Law and Legislation Committee Meeting - February 16, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Law and Legislation Committee Meeting - February 16, 2021
The Law and Legislation Committee met on Tuesday, February 16, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. via teleconference to consider routine approvals and a major item regarding cannabis delivery limits in the Southeast Industrial Area. After public testimony and discussion, the committee voted unanimously to extend the existing cap on cannabis delivery businesses for six months and directed staff to conduct comprehensive studies on overconcentration, displacement, and zoning.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1 – Law and Legislation Log (File ID: 2021-00116): The committee passed a motion approving the log. (Routine approval)
- Item 2 – Legislative Advocacy Correspondence (File ID: 2021-00043): The committee received and filed the correspondence. (Routine approval)
Public Comments & Testimony
- First Caller (name not stated): Expressed strong opposition to limiting cannabis delivery in the Southeast Industrial Area. The speaker argued that the limit would hurt core program participants and those in the BOP phase, jeopardizing their businesses and investments. The caller urged the committee not to impose a limit and emphasized the importance of creating jobs and opportunities.
- Steve Blanton, Executive Director of the Power and Alliance: Urged the committee not to lift the cannabis delivery cap in District 6. He argued that the original cap was not solely about traffic and crime but also about overconcentration. He noted that District 6 already has several times more cannabis businesses than other districts, making a lift inconsistent and unfair. He also referenced a written agreement with the city to observe a cap (originally 46, later 50) and stressed equity and opportunity throughout the city.
Discussion Items
- Item 3 – Limit on Cannabis Businesses Authorized to Deliver in the Southeast Industrial Area and Related Traffic Impact Study (File ID: 2020-01410): The committee reviewed a traffic impact study and debated whether to lift the existing cap on non-storefront delivery permits in the Southeast Industrial Area. Staff had recommended taking no further action to extend the cap, effectively letting it expire.
- Councilmember Eric Garrett (District 6) spoke first. He noted that the original cap was based on concerns about crime and traffic, but data now shows those impacts are negligible. However, he expressed concern about displacing existing tenants and workers, similar to what occurred with cultivation caps. He questioned why only 33 of 50 permitted businesses have become operational and directed staff to meet with the Power and Alliance to discuss a rational cap and address displacement. He also raised zoning restrictions as a barrier to equitable distribution.
- Councilmember Katie Valenzuela echoed concerns about overconcentration and zoning, noting that only two districts can host these businesses. She highlighted the equity gap between core and non-core participants, saying that removing the cap alone would not ensure new permits go to core applicants. She suggested directing more cannabis tax revenue back to host districts to make the benefit more visible.
- Councilmember Jay Harris (District 3) supported extending the cap while a comprehensive citywide review is conducted. He said the traffic and crime data no longer justify the cap, but displacement of other industrial businesses remains a valid concern. He agreed that overconcentration should be examined citywide, not just district by district.
- Chair Jeff Shine proposed a two-part approach: (1) meet with District 6 stakeholders to discuss the moratorium, and (2) conduct a holistic, citywide review of cannabis regulations, including overconcentration, displacement, and workforce development. He suggested that cannabis revenues could fund a consultant. He favored retaining the cap while the review occurs, noting that 17 BOPs remain unissued, so demand is not pressing.
- Committee Attorney Audrey Anderson (or Mr. Itagaki) clarified the process: extending the cap requires a new ordinance with alternative findings, which would need to go to the full City Council within two weeks given the March 31 expiration. The committee directed legal staff to draft a six-month extension based on findings of overconcentration and potential displacement.
Key Outcomes
- Unanimous Vote (3-0): The committee voted to waive appearance before the Law and Legislation Committee for a new ordinance and directed staff to bring a six-month extension of the cannabis delivery cap to the City Council. (Councilmember Garrett made the motion; seconded by Councilmember Valenzuela. Roll call: Harris – yes, Valenzuela – yes, Chair Shine – yes.)
- Staff was directed to:
- Meet with stakeholders (including the Power and Alliance) in District 6 to discuss the cap and displacement concerns.
- Commission a comprehensive, citywide study of cannabis overconcentration, economic displacement, workforce pipeline, and zoning.
- Work with the City Attorney’s Office to prepare the extension ordinance with alternative findings for the March 2 Council agenda.
- The existing cap will remain in effect until the new ordinance is enacted or expires (current expiration March 31, 2021). The committee did not adopt staff’s recommendation to take no further action.
Meeting Transcript
Is it authorized to deliver in the Southwest industrial area? There is no evidence related to traffic impact based on the study. And due to coronavirus, there are the I feel like these are the best and safest measures to take when it comes to being able to conduct business in that area. Based on the fact that there are limits in store for an opportunity for core members, this opportunity in the Southeast industrial area creates opportunities for core participants. Also for those core members who are in the BO phase of planning, we'll be kind of stuck in a hard place, jeopardizing our business and and our investments that have already been made. Um I definitely believe there should not be a limit on cannabis uh authorized delivery in this area. And for those who are in the VLP phase and who are core graduates, I feel like they should have that opportunity to do to do business in this area. Um and I feel like we're excited to work across the board collaboratively with the power of alliance, and we're hoping for their full support. Um I believe that creating jobs and opportunities should be on this agenda and at the top of this agenda. Um, you know, when we're talking about core and unity and really creating um that wealth gap, uh we're looking forward to having the opportunity, and I oppose uh the uh limit on cannabis in this area. And I hope city council can understand. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Welcome to the meeting. You have two minutes to address the committee. Hi, thank you, and good afternoon. My name is Steve Blanton. I'm the executive director of the Power and Alliance, and uh we are primarily in district six. And uh I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item. Um we did submit written comments, which you should have in front of you, but I wanted to reiterate that um we feel it's inaccurate to say that the camp was uh in uh cannabis delivery businesses was imposed uh simply because of traffic and crime. Well, that was part of it. There were other reasons, uh, particularly the over concentration. Um and on that note, the city is considering um uh over concentration measures for district two and three, and uh district six has um several times more cannabis businesses, uh, so it does not seem consistent or fair to uh remove those uh uh the moratorium at district three and and or impose a moratorium in district three and remove the one in in district six. Um we're concerned about uh equity and opportunity throughout the city and that um we feel that cannabis businesses should be equally distributed or close to equally distributed throughout the city if possible. Um and also I want to point out that we signed a written agreement with the city to observe a cap uh which was originally 46 uh and then increased to 50. So for all those reasons, we urge you not to lift uh the uh cannabis delivery cap in district six. Okay, thank you. We have one more caller. We have one more caller. Next caller, please. Next caller, please. Next caller, please. The committee. Welcome to the meeting. You have two minutes to address the committee. Sure, I have no more callers. Okay, and do we have a phone number if you wanted to uh try to call that person back? I want to make sure if someone wants to speak to have the opportunity. Yes, we'll we'll give them a call. Okay. Um just one quick thing, and and um Mr. Harrison, Mr. Gera and I have uh a long history of doing this. So I just one piece uh Miss Valentwell is the the reason we went from 46 to 50, if my memory serves correct, is when we were doing the moratorium, we wanted to make sure that people who are in process uh were not penalized for that. So that was the reason we went from the 46 to 50 to make sure everyone in the queue had that opportunity to to finish up. And we've been pretty consistent about that type of thing uh in most of the pieces that we've done here. So let's go. I I I certainly have some thoughts on this, but let's go ahead.
openpublica.com