Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2014 <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />As regards public outreach, Planner Barros said the City provided notification 10 days prior to this meeting, as <br />required by the Government Code, and also sent courtesy notices to all the homeowners’ associations in the <br />City as well as the San Leandro Chamber of Commerce. The BZA reviewed the proposed changes as an <br />informational item on February 6, 2014. <br />Commissioner Fitzsimons asked who would be at risk, whether the property owner, the business owner, the <br />City of a raid of City-approved dispensaries by federal law enforcement agencies for violation of the Controlled <br />Substances Act? Mr. Pio Roda said it would be a risk to the property owner and the business operator. <br />Commissioner Fitzsimons also questioned whether the use of the term “another dispensary” referred to another <br />dispensary within San Leandro, inasmuch as the ordinance provides for only one dispensary in the City, or is <br />the language intended to provide the flexibility in case the City later decides to allow a second dispensary in <br />San Leandro. Planner Barros responded “yes” to both questions. <br />In terms of what a dispensary can and cannot sell, Commissioner Fitzsimons asked whether the Zoning <br />Enforcement Official (ZEO) or the Police Department would be responsible for enforcement. Planner Barros <br />said that as with any business, it would be a combination. <br />Commissioner Collier identified a section on the map of eligible medical marijuana dispensary locations where <br />the railroad tracks and Washington Avenue almost come to a V point, noting that this area appears to have red <br />lines through it. Planner Barros said the red in that section on that version of the map denotes the CC District, <br />and the cross-hatching used to mark eligible areas is barely visible against that background. <br />Commissioner Rennie cited the staff report’s mention of the Council making a policy decision at a time when <br />a Court of Appeal decision indicated jurisdictions could not pr ohibit medical marijuana dispensaries. Pointing <br />out that the California Supreme Court later ruled otherwise, that cities may limit, restrict or prohibit medical <br />marijuana dispensaries, Commissioner Rennie asked whether the Council has been briefed on that more recent <br />decision. Mr. Pio Roda said that the City Council was briefed on the outcome of the Riverside case in the <br />California Supreme Court, and moved forward in making its policy decision. <br />Commissioner Rennie said that what’s proposed could technically comply with California’s Compassionate <br />Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, but he doesn’t understand how the dispensary is supposed to <br />acquire its marijuana. He said cultivation would have to occur at the site to enable the dispensary to comply not <br />only with State law but also with what the City anticipates it will need to do. Commissioner Rennie indicated <br />seeing nothing in the staff report on how cultivation would work and how security would be provided. Mr. Pio <br />Roda replied that the City Manager has created a staff task force to examine these issues, and at this point, he <br />said, the understanding is that cultivation will not occur on the site, so that the collective or cooperative will <br />have to receive product from its own members’ farms. In response to a further question from Commissioner <br />Rennie, Mr. Pio Roda said that growing marijuana would be considered a different use. <br />In regard to parking, Commissioner Rennie said that although we’re treating the medical marijuana dispensary <br />as a retail use, a closed-circuit relationship in which the only customers would be qualified patients and their <br />primary caregivers seems to be a small-scale use. Planner Barros said she mentioned parking in the retail use <br />context in her presentation, but the staff report also cites medical office uses, which can be as large as Kaiser or <br />as small as two or three offices. <br />Because he is concerned about the potential secondary effects of dispensaries, Commissioner Rennie asked <br />whether an application for a dispensary permit would require discretionary review subject to CEQA. Mr. Pio <br />Roda said that is intended to be the case. <br />Commissioner Hernandez asked whether a cost-benefit analysis was conducted in relation to 1) the anticipated <br />cost of enforcement and 2) tax revenue projections. Mr. Pio Roda said a full cost-benefit analysis related to the <br />process of approving the permit and initial vetting of the applicant is underway now, and the staff task force he <br />mentioned earlier also is considering a pre-qualification process and the costs related to that. The pre- <br />qualification process would be designed to identify the types of operators with the experience and financial <br />qualifications to meet the City’s criteria before even going into the RFP (Request for Proposal) process, he <br />explained. Mr. Pio Roda said the cost of enforcement time spent also is being analyzed now, with the goal of <br />recouping the costs through permit fees.