4A Public Hearing 2014 0421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2014 Page 3 of 6 In response to a further question from Commissioner Hernandez, Mr. Pio Roda said an ordinance amendment would be required if the City decided it wanted to allow more than one medical marijuana dispensary. The City’s Zoning Map seems to show one parcel in the IG(AU) District around Grant Avenue near the San Lorenzo border that is indicated as eligible for a medical marijuana dispensary and an adjacent parcel that is not so indicated, Commissioner Hernandez said. Planner Barros said the radius measurements around parcels were established with the City’s GIS process, and if the radius touched any parcel, it would be disqualified from eligibility. Accordingly, all the parcels surrounding the parcel Commissioner Hernandez pointed out were too close to a school or recreational facility. Commissioner Hernandez also asked why the ordinance requires edible product to be prepared at the dispensary. Secretary Barros said that language is perhaps owing to concerns about potential health issues and to encourage a higher, better use such as a cannabis goods manufacturing facility. Commissioner Leichner, asked if it was the intention that the dispensary be allowed to make home deliveries and have offsite transactions. Planner Barros said yes, that is currently allowed by State code. Commissioner Leichner asked whether the dispensary would be required to provide parking spaces for it s own vehicles. Planner Barros, noting that no additional parking requirements are imposed on restaurants that make home deliveries, said it’s not included in the proposed Zoning Code amendments in this case either. Commissioner Rennie said the RFP process seems odd in terms of this type of use. The law does not allow a for-profit operation of a medical marijuana dispensary and allows only qualified patients and primary caregivers associating collectively or cooperatively to engage in the activity of cultivating and consuming marijuana, he said. The Supreme Court in the Riverside case told us that primary caregivers also must have a pre-existing relationship with the qualified patient that goes beyond providing marijuana to include other types of essential life services such as health and housing. Commissioner Rennie said he cannot see an RFP process that could succeed in identifying someone who could possibly qualify as a primary caregiver and comply with the law in establishing a dispensary. Mr. Pio Roda said that Commissioner Rennie’s observations are being taken into account as this process is considered. Ultimately, he said, we have to find a way to determine that all the standards have been met, and part of the process would be ensuring the dispensary operator can demonstrate meeting those standards. One aspect of that is likely to be evaluating the effectiveness of the applicant’s document -management system and his/her use of technology to back up his/her claims. Noting that the success of this land use as envisioned will depend heavily on a sustained commitment of City resources to monitor, audit and track the use to ensure ongoing compliance, Commissioner Rennie asked whether the City would commit those resources. Mr. Pio Roda said the City Manager’s intention is to do the best they can, including assessing what those costs would be, establishing a commensurate permit fee and imposing an additional tax on dispensary operators. Commissioner Leung posed two questions: 1) Because the dispensary cannot profit from the sale or distribution of medical marijuana, can it identify itself as a nonprofit organization? Mr. Pio Roda said the State law and the City ordinance require the dispensary to operate as a legal nonprofit business, whether a 501(3)(c) or other designation under the IRS code. 2) Regarding the control of the marijuana flow, can the City set a limit on the number of members and the dosage of marijuana? Mr. Pio Roda said the City Council did not limit the size of the cooperative or collective or restrict membership to San Leandro residents. Planner Barros said the ordinance establishes a daily per-patient limit, but doesn’t address the total volume of marijuana the dispensary could sell on any given day. Commissioner Leichner noted that the Zoning Code could be used to limit the size of the dispensary in terms of square footage, which would indirectly address the number of patients who could be served. In response to further questions from Commissioner Hernandez, Planner Barros said a valid dispensary permit would apply to one location only, and approval of a dispensary’s CUP would be up to the BZA. When Commissioner Leichner asked whether live-work Zoning Code amendments proposed at the January 30, 2014 work session would conflict with any parcels identified as eligible for medical marijuana dispensary