
strip malls are all owned by maybe one big leasing company and so it's the mom and pops
that are sitting empty right now that would be potentially the places where
cannabis would be able to locate. We are talking about a total of another two
stores so we're not saying there's going to be one you know cannabis on every
block in the city of San Leandro. We're talking about two locations one that was
recently approved or a year and a half ago for NUG to open their second
location, one that went to the Planning Commission a couple weeks ago that may
be in process and headed to you all, and then this request for the for harbor
side to also be granted a second satellite location so that they can
serve the other parts of the city. We don't want cannabis to all be clustered
in one neighborhood. We want the city to broaden their tax base so that you
actually make more money off of having an additional cannabis business instead
of the businesses all hurting each other by being so close together. And there are
whole areas of the city where folks have an easier time going to Oakland or
Hayward or in the San Lorenzo so I hope you'll adopt these tonight thank you.
The next speaker is Anthony Tejada. Good evening mayor good evening council
members. So yeah I am chair of the Planning Commission and we heard this
item two weeks ago so I trust maybe folks here watch the playback of the
tape and saw some of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission.
where I go with this is currently right now we have four cannabis dispensaries
approved in San Leandro. The fourth one was approved last week as part of the
Planning Commission's review. The City Council opted to go with option C that
was presented a few minutes ago by the deputy city manager which is the most
expansive option. We see this I see this as more of a matter requiring a
calculated approach where we look at not necessarily an all-inclusive every
single zone that we're expanding cannabis dispensaries to but how do we
go about measuring it so that it matches what the district's true needs are not
every single district would like to see cannabis dispensaries expanded to their
respective districts so on behalf of my district I am voicing that concern for
this just constituents of district four I would also say that you know it's the
old adage of all money is not good money and when it comes to comparing tax
revenue and benefits this that and the other I would look at our 580 East
neighbors versus our 880 North and South neighbors and look at what our 580 East
neighbors are doing when you look at Castro Valley when you look at Dublin
when you look at Pleasanton all three of those cities have zero cannabis
that the city council wants in a calculated measure approach whether
it's expanding to all of industrial or maybe select zones, that might be the
more opportune approach versus expanding to all zones together, all
districts and all zones together. So please consider that.
Expanding to all zones together all is this all districts and all zones together. So please consider that
Mayor, that's all the speaker cards. I have okay, so we'll close public comment
And go ahead, please
Members my name is Rick Solis district 3 also planning commissioner
would like to echo a lot of the concerns that and
recommendations that the previous speaker had mentioned but just want to give my perception on the cannabis dispensaries if it was my choice I
Would follow most California cities and have zero cannabis dispensaries within the city
But I understand that we do have an ordinance to allow some we now have four after the last meeting
Which I was the the sole dissenting vote
As I mentioned in that meeting
I feel that San Leandro needs another cannabis dispensary,
like we need another Starbucks,
like we need another McDonald's,
like we need another Walmart,
like we need another smoke shop.
So I don't think expanding these businesses
is the way to go.
It's not a good look.
I was joking with some neighbors, we were talking about it,
and I thought we should take the cherries
off of the San Leandro logo
and put a marijuana leaf on there,
if that's the direction we're going.
But if the council does decide to expand to all districts,
I mean, if council members are going to pass this,
I would expect everybody puts this in their district,
not just all clustered in one spot.
But again, that's my perception, and that's all I got.
Thank you.
If you could please do a card for us,
we would appreciate that.
And then if we will close in-person public comment,
and we will move online.
Yes, Mayor, I have one online comment.
Douglas Spalding.
Douglas?
Got to make it available to me.
Come on.
Thank you for giving me the unmute button, Mr. Spalding.
We could hear you all along just to be clear.
Oh, OK.
I thought I had to unmute myself.
Sorry for my frustration.
I am someone who is agnostic on the general topic of marijuana
use. I do not condemn my son for smoking marijuana during his college years to
relieve his anxiety. I don't really think it's warranted, but I did become a big
advocate for medical marijuana when I lost a friend to a glioblastoma some
years back and though she wasn't a big marijuana user, that became the
the relief she had. I'm a little frustrated by the outcome of the Planning Commission,
just the fact that only four commissioners apparently were present. Out of seven, I know
if you have an emergency meeting, it's not scheduled, so not everybody's calendar were
conformed. But I do want to thank Commissioner Solis for voting no. I don't want to express
my disappointment at both of the District 3 City Council candidates, both Lee, Thomas,
the city of Toronto. And I'm
There's a whole lot of nimbyism, like no, not in the north, no, not in the east, no,
not in the, you know, wherever, but, you know, we can't just sort of create the whatever
green leaf district where marijuana dispensaries are going to be.
That seems rather unfair to me.
So please listen to your constituents and consider carefully what you're going to decide.
Thank you.
Mayor, I don't have any more online comments.
Okay so it is 733 and we are closing the public hearing.
We'll now come back to council members for any further questions, discussions,
deliberation, and eventually I will take a motion. Who would like to weigh in first?
We will begin with a council member Simon. Yeah I'll number one speak on behalf of
my constituents of District 4. They are not in support of expansion of cannabis
in district four. I've heard that loud and clear from the Manor Home Association and just in
speaking to constituents citywide I haven't heard one constituent tell me that they want another
dispensary and I've asked talk to quite a few people and I personally have not heard it.
My other concern is how we have an exception for the downtown association and I respect their
decision not to want it in downtown and appreciate that council has included
that but I really don't think that's fair or equitable for certain areas to
have an exclusion and other areas not to. So I mean I raised that at the last
meeting. I still stand behind that. I think we should be fair here. The other
concern would be a special district in itself. There may be some people in that
Special District to me not want it either so that that is a concern I have I don't support expansion of
The districts I don't support expansion of marijuana dispensaries
City wide to all districts. I just don't support it
We'll go to our next council member
So if nobody wants to weigh in and I will close
But I do want to make sure that you get a chance to weigh in because I will not accept more comments after I'm done
So council member bolt
Yes, thank you
so a
couple of speakers and
Wow, I know all of you individually and know how
much you care
What I hear is not in my district and
I
Don't agree with I was just looking at the map. I was a mistake and I used to think district six had one
But we don't it is all in three. That's correct
We have the most potential to grow being the largest industrial side of town
Where people could go?
But I hear that notion that
Why should it just be forced into the industrial area?
The goal I believe in that was that people would be driving and not walking up to the store
You know the idea that I heard was that you know
we don't basically kind of don't get any walk-ins and can't and it's harder for our
customers to get to us being that they have to drive.
I hear that. I understand that. My problem is and I thought I'd hear it more and I didn't,
not in my district. So my problem with that is we're either we want it or we don't.
we're all in or nowhere and I don't agree with the fact that we don't have it in downtown or
that's a secluded area or a sacred area that it can't be sold in. There are places across the
country that have dispensary cafes and in California as well and those I mean
if we're in it and if we want to change the cherry to marijuana leaf and we're
gonna go that route then we need to be all in but I can't sit up here and
support let's do it everywhere but by me and and it it's not right to do that
we're open for business or we're not and I said that the last time and I'm
gonna reiterate that again here I was hoping to hear a little bit more from
the other council members but hey it it is what it is and I'll stop right there
Welcome to Councilmember Victor Aguilar please. Thank You Mayor. I would like to
piggyback on what my council colleague had said. You know we are open for
business and we shouldn't limit folks to go and pick up their cannabis that they
use for medicinal reasons from one particular district. Kind of like it
It triggers me for redlining in a sense of keeping cannabis in one district.
I think, you know, we should be open to every district.
I hear what my colleagues are saying, you know, I don't think we're going to change
the cherries to cannabis leaves.
But I think that what we need to do is, you know, we have restaurants in every district.
We have markets in every district, cafes.
I think these cannabis dispensaries should not just be focused in District 3, although
all these locations that we have in my district are nice establishments.
I patronize these establishments.
People are really welcoming, they're nice.
I think what we need to do here is we need to,
we're facing a structural deficit
and I think this added revenue with these,
adding extra permits would be feasible
to producing more revenue for our city.
So I don't wanna discount that fact,
but I also don't wanna discount what Marcos had talked about
short changing folks from being able to pick up cannabis
and a city close to their house.
We've heard many stories.
I think as somebody whose partner is a cannabis patient,
is something that I hold close to my heart
because it helps him with his anxiety and depression.
And so I think, I'd like to have not only my partner,
but speaking from personal experience,
But our neighbors, our residents in San Leandro
who utilize cannabis, we can't discount them.
They're the ones who put us here.
And we hear folks say,
I don't want it in my district.
Okay, NEMB's, I think what we need to do
is we need to be more open to having,
open to having dispensaries in other districts,
not just in district three.
So I would support the recommended action
that is on the screen to move forward.
That's what I would support moving forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Council Member Bowen, please.
Thank you, Mayor.
And just to clarify, is the process now
that you are the last to ask a question
and Council Member can not speak after that?
Or do you have comments?
So, it's not about asking questions.
I really, it's the chair, as a general principle,
in all meetings that I go to, the chair goes last.
And so, that's the way that we have operated
for the last four years that I've been chair,
and it will continue to operate that way.
I've interrupted my questions, my comments in the past
to acknowledge folks that wanted to weigh in.
So we will continue to operate the same way
that we've been operating.
Okay.
So I was actually waiting to see
what the other council members wanted to say
because this, again, I found the rules committee
with council member Simon and the mayor,
and this is the seventh meeting
that we have talked about this,
And it has gone back substantially.
And we've talked about it in depth for hours.
And so that's why I don't have questions about it.
But I do want to say a few things.
One, the reason why we started this conversation
in the first place was because it was a policy update
to the ordinance that we had.
And so if it was about updating it
and the goals of this council that
have been expressed for the last year.
This is the recommended action to me
is a good compromise to all of the conversations
that we have had.
I certainly have never said not in my district.
What I have said is what makes sense on this map.
If you overlay all of those setbacks,
there are only a handful of places it could even go.
And so I wanted to look at the real efficacy of what
this policy actually was.
And so if you can find one in district five,
let's try it and see what the community says.
I don't think there is one considering all the setbacks,
but I could be wrong.
I mean, we've looked at this a million times.
And again, if we get to that point,
the residents would come forward
and they would give their feedback.
So I am certainly not one that is gonna say
not in my district.
And then the second thing about that is,
so much of the conversations that I've had
and what I hear, what I wanna say to the community is,
I am not comfortable with the stigma around folks
that are frequenting dispensaries or using cannabis.
I personally am not familiar with it,
but I am certainly not going to sit back
and make judgment on folks that use cannabis
and it is a highly regulated industry.
I think about people that I have spoken to
who has told me they don't go to ones in San Leandro
because it is not convenient for them.
They'd rather go to Oakland.
I was just in Oakland this week and I passed on Telegraph.
And when Council Member Bolt is talking about cafes,
they opened one down there and it looked perfectly nice.
I'm not saying that that's what we need to have here,
but again, it is certainly, I don't want,
I don't want to paint this negative picture of folks
because that's not how I see people.
And so I don't know if Council Member Aguilar
had made the motion.
If he did, I would like to second it.
Before we go to a motion,
I'm happy to come to you Council Member Aguilar
for the motion.
Are there, I'll come to you for a motion, just a second.
Is there any other discussion?
Because I do have a question for staff.
So just one other question.
So when we talk about a location,
this create a conditional use permit process,
If the only reason not to open up a facility at a specific location is public opposition,
is that a valid reason why we wouldn't approve a conditional use permit? Just the public doesn't
want it. I can feel that question. A conditional use permit is a decision on conditional use
these permit is based on established findings
which considers health and safety,
compatibility with surrounding land uses,
consistency with the general plan.
I think if people come out and with in opposition,
it may inform your opinion around those findings,
but the commission should base their decision
based on those specific findings.
Yeah, and I ask specifically because in Hayward,
I know that the decision came up not too long ago
within the last year where there really wasn't a finding
of any health and safety issue
or compatibility with local,
but yet the community was quite opposed to it.
And essentially the council said,
well, our hands are tied because we have to approve it.
So I'm really trying to understand the role
that community input plays.
It sounds like unless there's a health and safety issue
or a specific, like help me understand incompatibility.
Let's go right there.
Incompatibility with other uses.
What does that mean?
Maybe it's more helpful to talk about
in the lens of like general welfare of the city
and whether it's detrimental
to the general welfare of the city.
I think that's where compatibility means
that there's some detrimental aspect of the use
which would interfere with the enjoyment of property
or the kind of the wellbeing of surrounding land uses.
That's how I would explain it,
but I think eliminating strictly people
to like it opposition is not,
I think what happened Hayward,
I don't know what's specific is what happened Hayward,
but ultimately to make a decision
needs to be tied back to findings.
So I would assume that some findings were made
in support or against whatever the action was.
Thank you.
So coming back, council member,
well, let me just give you my thoughts on this.
I think that I have publicly said
that I'm fine increasing the number of licenses,
just increasing them, that doesn't bother me at all.
Council Member Simon, you wanted to weigh in?
Based on that last dialogue I just heard,
so it sounds like community members can come out
from their districts, whatever district,
they may not like it,
but it does not matter what they like or don't like.
What matters are the findings that the staff comes up with.
So a community member can be in opposition
from whatever district there is.
And that's it, that's what I'm understanding.
I'm gonna let legal clarify first
and then please feel free to weigh in.
Thank you, Mayor.
Just a clarification, Council Member Simon,
that the findings are not necessarily belonging to the staff.
The staff make a recommendation,
but it's ultimately the commission
the council that will make the findings so I just want to be clear that the
final decision-maker makes the findings you have a recommendation and
description of the facts that support the findings but it's the decision-making
body that adopts the findings. Okay I'll proceed did anybody want to weigh in
any more over in the staff? Just to go further I would also add that
you know ultimately these are what are known as discretionary findings and so
ultimately the decision-making body be that the planning commission or the city council has
Discretion in interpreting the language of those findings
And that interpretation is obviously based on the letter written letter of the findings, but there is also discretion and how that that body
Interprets that I'm just adding that
Okay, so now I'm going to proceed with my comment is are you finished?
Yes. Okay, perfect. So just to continue with where I came out of this, and I've talked about this public in various settings.
First, I don't have any problem with increasing the number of licenses period. That doesn't bother me. Where I have struggled is
particularly in the location and the siting.
I think that in knocking on doors in the 2022 election, knocking the doors in the 2026 election,
there was not a single door, not one that anyone ever said to me,
why don't we have more dispensaries in San Leandro?
That's just not an important issue for most people.
There's already plenty of locations
that people patronize here in San Leandro
and another location.
So I don't think it's a driving issue, a driving concern.
I am sensitive to this concept that,
well, why can it be excluded from downtown?
I view it ultimately as a compromise
and the will of the council thus far hasn't been
to exclude it, for example, from the greenhouse marketplace
or from the Manor intersection.
if that was the will of the council,
then we could go there, we could define districts, right?
This whole concept of,
I think that people should be able to have some sense
of what they want in their neighborhoods, big picture,
and different neighborhoods are different, that's okay.
That's okay for there to be diversity across our city.
But I am struggling with what we have here right now,
because it's got things that I like
and things that I don't like.
In the end, I think we do have the opportunity
to amend this in the future and while I don't there's aspects I don't like I'm
gonna go end up supporting it but I am you know just it's a compromise so
there's stuff that I don't like in here that's all that I've got okay at this
point in time I will take a motion I believe councilmember Victor Aguilar has
the motion some of do I have a second councilmember Bowen second so we've got
a motion from Councilmember Aguilar and a second from Councilmember Bowen to move
forward with staff recommendations as presented on the screen. Slide number 7.
Please vote. Okay the votes are in. Motion carries 6-1. 6 yes votes and 1 no
vote. Okay it is 751. Is that the right time? 751 and we are adjourned.