Okay, so it's nine o'clock and I'm calling to order the rules committee meeting of the San Land City Council.

Today is July twenty-second, twenty twenty-six.

Madam Clerk, would you please call the role to establish quorum?

Council Member Simon is absent.

Councilmember Bond.

Present.

And Mayor Gonzalez.

Present.

So we do have a quorum.

Um may we have your public comment at this time, Madam Clerk.

After each agenda item is presented, the mayor will ask for committee member comments and then take public comment.

You will have two minutes for your comment.

A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and attendees.

So our agenda today has one item to a cannabis policy next steps for discussion amongst these the committee members present.

Council or I'm sorry, Council Member Hutt.

There you go.

I don't know if that's an emotion or what that is.

But we've got uh our deputy city manager uh Eric Ingelbart here to present on this item.

Welcome.

Good morning, Mayor, members of the rules committee and members of the public joining us today.

Appreciate the opportunity to present on this topic once again on the topic of cannabis policy and proposed code amendments.

And today's pro presentation does follow on our last discussion on this topic of the rules committee in May.

Uh just as a reminder, and as we've shared previously, today's presentation does align with the city council's adopted economic development work plan.

Just a little refresher.

Um probably some of the prior deliberations by this body as well as the city council over the past year.

There's been about, I think this is maybe our perhaps about our ninth meeting on this topic.

Um call back in May of last year.

Uh uh in these chambers, the council ordered the fourth cannabis permit operating permit to Nug Wellness, and also directed staff to bring to the rules committee a potential expansion of the number of licenses and related processes for awarding them and to treat other dispensary operators comparably.

And that's really what initiated a lot of this these discussions here in the rules.

Uh then from December June through December of last year, the rules committee deliberated on the topic at about three meetings, and then that culminated last December when the rules committee directed staff to bring forward a package of proposed code amendments for full council consideration based on that direction.

That package was considered by the full city council at the March 9th meeting of this year.

Uh ultimately the council directed the project back to rules committee for further deliberation.

Uh then this item for that consistent with that direction.

We brought forward the item in April.

That was subsequently continued to the May meeting.

And you can see those three bullet points at the bottom were some of the uh action items coming out of that meeting, including there was a desire expressed by this committee to drill in a little further on the youth center definitions as well as to share definitions from other jurisdictions.

A copy of those or those definitions is included as an amendment uh an attachment to the agenda packet today that's available for public review as well on meeting central.

The the committee also asked for a legal analysis regarding the possibility of of limiting cannabis dispensary permit awards in the future only to districts three and five, and then there was uh there was clear consensus expressed by the committee in May to not to not allow downtown as an allowed area for potential cannabis expansion.

Um just a little refresher as well from that March um city council meeting.

There was clear cons there were some areas where there was clear consensus, and there was areas where there was a lack of consensus.

And you can see on the top, the areas where there was clear consensus across the city council was to kind of hone in our universe on the possibility of two additional cannabis operating permits to be issued for a grand total of six, because four have already been issued.

And there was also uh support for allowing setback modifications to account for physical barriers such as freeways or waterways, which we discussed at our last meeting.

Uh that there was that lack of consensus on the sensitive use distancing requirements, as well as what potential zoning districts could be expanded to allow cannabis, and then at that time uh the re the downtown uh discussion was still there was not a consensus.

Uh also worth uh refresher here on youth center definitions.

This should look familiar.

It's it's we've presented this definition for that we borrowed from the city of Alameda during our prior presentations on this topic.

I know this is a rather verbose definition, but at a high level, the key takeaway is that you know basically a youth center it needs to be something where at least you know more than half the day, five or greater hours a day is devoted to youth serving activities in order for it to qualify as a youth center and then be subject to the setback requirements as a sensitive use.

Uh and then just as I mentioned earlier, we did include as part of the agenda packet today a compendium of all those definitions from other jurisdictions here in Alameda County that allow cannabis uses, and you could see in there what the how they define youth centers.

I think the key takeaway from all that is that most of those other definitions are quite broad and they provide less clarity as compared to the City of Alameda definition that we are recommending for incorporation here in San Leandro to provide that clarity.

Regarding that legal analysis request that came out of our last meeting in May, City Attorney's Office did review this and kind of the some of the takeaways are essentially that the city already regulates dispensaries under both our municipal code and the zoning code, and that significant findings would be required to demonstrate the legal basis and the rationale for using political boundaries rather than traditional zoning districts.

And so without findings to establish the nexus between a council district boundary limitation and the impacts of the dispensaries, the city could be potentially vulnerable to a legal challenge.

So our recommendation today at the front staff is to really focus on utilizing the Muni code or the zoning code as the framework for future regulations as opposed to political boundaries associated with the council districts.

This chart should also look familiar.

It's been included in all of our prior presentations as well, acknowledging there's a lot of information here, but again, I want to kind of focus in initially on these last two rows here, and you can basically see the existing distancing requirements here in San Leandro, and you can see the majority of them are about a thousand feet or a thousand feet from sensitive uses.

And you can see the staff recommended proposal is to basically align with the state and modify those thousand-foot setbacks to the 600-foot setback, which is really the statewide's typical standard.

And then also note that we're recommending the elimination of the residential setback.

As we discussed at prior meetings, that setback has been particularly challenging because the vast majority of our commercial areas are in inherently just adjacent to residential areas.

So even though our current code says that certain commercial districts are allowed for cannabis, when you overlay that residential setback, it essentially creates a de facto prohibition in those areas in spite of the code saying that there are otherwise allowed.

And so, and you'll also note that the vast majority of other cities here in Alameda County that do allow cannabis uses do not have any residential setback, with the exception of Union City, which has that modest 100 foot setback.

These these maps should also look familiar to do as they've been included in the past presentations.

You can see on the left.

Um, and again, with the caveat, these are estimated, these are estimates.

These are not definitive, but this is our best uh estimate of the eligible parcels that would be available under the current map on the left, which shows in orange.

And you can see the vast majority of those areas are kind of tucked away in our industrial zones.

And then under those the staff proposal where we would potentially open up cannabis dispensary allowances in all of the commercial and industrial areas.

You can see what that would look like in purple.

Taking a note, of course, that part of the direction at our last meeting in May, um, we could easily take out this section, the downtown area, which has its own defined DA or downtown era zoning through the zoning code, we could take that off the map.

Um, the reason why it's not shown in this version of the map is creating these maps is quite labor intensive for our GIS staff.

And so we wanted to just await till we had final clarity of the recommendation before before tasking those staff with modifying the maps.

Um kind of wrapping things up here with our last slide.

Really, what we're seeking today is is direction from you all, with a goal of hopefully our next stop being bringing this matter to the full council again for for adoption of some proposed changes.

But you can see there we're looking for that direction on those distancing requirements, the youth center definition clarity on which zoning districts to focus on, as well as that council district prioritization that came up last time.

And that concludes our staff presentation.

Happy to answer questions.

Okay, so we're actually gonna take public comment on this item, but I do want one quick clarification or confirmation.

The council district prioritization, we've basically told that's likely to be illegal.

Essentially, okay, thank you.

So we will come to public comment to hear from what you folks have to say on this topic, and then we will have our discussion deliberation further questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

We have received two comment cards presently.

And our first speaker is Michael Colbruno, followed by Zed Schlott.

Hello, council members and staff.

Michael Colbruno, I'm here um on behalf of Harbor Side.

And first of all, I just want to thank um the council.

I mean, nine meetings on this for your thoughtful deliberation.

And I also just want to point out I do work in about 20 cities.

You have the most professional, thoughtful and responsive staff.

So I just want to take a moment to commend them.

Really appreciate the work that you do.

Um, at some of the last meetings, the big issue that was discussed was fairness.

Um, and that's I think what we're basically here to talk about today to make some changes so that harborside can secure another permit.

A year has passed.

Um, and it would be nice to know where they can look to try to find a location.

And I think that's really all that we're asking today.

Um, and on a personal note, I just want to say I've worked for HarborSide for 16 years.

I think you guys know they're a good operator and they're community-based, and you know, it'd be a nice addition here to the city of San Leandro.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Zed Schlottes.

Good morning.

Uh, my name is Zed Schlei.

I've been here.

This is my third rules meeting with the city of San Leandro.

Uh, and I'm the VP of retail at HarborSide, and HarborSide has had a great standing relationship with the city for years.

We employ 15 employees with competitive wages and benefits at our San Leandro location.

And over the last two years, we've identified and executed on being a better operator, and your constituents have responded with open arms.

Since 2023, we've increased sales by over 200%, bringing additional tax revenues to the city.

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find compliant locations with the current set packs and restrictions in place that wouldn't just steal from your current operators.

San Leandro needs to capitalize on the cannabis deserts present in southern and eastern communities and seriously consider why they wouldn't why they would want to leave money on the table that will inevitably go away when another jurisdiction becomes wise to the opportunity.

We need to expand zoning and harborside needs certainty from the city in order to move forward with a real estate surge in a meaningful way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, there are no more comment cards at this time.

Okay, so we'll close ball to comment on this item.

Come back to uh committee members for discussion questions, deliberation, and the like Councilmember Bowen.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, so oh, can we put the that back up?

I mean, I have it in front of me, but it I like to be able to see it everywhere, Eric.

So I was not at that last meeting, and I appreciate the legal analysis of the district prioritization.

So can you walk me through why after the last meeting, um we would even think about expanding um the zones from district three where they're at right now to district five.

And if you look at district five for a practical purposes, even with the expansion or the loosening of the restrictions, what would actually be available for the expansion is really limited.

Sure.

So I um I think and obviously I want to speak for the other members of the committee whose direction kind of resulted in that discussion about the council districts, but I think at a high level, the takeaway was that there was some concerns that the constituents in some districts were less amenable or supportive from a neighborhood perspective of having cannabis uses in their particular district area versus in potentially in other areas.

And so that was I think what led to some of the discussion about should we explore the possibility of focusing on any expansion into those district areas where the community members in those districts are potentially more supportive of the use type.

And had the committee surveyed or um spoken to members or residents across the city.

I'm just curious as to why um we would specifically call out district three and district five.

I again I don't I'm hesitant to speak for for the other members of the committee.

Uh I'm not I'm not aware I'm not I don't have information about what dialogue may or may not have taken place with regards to constituents and in specific districts.

Okay, maybe to the mayor, then since Mayor, you and um council member Simon um had made that decision or that recommendation at the last meeting.

I think the recommendation would be too strong a word.

There was a discussion about that in to me at face value with the illegal experience that I have, I think that that would be illegal.

But that's really something for legal counsel to determine.

Um there had been some interest expressed specifically by folks in district five.

I seem to recall that that you had expressed some interest yourself.

Uh I know council member uh Victor Aguilar has expressed interest.

And so trying to find that compromise between what council members are interested in and recognizing that certain districts have I'll just say a disaffinity.

It was a creative idea that was tossed out there, but it doesn't surprise me that it would be deemed illegal.

Thank you.

Um I mean I I assume that um when we're making economic decisions about where to put a business, it would be around where you could attract the most customers, not just from a particular district, but across the city.

And I was supportive of an expansion because at this point they are all within one particular area.

And um if we are going to potentially have up to six, um, I was trying to think of a for a practical matter, how would this actually look in reality?

Um, to say that we go from three to four to six and not have real places for businesses to actually operate in, um, would seem like uh uh uh not the best use of our time given that this is our ninth meeting to potentially amend the code.

Um but Eric, if you could actually, I know we spoke about it before.

Um so in May when we talked about um issuing another operating license, um we also then opened it up to potential code code amendments.

Can you clarify exactly what we're trying to solve for?

Because I know we we can easily get into the weeds with different issues, and that's why we're still here a year and a half later.

Sure.

So I would I would share, I would kind of refer back maybe to the initial that May meeting last year when the council awarded the fourth operating permit as part of the outcome and the direction to staff at when the the council concluded its discussion of this topic and awarded the permit.

You can see that initial charge that was given to us and and referral to the rules committee, and you can see that right there under the May 19th.

That was kind of what kind of opened the gate to to commence this dialogue with you all here in the rules committee.

And this is really where where things then proceeded from.

Okay.

Um and then if we if we go to the uh record regional context and staff recommendation, um if I under if I heard you correctly, um basically the recommendation is to align with current state law because originally our um ordinance is significantly older.

We were one of the first, and so things have clearly changed and more regulations um have been put in place.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Essentially, our code is now was set up over, I believe 11 years ago approximately, and it was a very different world than there was no state level regulations whatsoever when we set up our code.

There was very few jurisdictions here in the area that allowed cannabis.

And so our code was set up in what I would say a very conservative cautious manner because we were kind of an early adopter.

And because it was the newness of the whole program, I think in an abundance of caution, the council at that time established what I would classify as very conservative requirements.

But the ultimate challenge of those, you know, fast forward to today, is those code, you know, the the industry and the landscape here in the area has changed very significantly.

And so our we're recommending to basically modernize the code and to, you know, in those areas to realign it with current current best practices or standards or kind of practices here in the area.

With the goal of ultimately supporting the industry as well, so that our operators have the ability to do business here.

Great.

Um I I don't want to like um spend too much on time on this because we have already spent a lot of time on this, but I'm uh very I'm very supportive of just aligning it with state law.

I think what um Eric just mentioned makes complete sense.

Um I appreciate us being able to go back and update because it has been um significant amounts of time, and I also think that that's how you make good policy.

Um I appreciate the youth center definition.

I know that we um uh the idea of like taking a uh something from somewhere else that you know, sometimes that doesn't apply because we're a different community, but also when it um is I think as detailed and as uh uh thorough as this is in particular, given the comments from the council, I'm I'm supportive of this.

Um the council district prioritization is not no longer on the table.

I'm not supportive of that.

Um and then in terms of the modified zoning districts, I um uh I just want to make sure that um as we modify the zones that it's for uh it's so that we can actually um when we expand this the when we revise the set back, it means that we can actually expand where one an operator could actually be, because this map as we look at it, um I understand why you you can't actually create what eligible parcel there would be in real life, but this is somewhat misleading.

And one thing I want to caution is that when we go back to council, that uh this is a great um contrast, but then I think another slide of what that would actually mean for each um for practical purposes, because if I look at my district, and I can only speak district five because I know that the best, so many of those purple spots are not eligible even with the um the changes we would make.

Yeah, I would I would I would say that yeah, this this purple, the the area shaded in purple is what I would call like a maximalist view.

The reality is as a practical matter, is every single parcel shown here in purple ultimately going to be viable at the end of the day?

No.

Right.

And and and just as a function of the conditional use permit process, and that anyone, even if technically a parcel may appear initially viable on this map or per the just modified distancing requirements or per the modified zoning, ultimately they have to go through a very robust discretionary process with a public hearing before the planning commission.

And in addition to those requirements, those kind of objective standards, there's a whole litany of subjective findings that the planning commission has to make about just the general appropriateness of the site, does it fit in with the neighborhood?

Is it going to cause potential issues or public safety concerns?

So there's a lot of very overtly subjective findings that are intentionally baked into that process, the planning commission would have to make.

So even if theoretically we allowed this broadening of the map and an applicant came in, if on its face, just you know, the community has a lot of concerns, the planning commissioners have concerns, they have robust ability and authority to deny the permit, irrespective of it meets the map.

And then even if, and then if someone say a stakeholder is dissatisfied with the outcome of that planning commission meeting, any member of the public is open, is has is free to appeal that decision up to the city council for a de novo decision on that that discretionary permit.

And similarly, the council has broad discretion to deny it, if if the council so chooses based on those subjective findings about you know just general appropriateness of the site, irrespective of these more objective standards related to distancing.

Yeah, that would be my request or just feedback for the council meetings, so that um one to sit very clearly um why we're here, which I appreciate like the history of and and this is not the recommend, you know, what we're you we're being asked to do, but also just um what what viability of a location actually looks like, and then two, what that process is that you just clearly explain I understand and appreciate it.

Um and then three, like what remedies there are, you know, it's not like well, somebody wants to move into this neighborhood, and then wait, but there's a school down the street and my neighbors don't want it, et cetera.

Like we ended up having that conversation, which is why we ended up back at rules.

So I just want to make sure that it is as clear as possible for the council and the public to understand what this actually means.

Thank you.

Uh city manager, please.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

Uh, Councilmember Bowen.

If I could just ask deputy city manager Inglebart, um Councilmember Bowen was asking if we could have a map that shows the overlay with all of the setbacks.

I don't I don't believe that you're able to produce that.

I don't uh it's very challenging to do that.

Oh, I don't I don't need that map.

I I I just that this map is it needs to be very clear that what this means is not that every single purple spot is a viable location, and that if we pass amendments that this means this could potentially happen, we can have you know, which is not the reality.

There are numerous guardrails in place, correct?

Yeah.

And findings that would have to be made and public hearings and appeal paths, et cetera, correct, in order to land the plane for lack of a better term, uh, of actually getting an authorized COP on any of those parcels.

Thank you.

To just explore that a little bit further.

These are um eligible, but we don't know, for example, if there's a youth center.

Correct.

We don't know, for example, if because that to actually understand that would involve looking at every single business.

Correct.

It would be massively labor intensive.

This is the zoning.

Correct.

Correct.

And well, it's zoning and it does take into account some setback areas where it's clearly known.

But the challenges, again, particularly using that youth center as the example, we didn't even attempt to overlay that on the purple map because of, well, there's a ambiguity in the definition currently, and then B, even with the new definition, it really is a case-by-case thing.

It's really we have to wait until you received an application that came in, and then we could really hone in on that particular when we have something real to respond to, and then we can really dive in on every single parcel within six say, for example, 600 feet distance.

What is the actual real old impact?

And are there any sensitive uses in that area?

It's just when you do it citywide, it's as you can imagine, it's just labor intensive.

So does this map reflect the table on whatever page that is that has a table with a little print?

Slide 10.

That is the intention.

Okay.

That is the intention, yes.

So in particular, with the exception of the youth center.

Okay.

And then, of course, keeping in mind that per the direction at the May meeting, it the the it sounded like there was clear consensus among this committee to take off downtown the downtown area, um, which is this basically purple blob here where the pointer is showing, which has its own codified zoning district called DA, which stands for downtown area.

And so, because that's a by virtue of the zoning districts, it's legal, and the council could just say, don't include DA zoning as an allowed area, and that's legally compliant and something, and it's very straightforward because it has like the downtown area has a clearly defined boundaries.

Thank you.

Um, I did want to go to the the I think Councilman Bowen asked the question, what's a problem that we're solving for?

As best as I can tell, there's not a problem that we're solving for.

Um I'm just this is a comment.

So there's really not a question there.

Um we we've had locations that have not been successful, but then when you operators and by new operators, because there's constant legal change, the personnel involved with an operation keeps changing.

So even though it has the brand name the same, the actual organization and the people involved keeps changing.

So uh we've seen success at those locations.

We had a location that was kind of went out of business twice, if I'm not mistaken, and is now successful.

So I don't know that there's a problem that we're solving for, but there was a desire by the council to uh I think expand opportunity.

Um and so it'll be an interesting question to see whether that expansion actually generates more revenue if uh if a location opens.

But I think that because it is a council priority, it is important for us to create those opportunities.

I am a little bit unclear on the alignment with state law.

What part of this is the alignment with state law piece?

Thank you, Mayor, for the question.

So this uh 600 foot is what I would classify as a state standard.

Now ultimately, because of the structure of cannabis regulatory framework in California, the state kind of has an overarching regulatory framework, and then localities and municipalities like San Leandro have broad autonomy to establish even more restrictive requirements if the local councils so desire to do so.

Um and so we have broad autonomy in terms of the local regulatory framework that we want to layer over on top of those state regulations.

And just the reason why we're recommending 600 feet is that's kind of like the I would call like kind of the default standard statewide, recommended by the Department of Cannabis control at 600 feet.

It's very common, and that the challenge we have is because of our code being so dated, and we were more conservative when we set it up over a decade ago.

And that and then hearing feedback from our operators and others who've been, even in some cases, existing operators who wanted to just explore just moving their existing operation for their existing operating permit, they ran into a lot of challenges basically because of this map is so tight.

And when you overlay all those requirements and particularly the thousand foot setbacks, as well as that that 500 foot residential setback, the feedback we've heard from the operators is that's extremely challenging because so many of our commercial areas are tucked in right immediately adjacent to residential areas because their neighborhood commercial shopping centers intended to serve the residents of the area, and there's also you know, just from a you know, traffic impact perspective, it makes it more walkable and accessible via means other than driving, right?

So that you can serve the immediately adjacent neighborhoods, and I think that speaks to why virtually every other city in Alameda County that already allows cannabis does not have a residential setback because it's such a problematic, it's a challenging setback.

And that's part of why that's what informed the staff recommendation to just eliminate it and basically align with the majority of cities in here in Alameda County that allow cannabis.

So if I look at schools in particular, so a lot of them, you know, it's they don't allow it in the city, so it's like infinitely far away from a school.

And then for the other ones, the most common number that I see up there is a thousand feet.

Yes, here in this column, the school's column.

Schools, right?

So is the primary motivation just alignment to the state?

Yeah, the the what informed staff recommendation is the state record kind of has a just a a stat uh set a generalized recommendation of 600 feet from sensitive uses.

Irrespective of the specific sensitive use, just saying sensitive use is the kind of standard is 600 feet, but again, localities, you're free to modify that if you so desire based on local local conditions.

Okay.

So I'm trying to channel my my inner Fred Simon just because we've had discussions.

Um I am concerned about the the schools in particular.

I mean for me, youth um so I just put that out there.

I'm not quite sure.

I have no problem in the end, probably uh sending this on to the council, but that one is something that I will bring up again.

So I don't want to create the impression that I'm oh I'm excited about 600 feet from from schools.

Um let's come back to oh, are there any categories that this that the state considers that we don't have up there?

Not to my knowledge offhand, I could certainly drill in on that further.

I think that is what to do before uh we go off to council because what I wouldn't want is we have set de facto something at zero because it's not a condition that we've imposed that the state has guidance on.

Um youth centers.

And maybe I'll begin with a discussion around conditional use permits.

So does a permit go with the property, the legal entity that operates the business, the business as an idea for a use at the location or some other measure when we say there is a conditional use permit at location A.

So conditional use permits just by definition are just really authorizing a particular land use type.

And that it is that permit is agnostic as to who actually operates that use type.

So if a conditional use permit was issued by the planning commission, it's basically what the legally it's authorizing, okay, a cannabis dispensary retail dispensary is authorized.

This use type is authorized at this address and subject to X, Y, and A Z conditions.

We can condition, you know, various things.

But it's it's just the land use.

It's not tied to who operates it.

Company X, Company Y, Company Z.

It doesn't talk, it's that's not part of the action.

It's really just authority.

Permanent condition associated with the address.

Uh as long as the use permit is in effect.

So in some cases, conditional use permit could have a sunset date.

It could be authorized for a finite period of time.

In other cases, it does not have a finite period of time.

Um, but it can also sunset.

There is a path forward for it to sunset if the use ceases.

And it would be so it's legal to impose essentially a revisiting of the use after 10 years, 20 years, or or whatever the case may be.

I'll defer to our planning manager, Waylon Lee, who's here on that.

I don't know if I've seen that type of a condition, but I'm or the legal city attorney, actually, thank you.

Mayor, um, I'm getting the the look.

Uh generally speaking, the conditional use permit does run with the land.

Um, there are conditions that can be set by the city for time um restrictions.

Uh otherwise, general law allows it to run with the state, or excuse me, with the property itself.

And then there are different mechanisms in which could it could um expire if they were expanded use beyond the permissible use, for example, or the conditions of the property itself physically changed and that need was no longer relevant.

Um, there are several different mechanisms in which it could expire, but generally speaking, it does run with the land.

The reason that I ask is that you know, one of the concerns that residents express is well, if we have a wonderful operator that shows up and the location is clean, beautiful and blah, blah, blah, then I have no problem.

But if it's going to be X, Y, and Z, I'm gonna have a real problem with that.

I'm trying to figure out how through what mechanism, without imposing significant cost on the city in terms of code enforcement and the like, because we definitely struggle in that realm.

How is it that we can provide residents residents the assurance that we can provide residents the assurance, moderate assurance that what they're expecting to have is what they actually get.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think it's an interesting question, and I'll welcome staff's um advice on this.

I think it's important to separate the authority that allows the city to enforce.

One hand, there's the conditional use permit permit, which sets forth the allowable use of the property, separately is the business license, which sets forth um, you know, the operating and use, and and the city would be able to enforce any violation of that business license through its through its code enforcement efforts.

But we really need to separate uh if there's a violation by a property, uh excuse me, I should say a business owner, uh, under what mechanism or what authority are they operating permissibly or unpermissively.

And and to just dovetail with the city attorney's comments, the another layer to this that is unique to cannabis that is not applicable to other use types is this additional layer that we kind of briefly touched upon is the MUNI code also has this operator permit that's required to be issued by the count city council directly to the business entity, and that has its own requirements essentially.

And so there's also some discretion there, and there is process in place that that you know that operator permit, the council has authority over that as well, which has I think more additional latitude as well in terms of potential rescision of a permit.

So you have the conditions of approval of the CUP, if they violate them, that's a grounds.

If they cease to operate for a certain period of time and direction is provided to bring forward uh a resciss, which is a public hearing, it's not just a de facto thing, but it is there is a process where we can bring forward uh recommendation to to rescind a CUP, and then there's also that municipal code requirement where the operator permit is issued, and if they're not following the requirements associated with that operator permit issued by the council, that's also grounds.

So there is, I think to your point, Mayor, in terms of swaging concerns from community members.

I think our code requirements already do have a framework and various levers in which if uh operator becomes problematic that we do have tools in our existing regulatory toolkit to address that through our existing code requirements and both in the Muni code and the zoning code.

And to be clear, this is not unique to cannabis, right?

We have we have problems with bars or other uses.

Absolutely.

Where it's just a question of how much time we have to spend on enforcement and you know, does it offset the revenue that we get?

Um the the last question that I have or question comment, and then I'll come back to committee member Bowen.

Um you're looking for our direction around sensitive use distancing, youth center definition, modified zoning districts.

And the last one, I think we're just gonna punt on saying we I think we're gonna agree that that's illegal and shouldn't that we shouldn't even send a recommendation back.

Um big picture, I think I'm fine with the with the modified zoning districts.

The youth definition, uh still trying to figure out how this is going to work at a practical level.

Uh and so I'm gonna pick a uh suppose that I have a martial arts studio that runs uh after school from three to nine o'clock, three thirty to nine o'clock.

So it's five and a half hours.

Yes.

So according, well, let's see here.

So it's obviously at the end of the day.

Well, here let me back up before I try to like opine on a hypothetical.

What I would share is that we have we would first, if someone came in with an application for a dispensary.

And knowing we're only talking about our universe at this point, is uh maybe because assuming the council agrees that we're gonna cap things out at six, we're only talking about basically two more hypotheticals at this point.

But if we have those those folks were to come in for an application, they apply for a CP, it would be submitted to the community development department, and then the first thing they would do is they would hone in on that property and then they would look look out six or six hundred feet or whatever the final distance is, and just to really look at specifically what parcels fall within that boundary area and what are the uses going on there.

And then if one is this hypothetical of a martial arts studio, we would then look at it through the lens of this language right here.

And so I will say, now you do know I would note that this definition does have references to you know it's a good idea.

That's why I'm picking this one.

That because this is a very specific question that we talked about last time.

Sure.

And I'm not really sure that I still know the answer.

So um I'm not because this is a pending question, it's a very real question.

We've got strip malls with you know martial arts studios and dance studios and and whatever, right?

How how does that work out as a practical matter?

Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not a project is compliant with this is ultimately gonna be up to the planning commission.

I mean, first staff would rec review it.

But I'm sorry to interrupt because what I'm specifically asking is that this would not even be a consideration as a youth center if it's a martial arts center.

It's just sorry, that's not that's according to this definition, that's correct.

Okay.

Um so big picture.

I I think I continue.

I brought this up last time, I brought this up several times.

I continue to have a problem with that.

Because we've got dance studios, martial arts studios.

We've got a variety of things that could be possibly interpreted as following here.

And so my preference is that it what why do we have this exclusion set?

So I would say I would.

Am I misunderstanding the the definition?

If I'm if mayor, if I may ask a question.

So your example, the martial arts studio is open for five and a half hours, correct?

Correct.

And uh pick five and a half because yeah, it's over five.

It's over five.

So it's so deputy standing manager.

If I'm reading this correct, the exclusion here that where it says youth centers does not include is for something that is open for youth less than five hours.

So there's an or there.

Or it's not an and condition, it's an or condition.

But either way, I mean, to me, it's it continues to be a complicated definition to understand.

So I'm just I'm not a fan of this definition still.

And I'd I'd just like to be able to work through that and resolve that, button that down.

Because to me, it's if we're gonna say miners are present and you want to set a just a general standard, the miners must be present for more than X number of hours, that's fine, because that way someone doesn't open up a one-hour shop and say, oh, once a week for one hour, I hold martial arts classes there.

Guess what?

You can't have a cannabis location.

That that's not fair.

But if it's uh uh a business that's regularly operating, um this definition gets confusing for me.

And it and it has been for two years now or whatever the time period has been.

So with that, I'm not ready to go until we get that resolved.

Yes, go ahead.

I think to simplify, if you're making the recommendation that you'd like, and this is what we are hoping the committee to give us feedback on, that the definition does say something to effect where if you are a martial arts studio that offers services to youth under the age of 18 for more than whatever X number of hours you'd like to pick, then you are a youth center.

We can do that.

That can be the recommendation we've got.

The more prescriptive that we are, the more difficult that it becomes as a definition.

And I certainly don't want to be creating that on the fly here from the dais.

So I think I just I feel like I've brought this issue up specifically, and I don't believe that it's resolved.

Again, this is not a crisis that's gonna take forever to resolve, but I think we need to resolve that.

Um and the last thing on sensitive use distancing.

Uh oh, I mentioned my comment.

I they struggle a bit with schools, um, but that's ultimately a council's decision.

Coming back to council member Bowen, please.

Okay.

Okay.

That's in my face.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, in this definition or in the schools, where do day cares fall under?

I thought it fell in it uh, we can look into that.

I don't know the answer offhand, but we can look at that.

Okay, I just I just thought that that would I in rereading again.

Oh, there we go.

Thanks.

Okay, separate.

Got it, got it.

Um, and I the only thing I wanted to add for um the other thing that I do know well in the city of Stanley, so aside from the my district, uh and I think Mary, you do too, is the schools, and I I think for I appreciate the like you you know 600 versus a thousand.

I'm not so sure it's a real issue if you actually look at the schools.

And so, like um Washington elementary school has uh daycare literally right next to it.

Um Rosevel School has a daycare two doors down from it.

Um Jefferson Elementary School has a daycare right across the street from it, which is also right next to um same with the high school and the middle school, John Meir Um and Hulkeen also have um, I think on Williams, there's like a you know, daycare is right near there.

So I I just I want I I don't want us to sort of like get bogged down by something that is not actually an issue.

And so I just wanted to offer that.

Like I understand the concern, but if you actually go to these schools and you walk within a block of them, you'll be able to find another reason why we can't have one next to the school.

Okay, so come back to uh deputy city manager uh city manager, whoever wants to weigh in on so there have been some concerns.

The the the youth center definition, you're asking for a guidance.

I think the same basic question has come up.

So I don't know how we what the path to hashing that out is because I don't like to do that from the dais.

So I'd appreciate it.

So what we can do is today say that we when we take this to council next say we don't have a recommendation from the committee on youth center, what they'd like on the youth center, what's provided.

Um, and then the council members can then come prepared to that meeting with whatever language they'd like to have added in a meeting, or if the council we do have an hour and 14 minutes left in this meeting, the council, I mean the committee meetings are where you put in what and it's not that big of a thing.

Um it's you know, it's a paragraph or more, and so you could just now tell us what you'd like it to say, and then that could be the recommendation we take to council.

But right now, what I have is council district prioritizations is out because it's not legal modified zoning district.

There is council committee recommendation to move forward with that, and sensitive use distancing requirements does not have consensus from the council from the committee.

Oh if you I mean, I I it doesn't to me, 600 versus a thousand doesn't matter because in reality it is not a problem.

It's not gonna be either way.

Okay.

So I am not a fan of creating definitions from the dais.

Uh we can take the time that we have because we have time, we can adjourn uh and then go and work behind closed doors on something that works.

But I'm not I am not a fan and will not create legislation from the dais.

Um any further thoughts on this item.

I I I mean for I'm fine with the youth center definition.

Okay.

Okay, so we will uh we'll we'll continue working through that, and then we can send this, send this to to council when we've nailed that.

Question Yes, what do you uh can you clarify what you mean by we will continue to work on that and then send it to council?

Uh I'm not going to move this to council until I have that definition nailed down.

Um then I think we can do that probably within go back to council after we hear it here in September.

I mean, I have I have no prompt I have no interest in stretching this out, but I do not want to create definitions on the day.

May I ask one question?

If we were just to make it modify this at the staff level and just make it explicitly clear that if a martial arts studio, we can is an operation greater than five hours or I do not support going to council at this time.

Okay.

So you're not gonna get consensus to move this on to counselor.

City manager.

Um understanding what you're saying, Mayor, the staff needs direction from the committee to know what to bring back to the committee.

Otherwise, we will we'll we'll be having another meeting with the words being the same as we have had for the last few meetings.

Okay, so right now we have resolved from the the members present.

I'm just talking about youth centers.

I'm not talking about the other.

Youth centers?

Yeah, that's all.

Well, anyone that wants to participate from the committee in a discussion on the youth center definition can participate in that discussion.

We're gonna work on it.

Yeah, and Mr.

Engelbart's office.

I just do not want to create that right here, right now on the fly.

I I just want to be clear.

So Mayor, I'm okay with this definition.

You are not okay with that definition.

There are two of us, and your proposal is to say that we will just instead of talking about what can be changed here, any member separately can go work with Eric to formulate that definition.

And I just wanna uh understand that process because why is the default that because you're not okay with this definition that we will not have uh either working on it now or a recommendation?

You and I can work together on it.

But so I'm I have no problem sharing with you my thoughts as we work through it and talk about the pros and cons, look to remove the confusing ORs or the case, whether whatever the case may be.

So you're you're welcome to to participate.

And then if you don't like what I end up proposing based on discussions of what may be legal or appropriate or inappropriate, that's fine.

I guess my question maybe for legal is if there are two of us in the committee and we equally are making a decision that are in opposition, what is then the next step.

Well, there is no recommendation, there's no motion to move this to council.

So it's still in committee.

Is there any disagreement from the parliamentarian?

It's a little difficult because uh staff could present it to council at this time with no recommendation from the committee, and council could ultimately make a decision uh without council, or excuse me, without committee recommendation.

If the committee would like to have further discussions.

I just want to be really clear about this.

So when we bring things to committee, it can exit committee just because staff wants to exit committee.

No, not always.

Um, no, no, I mean, what is our protocol?

The protocol is to get a um a clear consensus from the committee on the direction it would like to provide staff so that staff could seek direction from council.

If if there's no consensus, your recommendation or there you would like to present it to council with no recommendation, that is potentially one opportunity.

Um if there is a consensus on the language, you could present that to council um as one matter.

If what we're receiving here, though it sounds like though, is is a stallmate, the appropriate mechanism for continued discussion should be here in this committee as opposed to having separate discussions with staff It's not a Brown Act violation to have discussions with staff, correct?

If the no as so long as those conversations are happening directly with staff and there are no um you know daisy chain communications or then further communications between the committee or the board or council.

Okay.

Councilman Bone, anything else?

Um can you clarify for me, Mayor?

I like I understood the question around the martial arts center.

Um can you clarify what specifically what else is missing for this or where the not at this time.

Okay.

Um I guess I'm confused as to what we're doing at committee in regards to trying to codify clearer definition.

I my my understanding is that we talk about it so that we can understand where the um concerns may be because my guess is that concerns will then also percolate up at a council meeting as well, or if you've spoken to others about this.

Um I and I think for the the purpose of transparency and also what we are to do at a committee meeting is to talk through these things.

That's been my approach.

Um if I am not comfortable with if I am okay with this definition or I do not understand what the other committee members have an issue with, I am not comfortable with another committee member working with staff to then try to change language.

If another committee member wants to be able to work on language to be able to present to the council and make their arguments, that is a whole nother matter.

But if we are not, if we're a stalemate and we're not going to give direction on this, then I would rather have us then go to um the council with no recommendation.

Understood at this point in time, we'll close this item and move to public comment on non agenda items.

Mayor, we have not received any comment cards on non-agenda items.

Okay, so we'll close public comment and go to committee member comments.

Seeing none, the time is 9 55, and we are adjourned.