City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, at 7.31, I'm calling the City Council work session. Recording in progress. At 7.31, I'm calling to order the San Leandro City Council. Today's a work session. It is Monday, September 14th. And at this point in time, I will go ahead and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand if you're able to. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So Madam Clerk, would you please take our roll to establish quorum?

Council Member James Aguilar.

Present.

Council Member Victor Aguilar.

Present.

Council Member Dillon-Bolt is absent. Council Member Sullivan.

Present.

Council Member Fred Simons.

Present.

Vice Mayor Viveros-Walton.

Present.

And Mayor Gonzales.

Present. Madam Clerk, I guess I'll start with my announcement. The State of San Leonardo conducts orderly meetings to fulfill its mandate. Discriminatory statements or conduct that would potentially violate the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Penal Code Sections 403 or 415 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 message, please.

If you would like to make a public comment during the meeting, you can do so in person or via Zoom. If you're present at the meeting, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the city clerk before the item is presented. If you wish to participate in public comment via Zoom, you can use the raise your hand tool when the item is called. During the public comment session, speakers will be invited to speak and will have a set time to share their comments. A countdown timer will appear for their convenience, and when the time is up, the microphone will be muted. All raised hands outside of public comment will be lowered to avoid confusion. Once public comment is open, hands may be raised to speak.

Okay, so coming out of closed session, and thank you, public, for your patience. We should have started at 5 o'clock, but we got through what we needed to get through. There's one reportable action. There's not so much reportable action as much as just keeping you informed. So as a council, we have agreed to extend our city manager contract. We are working on the documentation of the exact precise terms and conditions of that extension. And we will be presenting that at a public session in the future. Item number four. So we do have a presentation today. And I believe Deputy City Manager Eric Engelbart is here to introduce our item on proposed draft code amendments.

Good evening, Mayor and Council and members of the public joining us in person online. Pleased to be here tonight to present this discussion related to cannabis policy and potential draft code amendments. Before we get started, I would remind that tonight's presentation does align with the City Council's adopted Economic Development Work Plan. And before we dive in, I want to provide a little bit of a refresher on how we got in here tonight and some of the prior actions that led us to tonight's presentation. As you all may recall, May 19th of last year, in 2025, in these chambers, the Council awarded a fourth retail cannabis operating permit to NUG Wellness. And as part of its action, the City Council also directed staff to bring to the Rules Committee some other related items including potential expansion of the number of cannabis retail licenses along with the related process for awarding them as well as directive to treat other dispenser operators comparably based on that referral staff brought forward this discussion item to the rules committee uh and approximately three meetings of the rules committee between june and december of last year, and that process culminated with a package of recommendations that the Rules Committee directed staff to bring forward for council consideration this past March, in March of 2026. And as we'll get into in a few moments, you'll see there were some areas within that package where there was broad consensus among the Rules Committee members, and there was other areas where there was a lack of consensus. Then in March, the council and these chambers considered that package of items. And similarly, the council, there were some areas where the council did have consensus and there was areas where there was a lack of consensus, so the item was referred back to the Rules Committee for further discussion and direction. Based on that re-referral of the rules, we brought this item forward beginning in April, and we had discussions about it in April, May, and July. And just to go in a quick synopsis, you can see in May there was kind of a revisiting of some of the earlier issues, including related to the definition of youth centers. And there was also a proposal that was raised at the May meeting about the possibility of focusing cannabis retail operations or potential future apartment awards only into certain council districts. And then there was also a consensus was reached to avoid and remove downtown or downtown area zoning from consideration of potential cannabis expansion areas. And then in July, which is the last time that this item was discussed before rules committee. The committee directed us, and this was based on legal analysis, to set aside that proposal related to focusing on council districts and to instead focus on zoning districts. And one committee member at that meeting did, again, raise some concerns about use center definitions. So out of those items I just outlined, I'm going to take a little bit of a deeper dive on each of them. And we're going to start off here with some of the areas where there's been broad consensus, including one of them here is what I call this is the proposed modification to our code that would add some additional flexibility related to our distancing requirements for context, as you all may recall. As a typical practice, there's setback or distance requirements between sensitive uses that must be retained in order for cannabis dispensary to be eligible to move forward through the permitting process. But right now, the code is written with very strict requirements where we basically have to take as a crow flies distance and it can even be from the outer bounds of property lines and so what that can create is some it can create some real challenges and so what we're recommending is basically to allow some modifications to that with discretion when there's physical barriers in the way for example freeway or a railroad track or something along those lines and again there was broad consensus to support this both at the committee level and the council level this next item here was um the direction to package in some code amendments that would allow for the issuance of not more than two more permits. So as you recall, we've already issued, the council's already issued four operating permits. And so there was consensus both at the rules committee level as well as before the council last time about increasing that to six for a total of two more. That's the universe we're talking about at this point beyond the existing operating permits that are already out there. And then you can see here on the definition of a youth center, staff has been recommending to provide a clearer codification of what's the definition of a youth center. Our current code is somewhat vague in that area. And we did a survey of all the cities here in Alameda County, and we did identify that the city of Alameda went through a very robust public process with regard to how they defined youth centers, and so we've basically mirrored that on the screen here. Rather than reading it aloud, I'll just try to encapsulate it, but the key highlight here is essentially that if it's more than five hours a day that a particular youth is basically serving youth, that it would be deemed a youth center, and basically more than half the day. This slide may also, this matrix may also look familiar to you. It was presented here in these chambers as part of that March discussion before council, and it's also included in the agenda packets for all of our rules committee meetings. And this is really just, again, a survey of all the cities here in Alameda County. And you can see here at the top, all those with information filled in the cells are the cities that allow cannabis retail uses here. within their jurisdictional boundaries. And you can see those distancing requirements. And in particular attention, I'd like to call your attention to these last two rows here with information filled into the fields. And what you'll note here is that, as we discussed previously, because San Leandro set up this program so long ago, and we were such an early adopter, And those code restrictions still remain in place. We have what I would classify as a very conservative approach with very significant and expansive setback distancing requirements of 1,000 feet from a whole range of sensitive uses. And when you look around at the other cells, you'll notice the more typical distancing requirement is in the order of about 600 feet. And that also aligns with state law. Other cells that I want to draw to your attention is this residential setback, which has proven to be particularly problematic for some of our operators who've been seeking out alternative locations to establish a dispensary. And you'll see most other cities don't have a residential setback. And the reason for that is because many commercial, and particularly neighborhood commercial and other commercial corridors in our city, are set up adjacent to residential areas to serve those residences you can imagine you're thinking about your typical neighborhood store convenience store etc they're often set up right next to the residences in those commercial areas to help serve them and make them walkable etc and so that's and that one has been particularly problematic for some of our operators and that's why we're recommending aligning with that regional context And so you can see here in the blue cells, that's what the recommendation here is to basically eliminate their residential setback and then modify the other setbacks down to that 600 foot standard. THIS SLIDE SHOULD ALSO LOOK FAMILIAR. WE DID PRESENT THIS BACK IN MARCH. ON THE LEFT SIDE, AND AGAIN, I WANT TO BEFORE I DIVE INTO THESE MAPS, I JUST WANT TO ADD SOME CONTEXT. THIS IS KIND OF OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE PARCELS, BOTH ON THE CURRENT MAP HERE ON THE LEFT AND THEN THE PURPLE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AND AS I NOTED IN THE PRIOR SLIDE, WE HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES THAT WE CURRENTLY ALLOW CANNABIS ACTIVITIES TO TAKE PLACE IN. And this map on the right shows what it would look like if we were to allow cannabis retail in all of our commercial and industrial zoning districts. But even with that said, the other caveat that's very important to be aware of is that Just because the property shows up as a purple cell here and a purple zone, meaning that it might be, it's really only potentially allowable. So if an operator were to come in to say apply, they would still have to go through the conditional use permit process, which is a very expansive process that has lots of neighborhood outreach. there'd be native road notification and ultimately that public hearing has to take place before the planning commission so even if a property were identified that technically met the zoning and that the setback and distancing requirements it's not assuming that they would be issued that conditional use permit and the planning commission has broad authority to deny it based on subjective findings about whether or not it's an appropriate location and of course neighbors would be notified and have the opportunity to present their concerns if they had any And so kind of now that I provide an overview of those kind of different issue areas that the Rules Committee has been diving in on and potential code amendments, this is really just meant to encapsulate the summary because there has been a bit of this back and forth between rules of the Council of Bethke rules. And just to kind of go over those in a summation format, again, the areas where there was clear consensus back at last December of the Rules Committee, and that was baked into that package that came before you in March, there was clear consensus to allow for up to two more permits, so a total of six, ALLOWING THE SETBACK MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND THEN ALSO TO CODIFY A CLEARER YOUTH CENTER DEFINITION. HOWEVER, AS PART OF THAT PACKAGE THAT WENT TO COUNCIL IN MARCH, THERE WERE SOME OF THOSE AREAS, AS I MENTIONED, THERE WAS A LACK OF CONSENSUS AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, INCLUDING THOSE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS THAT I JUST WENT OVER A FEW MOMENTS AGO IN THOSE CELLS, THAT POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING THE ZONING TO INCLUDE ALL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONES, THERE WAS A LACK OF CONSENSUS THERE. And at that time back in December, there was still a lack of consensus as to whether or not to allow cannabis retail downtown. Then when we took it to council, again, these first two cells, these first two bullet points should look familiar. There was clear consensus at the council to allow those things, including going up to six permits and allowing for the physical barriers But there were some areas where there was also similarly a lack of consensus here in these chambers by the council and related to the distancing requirements, the potential expansion to all those other commercial zones and industrial zones and cannabis retail downtown. And that's what ultimately led to it being referred back to rules. And so this slide here, slide 10, is really meant to provide you this refresher as to where things, what has happened since the referral went back to rules. And so some areas remained unchanged. Again, these first two bullets, you'll see a recurring theme where there's been consistent direction on that about allowing two more permits and accounting for physical barriers. So I would say those are like the areas where there was broad consensus unanimously. THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT DID CHANGE THOUGH SINCE MARCH. AS I MENTIONED, THE INITIAL PACKAGE THAT WENT TO COUNCIL BACK IN MARCH INCLUDED A RECOMMENDATION FROM RULES TO ADOPT THAT YOUTH CENTER DEFINITION BASED ON ALAMEDA. BUT THEN WHEN IT WENT BACK TO RULES FOR THE SECOND TIME, THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT IT. THE OTHER AREA OF THE CHANGE, THOUGH, IS THAT THERE WAS CLEAR CONSENSUS AMONG ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO SIMPLY JUST EXCLUDE DOWNTOWN, OUR DOWNTOWN AREA FROM CONSIDERATION. AND THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS ALSO INFORMED BY LETTERS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY BOTH THE SANDLANDER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS WELL AS THE SANDLANDER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, BOTH OF WHOSE BOARDS, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE BROADLY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR EFFORTS TO EXPAND OUR CANNABIS PROGRAM AND MODIFY AND UPDATE and they were supportive of that in general, but the one area they were opposed to was allowing it in the downtown core. And so that information I think helped inform some of those recommendations and rules. then again you'll see here again some of those areas where there continue to be a lack of consensus that the rules committee relates to that you know modifying reducing those setbacks down from a thousand feet to 600 feet as well as that potential expansion to the full array of industrial and commercial zones so this is our last slide here for this initial presentation and what we've attempted to do at the staff level is because this has proved to be a complex issue, is to provide you with these different option paths. And the way I would kind of frame these is almost like nesting dolls. So you see under option A, this is meant to be like the most minimal change with the simplest path forward, where there's already been demonstrated both at the council level and at the committee level to be broad consensus. And that's allowing for the total of six permits and to modify the code to account for the physical barriers. This option B, which I classify as the middle path, IS BASICALLY SAYING, OKAY, IN ADDITION TO THOSE TWO AREAS UP ABOVE HERE, THESE FIRST TWO BULLET POINTS ON OPTION A, IN ADDITION TO THOSE, WE ALSO WOULD INCORPORATE AN ALIGNMENT OF THOSE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS TO 600 FEET, JUST AS SHOWN IN THAT SLIDE 8 THAT WE JUST WENT OVER THAT MATRIX, AS WELL AS INCORPORATING THAT YOUTH CENTER DEFINITION TO PROVIDE MORE CLARITY. And the other thing that's similar between option A and option B is all of those things can be handled at the council level. And here at the staff, if you were to direct us to move forward, say with option B, we could come back in a pretty short order with a first reading ordinance, and then your council would have exclusive domain over those amendments. Versus option C here, which is the most expansive, and that is basically taking these first four bullet points from A and B, and then in addition to that, adding these modified zoning districts, to include all the commercial and industrial zoning, except for downtown. And because that adjusts our zoning code, we would also first have to take that to the planning commission for their review and recommendations. And so that's really the overview of it. And I think it's also though important to take note of this last item. Essentially, in order to move forward with any of these options, or another option if you so chose today, we will ultimately need four affirmative votes for any action. And in the absence of four votes, we will take that as direction to cease all efforts on this policy topic. And so with that, that concludes my presentation. But again, happy to answer any questions or take a deeper dive on any of these items I've just presented. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation We will take questions first and move to public comment and then come back for Dilbert deliberation on this item So do we have any questions beginning with councilmember?

Victor Aguilar Eric thank you for the presentation. My question isn't we're given three options Why not, I know there's been discussion in rules, but did we see any issues or would we be able to make a recommendation or would I be able to make a recommendation to put forth the Union City model, which is 100 feet pretty much all across the board?

Certainly, I would say that is absolutely within the authority and the prerogative of your council if you do want to direct us to do that We could certainly do that and I think the structure of tonight's meeting as a work session Really is intended to give you that latitude So yes, certainly if you wanted to recommend commotion for that and the board and the council majority wanted to move forward with that That is the direction we could take execute Thank you.

And with regards to Union City, I think do we have any Any information of, let's see, they have three dispensaries? That's how many are allowed by their code.

Okay.

Those are my questions, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from council members? Council member Simon, please.

Yeah, can you clarify that the 600-foot statewide requirement As right now, San Leandro's 500 foot in one place. So are we out of compliance with the state?

We are definitely not out of compliance with the state. What I would clarify actually with that 600 feet is the state does not get into this prescriptive level of detail in breaking it down. Basically what the state is saying is kind of a statewide standard. If you want to adopt, well, they're basically saying the statewide standard for setbacks from sensitive uses as you, the locality, define them as 600 feet. But cities have broad autonomy to reduce that or increase or modify it. So they don't get into this level of detail, though, about, oh, you have to do this from this type of a sensitive use or that type. They basically leave it to the local authorities to define what they define as a sensitive use.

And if we don't define it, then it's 600 feet?

Well, ultimately, I would say we have broad autonomy to modify it. But there's no, it's not like if we didn't define this, it's not like it's gonna, this is gonna default to 600 for residential because ultimately it relies on our definitions and our code already defines what sensitive use categories it's applicable to.

Okay, I'm trying to understand where does this 600 foot, where and how does it apply? If not to us, where does it apply?

Well, I would say again, it's a, the state basically says, and when you adopt, local requirements you should have you should have a 600 foot my understanding and i don't work for the state of california my understanding is the default standard is 600 feet from sensitive uses but it doesn't again the state code doesn't get into these definitions so if we if say for example the city decided that the residential zones are not a sensitive use then there'd be no setback from it so essentially it's deferring to the cities to how we define what a sensitive use is got it okay thank you

Going to Council Member Bowen, please.

Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Eric, for the presentation. A few questions. To follow up on Council Member Simon's questions around our setbacks, when was the last time that we updated these?

It's been over a decade. Basically, these were established at the very beginning of the program in something like, I want to say, around 2014.

Okay. And if I remember correctly, in rules you had mentioned that we were one of the earlier jurisdictions that actually came up with the ordinance. And so would you say that, I mean, even just looking at these numbers, were we more conservative in our, and rightly so at the time, given the unknowns versus the ones that came after us?

Yes, I would say we were a very early adopter here in the Bay Area region and in Alameda County. And at that time, there was no state-level regulation whatsoever. And so in an abundance of caution, and because we were such an earlier adopter and we had never had this use type before, and in fact that was before adult use legalization even existed, we were still in a medicinal cannabis only environment in that era, in an abundance of caution, the city chose to adopt what I would classify as a rather conservative setback standard. And since that time, and over a decade that's passed, basically our code has remained unchanged, but the environment has changed dramatically around us.

Great. And one of the reasons why you would go back and adjust, change, iterate is to identify things you didn't know before or how things could be improved. And so in looking at the potential changes, what can you share? would be some potential advantages or benefits of making these adjustments to the setbacks or increasing the potential zoning to other areas? And then specifically what sort of challenges would these solve? If you, yeah.

Sure, so I would definitely start out. There's a number of areas here and benefits to the both the city as well as our industry partners. To if you were to move forward with these, these recommendations shown in the blue cells, 1st, and foremost, you know, referring back to that 2nd slide, we have an economic development work plan that's been adopted with goals to support our business community and support of dynamic. Local and thriving business climate and one of the challenges and bases is based on feedback We're hearing from some of our local dispensary operators some of whom have been looking for other sites To find an alternative site as well as some other potential perspective Retailers who would be interested and the feedback we've received from them is essentially when you overlay all these setback requirements it just it really it just narrows the map and And so, for example, you can see here on the right side, you have this list of all these commercial industrial zones where we allow it technically. But when you overlay all the setbacks, you essentially create a de facto ban in those areas in spite of the fact that we say it's allowed there. Because when you just overlay all those circles, it really just tucks all of it into our industrial areas. And in particular, for example, all three of our current dispensary operators are basically in um in one council district right now and council member victor aguilar's district presently and that's i believe a function part of the function of that just the tightness of the map and so that's kind of what's informed these recommendations and basically another issue is from the members of the public the medicinal patients or just retail adult use customers the challenge is that it's all kind of Clustered in that industrial core area and so that other members of the public who live far away who are in the city have to travel greater distances by virtue of all these setbacks, which is basically disallowed the ability to have these dispensaries distributed further field and different parts of the city.

That's super helpful. And then the last thing is on slide 8. And we could even, if possible, to zoom in on my district, for example, District 5, on the other slide, on the potential new slide. At the bottom of the slide, I just wanted to, ASK FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION JUST BECAUSE WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS AND BECAUSE THE REST OF THE COUNCIL IS NOT, ACTUALLY TWO OF THE OTHER MEMBERS RIGHT NOW HAVEN'T BEEN IN THESE IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS ON THE RULES COMMITTEE, BUT IT SAYS VIABILITY COULD BE FURTHER IMPACTED BY INDIVIDUAL SET CONSTRAINTS EXCLUDES YOUTH CENTER OVERLAY. um can you clarify i think i understand what the first part is can you clarify that second part and then kind of walk me through what this map actually means because i know those purple um uh businesses that area really well in my district and if i were to go point by point along our setbacks i'm not sure one could even BE ELIGIBLE IN THE MAJORITY OF DISTRICT FIVE EVEN IF WE SAID IT COULD EXPAND THAT WAY I JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MAP ACTUALLY MEANS

Certainly happy to address those comments and questions. So yeah, I think first and foremost what our GIS staff mapping staff attempted to do is to overlay the all the commercial and industrial zoning districts and the parcels that lie within them and then apply the current thousand foot setback requirements and then in addition to that and we're aware it was it where it was able to do so and then but the challenge we've had a couple challenges one is The youth center overlay, it wasn't even possible to overlay that because by virtue of the fact that we don't have a clear definition of what constitutes a youth center. And that in some cases can come to the eye of the beholder in the absence of a clear definition, right? Give me an example of a gymnasium that might, you know, for one hour a day offer youth karate lessons. Well, suddenly is that, to some people, that might be a youth center, right? they sell school uniforms for youth. Is that a youth center? In the absence of clarity. So we didn't even attempt to put that overlay on there. So that alone could disallow quite a few of these parcels. The other issue, as I mentioned earlier, is the condition of the use permit process is very robust. And in addition to that's just to apply to get in the door with a violent application essentially you're going to have to demonstrate that you meet the setback requirements but that's just step a in a long list of other steps you're going to have to go through with that neighborhood notification as well as subjective findings that the planning commission is going to have to make that are very subjective and they're not even numerical based they're just talking about is this an appropriate use is this an appropriate location to have cannabis DO THE NEIGHBORS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT, NOTIFY ALL THE NEIGHBORS, SEE WHAT THE COMMUNITY THINKS. AND SO THERE'S BROAD DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A SITE EVEN IF IT SHOWS UP ON THIS MAP. AND THEN LASTLY, THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO TONIGHT BUT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN PAST FORUMS RELATES TO JUST LANDLORD CHALLENGES THAT THIS INDUSTRY FACES. AND BY VIRTUE OF THE FEDERAL ISSUES AND THE FEDERAL STATUS OF CANNABIS, Our understanding is that many properties, if they have a federally backed loan, the landlord is unable to even rent to a dispensary use. So that right there also will basically disallow huge swaths of property. So you really get kind of reduced down to either a property owner who either owns the property outright without a federally backed loan or the property owner just owns the property free and clear. and so that that also will make it difficult and then some landlords even if they meet those criteria just don't want this use type and so when you overlay all those things really is what's going to happen is this map is going to become sure it's going to become smaller and smaller and really are going to become just little pockets of eligibility so again i don't want this map to be perceived as somehow oh any any single parcel shown in purple is suddenly going to have a dispenser there and keeping in mind that the recommendation from rules was only two more permits at this point so we're talking about the whole universe of the city we're basically talking about two more permits beyond this

I JUST HAVE ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP, BUT I CAN GO BACK AROUND.

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT RIGHT NOW.

OH, OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE WITH THIS EXCLUDES USE CENTER OVERLAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF IT, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HAVE ONE TO ACTUALLY IF WE DON'T HAVE ONE, IS THERE NOT A SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR USE CENTER CURRENTLY AND THAT'S WHY WE CAN HAVE IT IN THE ONE ON THE LEFT?

Well, what I would say is this. We currently do have a youth center setback in our code. But the challenge is that, and we're at 1,000 feet, but essentially the way we do that analysis is when an application comes in and we actually have a property identified with a landlord letter saying they're amenable to use, they come in the door. At that point, then our planning staff, when they're processing that permit, can look at it site-specific and they can draw the 1,000-foot radius around it and then they can really hone in on what's around there and then you can get into that whole discussion and conversation about is this a youth center or not. I mean, we have some, we do, I believe, have a nominal minimalist definition about primarily, about serving youth, but it's, it just leads to a lot of ambiguity, and so that's why we're recommending more clarity, as well as also to make it, because by virtue of the absence of clarity, it also just, it potentially disallows so many more sites, and based on that feedback we've heard from our industry partners is that it just, It's really difficult to find a viable site right now. And so we're trying to kind of address some of those concerns that have been raised and open up the map a bit more with different tools that are available in our toolkit using practices we've identified from other neighboring jurisdictions.

Thank you.

So do we have other questions? It does not appear that way. Okay. Council Member Simon, please.

Can you show on the map to the left where all the existing dispensaries are located?

Just kind of point. I mean, they're basically all tucked into District 3. So I can tell you offhand, I mean, the address, they're basically, there's one on, well, we have, okay, so we have, no, I have to pull this from memory, but essentially they're all tucked into District 3. I can just tell you that. They're all tucked into these industrial areas here. so there's one on fairway we have another one on verna court which is off of marina boulevard and then um can you point to it with your alvarado with your mouse tea garden excuse me tea garden okay so our our is only one of them west of 880 or are there two west of 880. I believe it's only Harborside that's west of 880 on Marina Boulevard. Is there two? There's two.

Okay. Okay. We can pull up the addresses. That's okay. Two west of 880 and how many are east of 880? One.

There's actually three in operation right now, although there's been four operating permits this year. Okay. Are there any in the works? There is one pending application that's scheduled to go to the Planning Commission, I believe, in the fall. I'll look to our planning manager to write a status update on that.

That's correct. We do have one application process, which we do anticipate coming forward to the Planning Commission sometime this year.

And can you share where that one is proposed?

LET ME FIND THE ADDRESS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

IS THAT THE END OF YOUR QUESTION?

WELL, JUST CURIOUS, TO THE NORTH, THERE'S SUCH A LARGE orange area and there's nothing up there. I'm just curious, why is there nothing to the north? And they're all clustered in that kind of,

I don't want to speak for our dispensary operators, and there's a number of them here in the audience who might be able to speak to it during public comment, but I can just share that I know that it was challenging for all of our operators to find viable sites and get through that conditional use permit process. And the tightness and the conservative nature of our map was a major factor in that, coupled with those other issues with the federal prohibitions, et cetera, and just the challenges of the landscape in general, finding a landlord or a property owner who's amenable to having this use type.

ARE THERE SET-BET RESTRICTIONS TO THE NORTH, THE ORANGE AREAS IN THE NORTH, THAT SHRINK IT DOWN CONSIDERABLY?

WHEN YOU SAY THE NORTH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OVER HERE IN DISTRICT 5 OR OVER HERE?

DISTRICT 6, THERE'S A LOT OF ORANGE.

I can't speak to I mean I'm hesitant to speak to why the private setback restriction you said setbacks can really shrink this down correct so there are yeah because this is a generally a very industrial area yeah like that I think it's called the Adams tract over here in this area which is very heavily industrial AND SO THEY DON'T HAVE AS MANY OF THE SETBACK ISSUES BECAUSE IT'S PRIMARILY INDUSTRIAL USES OUT THERE. THEY DON'T HAVE CHURCHES AND USE CENTERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BACK THERE BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY TUCKED UP IN A HEAVILY INDUSTRIALIZED AREA. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I KNOW I CAN SHARE BACK 10 YEARS AGO WHEN THE APPLICANTS WERE INITIALLY LOOKING, I KNOW A NUMBER OF THEM, SOME OF THEM WERE SCOURING THIS AREA FOR AVAILABLE PROPERTY AND THEY JUST WERE NOT, MY UNDERSTANDING, MY RECOLLECTION IS THEY JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO IDENTIFY A PROPERTY THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, FOR SALE OR FOR RENT WITH A, YOU KNOW, NOTHING BUT THE OTHER CRIT

OK, so I've got one question or one series of questions specifically around the youth definition. And I want to make sure that I understand what we currently have. When I see that first line, I see the word exclusively. So first line, youth center means public or private facility that is exclusively used. So if I have a... let's say a martial arts studio or a dance center that primarily serves young children, but they do offer an adult class for the parents of the children. That would no longer fall in this exclusion, even if that's what they do full time and there's lots of kids there and all that kind of stuff. That word would mean that the moment they offer any type of adult programming, They are no longer considered a youth center as written right now.

I would point to the language of the text. I would just point to the text of what's borrowed here from the city of Alameda. I acknowledge that there's different ways one can read that, but I don't disagree with what you just described.

And then the second thing that has bothered me for months and months and months is the B part of this, the letter B. So a youth center does not include any building location or facility that where any programs, activities or services involve martial arts, combat sports, cultural or similar education or physical fitness. So even if you're doing all that with youth, it's no longer a youth center. Is that, am I reading that correctly as written?

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the code, and I don't share it to the extent the council desires to recommend changes to this code. We'll certainly take that direction.

Perfect. At this point in time, we'll take public comment on this item.

Mayor, we have received four comment cards from in the room, and there's presently two hands raised online.

We're going to begin in person.

Our first in-person speakers.

And I'm going to pause you for just a second. If you would like to speak on this item online, now is the time to present yourself. Because I may adjust the time slightly. I want to know who's going to be speaking, how many total?

We currently have three hands raised.

Okay. We're going to give you ten more seconds because we're going to identify those people and then we're going to create a little bit of latitude here because I know this is a slightly more complex topic. Okay, so who are our online public speakers? Because I want to take a note of them.

They are Douglas Spalding, Steve Schneiderman, and San Leandro Chamber of Commerce. Okay.

So those are the three that have identified themselves for public comment. Let's actually begin with them. They have three minutes.

Our first online speaker is Douglas Spalding.

Well, thank you very much, Mayor. I lucked out because I'm supposed to be in a different meeting. And good evening, everybody. Well, I am certainly someone who has supported the legalization of marijuana. And personally, I became convinced of the need for medical marijuana when my dear Very dear friend Rose was diagnosed some years ago with glioblastoma. And while never having been a smoker of marijuana or anything, that was the only relief that she could find before she eventually passed away. I appreciate your efforts. I think it is important to regulate this market and these businesses. I have to say, from my standpoint as a teacher, the whole debate about offsets impresses me as being rather meaningless. Kids don't generally... you know, obtain marijuana by hanging out outside dispensaries, they get it from home, from their parents or guardians who have gone to the dispensaries. I'm not terribly worried about crime surrounding these locations. I think our police department has that. I mean, I know crimes have happened, but I think they kind of have a good handle on that. But I am questioning the number. You know, like we got one high school, we got two middle schools, we got three fire stations. Do we really need six dispensaries? It seems like we're starting to rival the number of boba joints in town. So, you know, I understand the attraction. We're trying to get business to drive up city revenues. But, you know, I just think, can't we focus our efforts elsewhere? I don't know that... we need a fifth and a sixth dispensary. And at what point does it become like saturation? At what point are you kind of want to say suppressing business, depressing business for these potential dispensaries? So those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you. The next online speaker is Steve Schneiderman.

Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. I'm Steve Schneiderman, VP of Corporate Development with Harborside, where I lead our retail expansion in California for our parent company, Statehouse. I'm here tonight to discuss two key points. One is our search process for a second location in San Leandro, and number two, why the map needs updating. So we have run a real structured search. We've hired multiple brokers, took a look at numerous properties, walking them, inspecting, and taking a deep dive into the city's commercial corridors. So as Eric pointed out during his presentation, cannabis zoning is extremely limited and has resulted in very few viable options of which almost none of them clear the setbacks as are currently written today. As an example, every potential lease that we've acquired about in the last eight months within the currently zoned areas have been rejected because of cannabis. The commercial math and the cannabis rules are pulling us in opposite directions, and the rules win every time. As such, we're not here with a specific address this evening, and that's simply the honest situation. It's not a gap in our effort or a gap in the market. It's a gap in the map. And, you know, if I'm being honest, you know, that map was built for a different time because our license here goes back 10 years. When cannabis was new, a lot of people were uncertain about it. This is why operators like us had to go into those industrial pockets off the main corridors and away from the residents we serve. It was an understandable instinct then, but the ground shifted. Cannabis is being rescheduled as we speak on the federal level. And despite that progress, the rules have stayed frozen while the reasons behind them have moved on. Updating the map isn't undoing anyone's work. It's letting the zoning catch up to today's environment. Or in some cases, just letting us go across the street from where a currently permitted zone is. Bottom line, we support expanding the zoning and adding setback flexibility where there's a real physical barrier that exists. And it's consistent with Eric and the staff's own data-driven analysis points. The market's ready. We're ready. We're just missing a workable map. Give us one and we'll bring San Leandro location council can stand behind. Thank you.

Thank you. The next online speaker is San Leandro Chamber of Commerce.

Hello, everybody. Good evening. It's Emily Grego, President and CEO of the San Leandro Chamber of Commerce. We submitted our position to the City Council back in March, and I sent you all an email earlier this evening just kind of restating that position, which is that we support modernizing the ordinance and aligning the setbacks with state standards, allowing additional permits. and expanding the areas where cannabis can operate with one caveat, which is our downtown area. So the chamber is not opposed to cannabis or cannabis businesses. We recognize it's a legal business and it should be able to operate in San Leandro and have more opportunity. But we also know that our downtown has been working for many years now to... to bring this vision to life of a revitalized downtown that's pedestrian friendly and family focused. And so we want to find a balance to support both of those. So that's why we supported it as much as possible without it going to downtown. And I believe that's where we're gonna stay. I know that we also serve, I serve on the SLEA board and I know that that's where they are. So that's what we'd like to see. This vision that downtown has had for a long time, we wanna see it to fruition. And I know that there's been some arguments that folks will come downtown, they go to their cannabis retailer and then they'll spend money in our restaurants or whatnot. But I've talked to surrounding chambers that have cannabis in their downtowns, and they say that's not really what happens. So that argument, I don't know that we've seen enough evidence that that's a viable reason to bring it downtown. So we say, cannabis, please, you know, yeah, let's expand the ordinance or modernize it, whatever the word is, and More permits, if that's what's necessary to create more of an opportunity in San Leandro. And then align with the state because it's a lot easier to manage an ordinance when all the businesses know what are the rules. So let's just go with the state and leave it at that. But that is where we are. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor, that concludes our online raised hands.

So we will close public comment online and bring it in person.

Thank you. Our first three in-person speakers are Gordon Galvin, followed by Nicholas McIntosh, followed by Marco Rivera.

Good evening, Mayor Gonzalez, members of the City Council, I'm Gordon Galvin. I'm here this evening representing NUG Wellness, and we're here tonight to ask you to initiate a process with regard to the third cannabis permit issued in San Leandro. This permit was issued almost a decade ago to Blum, who is now out of business and no longer holds a state license. However, they have sold or transferred this San Leandro permit twice. The current permit holder has transacted, hasn't transacted business in San Leandro and has never gone through the process that Harborside and we went through to become licensed. I'll just say at this point, I have multiple liquor licenses and I've bought some from restaurants or bars that have closed. That didn't preclude me from going through the process. Even though I have a liquor license, I still have to go through the same process, the same background checks. But more importantly, no business has been transacted under this permit for 19 months and counting. That's three times the length spelled out in your ordinance. as grounds for revoking the permit. Your ordinance states clearly that revocation can occur after six months of a license being dormant. Now it's come to our attention that this group is applied to go through the CUP process for a new location. What we're asking for here is there to be some process regarding the status of the license before a CUP process can be considered. We have provided written correspondence about this subject, and we can provide it again to the clerk tonight for distribution to you. Further, on the broader spectrum that you're talking about tonight on the ordinance, we would offer a suggestion that you consider a 1,000 foot distance between dispensaries as well to allow for dispensaries to locate in other parts of the city and not be clustered together. Those are my comments.

Thank you. The next three speakers are Nicholas McIntosh, Marco Rivera, and Nara DelBaca.

Good evening. My name is Nicholas McIntosh, and I am representing Harborside. I'm here to tell you guys about the opportunities that that club has given me. I started from nothing. I started from a temp agency and they seen how hard and how diligent, how non-complacent that a person can be and what it can do for a community. Just coming from the youth and coming from a very hard street to becoming very successful in life. This club gave me the chance to become successful. I am now the operations manager there. I operate all over the company. I take care of all facilities as well as take care of anything as far as our employees, the employee morale. I believe that this club, our club, Harborside, can boost up the morale in this city. It can honestly bring the revenue that the city is actually looking for to help the city become way better than what people will honestly think. When I first got to San Leandro, I thought it was just a beautiful city that is upcoming. The people here are very beautiful. And if we give them the opportunity to join cannabis, I think that it would just become more More of a livable, I would say, because it would be fun. It would be, you know, bringing uplifting. That's where it brought me to. It brought me to becoming more of an uplifting person. I come out here and I try to reach out to the community. And I tried to give them the same opportunity that was given to me. And all it took was somebody to step to me and say, here, we're going to give you a shot and a chance. So now they put me in a position to handing out jobs and saying, here, to whatever stranger that comes up, and here's a job. We're going to give you a chance at success. We're going to give you a chance to change and not just change yourself, help change the community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you the next 2 speakers are Marco and.

Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Michael. I'm the district manager for harborside as well. With the short time that I've been in the city as well, we've experienced not only major setbacks. One of our biggest setback was our opening times. While our competitors were open an hour earlier than us, We were able to come and connect with you guys and we were able to get aligned with our other competitors and open at 7 a.m. Opening at 7 a.m. has brought our business, week over week, over 20% business revenue. And I think it's, you know, kind of what Nick is saying is bringing the opportunity for business development to our city. And the people that we serve, our day-to-day nurses, teachers, you name it, we always serve them at our club. And they realize that the friendly and kindness people that we are, and we wish to bring that to different parts of town. the east side north side whatever you guys can uh you know comply with us and and help us out um running a cannabis business is one of the toughest i would say a tough business to run um and just certain limitations as well within the the city um sets us back uh much more than that same place coming from Nick I you know started online level position now I'm the district manager creating a career path that a lot of industries you know don't even you know let us enter as as the Bay Area, like a lot of tech businesses and things like that, the cannabis industry is also growing. And, you know, we face challenges where we can't promote on on the Internet. We can't promote outside of our shops. um signs get taken down by other businesses because they don't want to create that um that aspect that they have you know cannabis around in the premises uh we can't go to uh public eventings and and you know even let them know that we're there um so expanding you know licenses um is gonna help us um you know promote our club, promote the kindness that we bring to the city and show that we're here for the growth of the city and business developments. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Nara Dalbaca.

Good evening mayor Gonzales and members of council We've been here a lot been to rules a lot this conversation started because NUG was granted a second location last summer and we came to that meeting and asked for for an expansion or and in in the in the name of fairness that if one long-term operator received a second location, that the other long-term operator would also be able to have a satellite location in the city. That fairness issue hasn't been addressed yet, so we are still asking that the city grant a second license to Harborside in order to address that. Both NUG and Harborside went through a rigorous process in order to get approved to run in the city They've both been long compliant operators and Harborside would really welcome the opportunity to have a second location. So I did want to talk about that that was part of a letter that I sent back in July again asking the city to reserve one of those additional licenses for harborside. Right now you're right the cannabis businesses are clustered and and Council member aguilar district customer Victor aguilar district. Um, folks on the north side of town on the east side of town probably go to Oakland, or they go to Hayward, um, or unincorporated areas. Um, or they buy from their plug down the street. I mean, it's, it's, um, there's a reason that there was a proliferation of smoke shops selling, um, untested, uh, cannabis products. And that's because there was a need for additional access. Um. And those are businesses that don't check IDs. They're not testing their product. And that's where E-Valley came from prior to COVID. I don't know if we remember E-Valley. But folks were getting really, really sick because they were buying untested, unsafe cannabis. And that is for sale at probably every smoke shop in the city right now. But licensed cannabis isn't. And it isn't in some of these areas where they'd like it to be. HARBORSIDE HAS LOOKED AT SOME OF THE LARGER PROPERTY MANAGERS IN THE CITY. ANYONE WHO HAS A FEDERAL LOAN ON THEIR PROPERTY CAN'T LEASE TO CANNABIS. SO IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO ACTUALLY IDENTIFY A PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S A SINGLE OWNER AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY EITHER LEASE OR PURCHASE IT. SO THE SETBACKS DEFINITELY NEED ADJUSTMENT. And to answer one of the previous callers, the city could support up to six, but I do think the thing that we're here for is to ensure that Harborside is given the same fair shake that NUG was given and the opportunity to open another location that isn't clustered in the same place where all the businesses are cannibalizing each other.

Thank you. Your time has elapsed. Mayor, there are no more cards.

Okay, so we will close public comment at this time. We'll come back to council members for discussion of our options or possibly a modification of one of the options that's up there.

We'll begin with council member Victor Aguilar. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the public for commenting. My question is with regards to option C. I just need some clarification with regards to, in addition to bullet points in option B, Does that also include option A to allow for the issuance? So if I say let's go with option C, which includes the bullet points and option B, does that also include allowing the six from option A?

Yes. So C includes all of A and all of B. Gotcha.

I think we've heard from the community. In San Leandro, we are probably one of the most restrictive as to where we allow cannabis to be sold. A few years ago, I loved going to Thailand and exploring, and there was a point where cannabis was not allowed, never allowed it. Now I go back and there's literally a cannabis shop on every corner. So, you know, they see the revenue that they're making from it and how it's impacted and crime has not increased I it's I think cannabis is Has this negative connotation? I think we're moving towards it's just in medicinal and We're trying to make sure that we're taking into consideration that we're not selling it next to schools But I think we you know, this is something for rules or planning that we lower the setback to 100 feet um i would you know advocate for option c for the most expansive with a hundred foot setback um and to allow for downtown and get rid of that except for da downtown area and that's that would be my motion is to move forward with an option C and strike out except for downtown, but to include downtown. That's my comment.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on this item? Council Member Bowman.

Yeah, I have a question around the operating permits versus the CUPs. Is it, do we currently, do we have a cap on how many conditional use permits we can give

Thank you, Council Member, or Vice Mayor, Council Member for your question. So basically, we have a de facto cap on the number of conditional use permits by virtue of the fact that one needs to have an operating permit from the council before it's even eligible to apply for the CUP.

So we would not have to change anything for the CUP? Correct. Because we said four back last summer, it's now four?

Correct.

We just need to be able to find a fourth location, or a fifth, or a sixth, depending on the number of And the allow for the issuance of two additional cannabis operating permits for 12-6, that's based on past discussions by the city council, and that's why the number is six. Thank you.

And just quickly to clarify, are you saying that to have a I'm trying to identify a fourth location right now. Is the operating permit by location or by operator?

It is by, it is, the operating permit goes to a business entity with no location tied to it. And in order to effectuate the operating permit and actually open one's results for business, one has to then go get a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission with an unidentified site.

And just one last clarification. Does each location physical address need a separate LLC or legal structure?

The CUP is really authorizing a land use. I'm sorry, I'm talking about operating permit.

So just for example, so hypothetically that we have an entity that has the permission to operate in the city as an operator. Can they, because we currently only have three locations, can that operator say, hey, I want to open up another location without getting an extra operator permit?

The only way they could do that is if they ceased operations of their existing site currently. Because each location requires a separate operating permit.

There you go.

But they couldn't, yeah. OK, thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that every location requires a separate operating permit. and a conditional use permit. Correct. Thank you. So is there any clarification that's needed on that? Okay, thank you. Are you done, Council Member Bowen?

Okay, thank you.

Coming to Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Just one, my gratitude to the representatives from the industry that came to all of our rules committee meeting and to my colleagues that serve on rules. Thank you for getting us to this place. One, I wanted to GET A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON SLIDE SIX, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF A YOUTH CENTER. AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE WORD EXCLUSIVELY, I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE PRIMARILY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD KIND OF HOW ONE WOULD MEASURE THAT. BUT IT'S JUST ANYHOW. And then the sentence were youth centers One two three on line five youth centers does not include any building location or facility and then there's a B and C and I understand why the private residence but I'm just trying to this is stated in the negative and I'm trying to kind of understand what it actually means can you give me an example or I'm just trying to I'll just be explicit I don't quite understand it in the negative can you explain it in the positive so that I can understand what that means

Thank you, Vice Mayor, for your question. What I would share is this is right now essentially cloned precise language from the city of Alameda. To the extent council members have concerns with the way this is written, and I acknowledge it's somewhat inartful, to the extent you all desire to have changes, we would absolutely take that direction and make changes to it.

Okay, so then, uh, to the chair, um. Can I ask our city attorney? What can you explain then what this language would mean in the way that it's currently drafted?

Yes, vice mayor, so you centers. 1st are defined in the 1st sentence. It doesn't so you centers do not include. And obviously, it's a building, location, or facility where those activities does not include, are offered at private residences, obviously, right? Then the youth centers also do not include those that involve in martial arts, combat sports, cultural, similar education, or physical fitness. And then the final one is that where programming for youth are offered for fewer than five hours per day. So the exclusion of those items means that a building, facility, or location could be one of those areas where a cannabis dispensary operation could locate next to, if it was a private residence that offered a martial arts combat sports, yes, or a location where there was some activity of that that was less than five hours, offered for fewer than five hours per day. SO THAT MEANS THAT IT'S NOT A USE CENTER, A CANNABIS OPERATION COULD BE CLOSE TO THOSE LOCATIONS UNDER THIS DEFINITION. WE COULD CLEARLY MAKE IT AN AFFIRMATIVE, AND AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THE, IF THIS WERE TO NOT BE, THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO IN THE ZONING CODE. THIS IS, JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, WE'RE NOT GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THIS TO BE OPERATIVE IN THE in the Muni code. If it were to go in the zoning code, then we would make it, it would have to be permissive. So we would have to define that this is the allowable uses for land. And I mean, certainly if that's the council's wish, we can, it would be a longer process. We'd have to go to the planning commission, et cetera. So we can redraft it so that it would be in the affirmative to the exclusion of all other uses.

Thank you. Thank you. That's just my question on that. I think redrafting this for clarity, I know that it was lifted from Alameda as a model. This whole thing about martial arts, that seems very specific to that jurisdiction. I don't necessarily think it applies that much to... Anyway. My other comment is just in terms of getting us to just for folks to know where I stand. I am supportive of option C as it stands. That includes the exception of the downtown area. I think that the constituents that I represent, both businesses and other folks who live around that area, but only within... Um, to be clear, the downtown area is already a, uh, an area with defined limits. Correct? So it can you define for? I'm sorry, Eric. I may I told you I was done with questions and then I'm not done with questions. Um, can you remind us of what the, uh. What that would define it.

Absolutely. Excellent question. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, the DA zoning district, downtown area is what the DA stands for, is clearly defined. It has very clearly defined meets and bounds. It's adopted in our code, and it has a clear boundary. If you give me one moment, I can actually, if you want to see a map of that. But otherwise, I can answer affirmatively. It's clearly defined. There's no ambiguity. THERE'S A DA ZONE AND WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT. SO IT'S NOT ALLOWED THERE.

OKAY. IT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION AND THEN ALSO IN THE RULES, SO NO NEED TO PULL IT UP. SO THANK YOU, ERIC. AND I KNOW I'M OUT OF TIME, CHAIR, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO LET, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING CONSENSUS, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF C. I don't feel strongly about maintaining the state 600-foot standard. I'm amenable to lowering that. I don't know about 100, but I'm amenable to lowering it to below 600. But I am firm on the exception for the downtown.

Thank you.

I was a little bit unclear on your commentary regarding the youth definition, kind of where you ended up there in particular. So let me punch you back in.

You're asking where I stand in terms of the definition as it stands?

Because you asked the question about exclusivity. You were exploring a little bit about the martial arts. And so I wasn't quite sure what the outcome of that is.

Yeah, it's not necessarily a... Holding point for me, I just want the, the definition that is sampled here is not really clear. Um. So that's that's where I was gone with that.

Thank you. Please.

Thank you mayor. Um. We've had 7 meetings about this, and I've learned a lot about cannabis in the last year. So thank you for the education. Um. One of the things that we talked about in the very beginning, and I tried to parse out tonight was. Why we're talking about this and why it would help us as a city and what the problem we're trying to solve for and what was repeated over and over again by both city staff as well as public comment was. The very conservative nature of the map, and obviously the more conservative nature of the ordinance, and obviously being able to modernize that if we are going to increase the number of operating permits and not increase. Where you could possibly find a viable location, all of this. To me would have been a waste of time and energy because I'm not so sure if we're not even able to find a 4th location in any sort of like, uh, it's going to always be a long process, but I'm. I don't see how it is viable to be able to do so without updating some of the setbacks and expanding the modified zoning. I'm supportive of option C if we are going to be making changes to this ordinance so that it actually keeps up with regulations, economic development, our city plan to be able to make this more viable and support this industry as well as really where the nature of residents and the population is and the fact that it is highly regulated. And in terms of the definition of youth center, I'm Glad to hear the mayor speak specifically about some of the issues that are called out. We were not able to do that in the rules committee. I am actually fine with the definition and the reason why I am saying I'm fine with it is because there are so many setbacks and there are already so few places that would actually be viable. And he still has to go through the planning commission. It still has to go through the landlord challenge. I think that we're spending a lot of time and energy talking about something. that is actually not as problematic as we are making it out to be, and that's why I'm supportive of option C. I want us to be able to move forward with this, so I would make a motion to move forward with option C. Okay, Councilmember Simon.

yeah the first item i'll hit on is i'll back up a little bit we received a letter from the manor homeowners association they had a discussion on this topic of expanding the area for london chemists at a hoa meeting this year and the entire meeting everyone in the meeting was opposed to it They sent a letter to the council a few weeks back and documented that. So I'm supporting the manner and I do not support option C. I don't want to force this on any one community, just like the downtown area doesn't want it forced on them. I wouldn't want to force this on any area that's not comfortable with it. I think that's fair for the downtown association, downtown area to do that. And if that's the case, I wouldn't force this on any community. That's why I cannot support option C. And I had brought this up as an option in rules. If there are certain council districts, like council member Aguilar or councilman Bowman. Where their communities are open to it, then perhaps allow it there. It's fine with me, but I understand maybe you could provide some feedback. Is that legal? Is it not legal? Where are we with that?

So I'm gonna come to legal counsel on that and what's interesting about your question is framed is there we talked about the zoning and we talked about the muni code and so can be perhaps you can answer the question in the context of both if there's if there is a difference and

Because the the zoning code and the muni code are tied that a operator can't Operate without both complying with the zoning code and with the muni code. There's no operable difference mayor so as we opine before It is not a recommendation from staff or from my office that they be defined by zoning districts. It's rather a land use decision as to where to cite them. And it's better regulated under the zoning code as far as the conditional use permit requirement. Because the cannabis permit is a business permit. It's an operating permit. But what we're really talking about, what you're really looking to from a policy perspective regulate is the land use locations and so um the the council can direct staff to come back with particular land use recommendations maps etc that to reflect the policy choices that you all want to decide upon even if it pertains to how districts how they fit within districts but that would be better handled within a land use context discussion

Okay, so if Councilmember Bowen's area, is that the Broadmoor or Grant, whichever area you're referring to, can there be a zoning district defined for that location? I'm just trying to talk out loud here.

No, no, no, no. So that's the question I think is to the city attorney and or to city staff in general. Can we define a zoning district that ties to, let's say, a particular set of streets. And I think the context that I would add to that question is that we clearly have a downtown zoned district, and that's based on the geography.

Right, and that's within the context of a council member's interest. Like, I don't want to step on Council Member Bowen's area, but where she's interested, can that be designated as a zone?

So I want to start with legal counsel and then move to, you know, you can punt or you can get collaboration, you can phone a friend, whatever the case. But I think that the question at its core is, could a zoning district be defined in a particular location that says the cannabis sale zoning district?

So the answer is that is possible, but again, it would take some analysis and sort of fundamental planning policies that you want to avoid spot zoning, of course. So then, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that such definitions could For zones could be made, I would want to point them to your staff that they need to conduct the analysis and again, provide you with a map to show you what available districts that would be. That would help define what those zones could look like and what's affected and I can I'm sure your staff can be able to answer more in depth about that.

I'm going to actually start with city manager. on how you'd like to proceed with the staff, other staff people on that question.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Simon. What I would say is if the council provides direction that it would like staff to look into what a cannabis zone would look like or some other title, then staff can work on it. But I think right now in the moment to opine on what area and what that will look like, we would need to do some research.

Okay, thank you. Well, that would be my recommendation is for staff to come back with some whatever that title is for cannabis zoning areas for those areas that council has an interest in placing cannabis rather than blanket, you know, a blanket expansion. So that's my recommendation there. The youth center, can I continue or should I wait?

Yeah, just continue a bit.

Okay. Give you another couple minutes. Youth center definition, I would like to tighten up. I would agree with the mayor on his concerns and interpretation there. I think it's a bit loose, martial arts, et cetera. And the third is I did want to hear a little bit about the bloom issue that I heard from some of the speakers today and if maybe staff could comment

elaborate a little bit more on what's going on there if there's a permit that's been open for a while there's been no no activity why some operators are um so if you can uh so there's a general question we have to be sensitive to discussing the item because it's not agendized but that's gonna we're gonna probe a little bit

Thank you, Council Member Simon. Happy to address that question. So both our muni code as well as our zoning code both include language related to the revocation process for both operating permits and for conditional use permits. And really in the operating permit language that lives in the muni code essentially just refers back to the zoning code provision. and essentially what it says is that once the land and this is required of all conditional lease permits citywide of which there are thousands that have probably been issued over the life cycle of the city if not more has a provision that says after 180 days if a use ceases to take to exist on site basically if it ceases operations it's potentially eligible for a revocation process But it's not an automatic thing. It's basically it says it's eligible for that. And so that's why referring back to our presentation last May when we brought forward the ward of the fourth permit and the council was deliberating on that proposal, we flagged that issue for the council at that meeting and that slide deck and noted that the bloom operating permit was eligible for revocation I think it was June 30th of 2025. And then we would look to council direction if the council wanted to direct us to initiate that revocation process. But again, it's not automatic. And as you can imagine, there are numerous examples of conditional use permits all over the city that may have potentially ceased operations. And it's not a city practice to just proactively go around and digging through records and trying to find expired permits and then bringing forward a revocation process. Yeah, I think that covers that. Hopefully that answers the question. So it's not automatic. And ultimately, staff level would look to the council to direct us to initiate that revocation process, which is our standard protocol for all conditional use permits.

So I'm going to jump in quickly, just because I haven't had an opportunity to speak on this item. Then I'll come back to you, Councilmember Victor Aguilar. I am quite sensitive to the youth definition. You've heard me talk about that for a year now. And my sensitivity really focuses on the martial arts piece. I am concerned about some facilities where they're predominantly youth, but I know factually that some adults do show up for events. We have an indoor soccer place where that takes place. We've got a number of dance studios that 90% of what they do is young children, but they do some classes for moms and dads. And so then you're left with, okay, well, too bad that you help adults. That continues to bother me. So the other place that I'd end is I think alignment with state standards is okay. So I'm quite supportive of option B. And for, I have no problem with the expansion. I haven't really heard a case why we can't expand. But for option B, I would like strike exclusivity. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I would certainly strike the martial arts anything that smacks of allowing the removal of a youth center designation for something like, I don't really want to cite specific businesses, but we all know a number of rather active popular businesses in our city where there's a lot of kids. And to not call them youth centers because of a technicality really bothers me. And I think alignment with with state standards is they're not standards. I guess are kind of recommendations de facto recommendations So that that's my personal preference and what I'll be supporting today councilmember Victor Aguilar Thank You mayor so

WITH REGARDS TO RECOMMENDATIONS, I WOULD SUPPORT OPTION C, THE MOST EXPENSIVE. WITH OPTION B TO INCLUDE SIX PERMITS, BUT MY QUESTION IS WITH THE BULLET POINT THAT IS AN OPTION C, BRING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, WILL THAT HINDER ANY PROCESSES IF THERE ARE APPLICATIONS IN THE

I don't, well, I would say this. We have one application from the new owners of Bloom for a conditional use permit that's scheduled to go to the Planning Commission, I believe, later this year, in the months ahead, that complies with, well, I understand, it complies with our current map requirements. So that's the only application that's in process. Now, in terms of option C, switching to some of the other stakeholders who are maybe aspirationally interested, if, say, for example, you were to allow additional permit awards and one of our existing operators wanted a second permit, OPTION C CERTAINLY OPENS UP MORE OPPORTUNITIES THAN OPTION B BECAUSE IT CREATES MORE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH CANNABIS IS ALLOWED. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A FORMAL APPLICATION IN PRESENTLY AND IT'S MORE OF THAT INFORMAL PROCESS OF JUST TRYING TO, LIKE, FIND VIABLE SITES. RIGHT. SCOURING THE MARKET.

GOTCHA. THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. MAYOR, WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION OR LOOKING FOR I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR.

No, there are no motions. People said I would. The word choice was I would make a motion, not I make a motion. I need to be really careful about that, right? So if people make a motion, they can make a motion. I just thought that we would first discuss it, and I didn't hear I move that we, right? That's going to be our language. I move that we, not I would make a motion that we.

And is there a motion on the floor?

There is not a motion right now.

Council Member Bowen, did you make a motion?

Oh, sorry. I'm fine to repeat myself in the future, and I would appreciate it if maybe you could just, if you're unsure that I said I will make a motion, I am making a motion to just remind me. That way I can clarify and say I am making the motion, or I thought I said I moved to make the motion. So confirming that I made, I am now currently making a motion for option C. Thank you.

I would second that motion. Yeah.

Further discussion? Vice Mayor, please.

Thank you. Just to be explicit, if it includes the downtown, I would be voting no.

I'm sorry.

Council Member Simon.

Just to clarify. Can you really pull out my cover? Just to clarify, could you flip it to the maps? So option C includes the map to the right, essentially, except for downtown. That's what option C is.

Thank you, Council Member Simon. I mean, that represents the zoning, the parcels within the zoning, the full array of commercial and industrial zones. Yes, but again, they would be subject to a CUP, so they're not guaranteed. But these capture those zoning districts, correct? In option C, with the exception of downtown.

Yeah, I'll restate, just like downtown is an exception, I support the manor have an exception, an exception, an exception. And I just don't think that's fair why some people get exceptions and others do not. I just don't think that's right. Thank you. So I will not be supporting this.

Okay. Then coming to city manager, you're set? Okay, perfect. Council Member Bowen?

Yes.

Yes, that's me again. Okay. I WANT TO TAKE IN SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT BOTH THE MAYOR AND THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS MADE AROUND THE DEFINITION OF YOUTH CENTERS, AND I WOULD BE FINE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO STATE OPTION C WITH THE INCLUSION OF A REVISION TO THE YOUTH CENTER DEFINITION TO CHANGE IT FROM EXCLUSIVELY. the specific feedback that the other council members raised around that, so that it actually makes sense for what the youth centers are being used for in San Leandro.

And does the seconder agree with that update? Council Member Aguilar? Yes. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, the only concern that I will express, I will agree with Council Member Simon that it's very difficult when you have neighborhood that has expressed a very clear concern and so I just from an equity sort of perspective I'm struggling because if a neighbor said neighborhood says not in our neighborhood it's because of cultural reasons or whatever the case may be that's just not the interest of the neighborhood this and to have an exclusion for other. So I actually think that your suggestion is rather creative. Could we have, this is a district where we're going to sell cannabis, this is an arts district, this is a whatever sort of district. At the current point in time I feel pretty strongly about option B but let's see what the votes are. Let's kind of vote to provide some guidance because we do have a motion to adopt option C with clarification of youth centers for the discussion. And this is in the form of guidance, right? This is not an action item, right? So we're just trying to formalize through emotion kind of what we'll get. You will come back to us. And then at that point, we can decide, yes, this captured the spirit of what we wanted or not. So I just want the public to understand what's transpiring here today. So with that, can... Madam Clerk, do you feel comfortable? Are you ready to kind of take a vote so that... So the motion on the floor again is for option C with a clarification of the youth center definition. Anything else? No, piece of it.

Thank you, all votes are in. And the motion carries with four yes votes, Councilmember Simon and Mayor Gonzalez voting no, and Councilmember Bolt being absent.

So at this point in time, we are concluded with our business, and we are adjourned. The time is 9.03.