The Benicia City Council advised staff to begin looking at land use regulations for permitting cultivation, manufacturing and delivery of retail or wholesale marijuana in commercial and industrial zones at Tuesday’s meeting.

In 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown signed three bills regulating the cultivation, testing and distribution of marijuana in what came to be known as the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA). Last November, California voters approved Proposition 64, which allows individuals to possess up to 28.5 grams of non-concentrated marijuana or 8 grams of marijuana in concentrated (e.g., edible) form, cultivate up to six marijuana plants at their own private residences and establishing a regulatory system for commercial businesses. However, neither act can limit local police authority over land use and commercial businesses that sell marijuana. The regulations put forth by Proposition 64 are set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

Outside counsel Stephen McEwen put together a brief presentation that discussed if the city should consider an outright ban on marijuana, what personal cultivation regulations the city would like to adopt and whether or not commercial deliveries of recreational marijuana should be allowed.

Councilmember Alan Schwartzman asked what the difference was between a use permit and an annual permit. McEwen said that different cities have had different approaches. In Santa Barbara, an individual can apply for a use permit through the planning department, which then issues a safety permit.

“Santa Barbara’s method is a better way to go,” McEwen said. “It’s a rigorous process, and it gets more review.”

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson liked the fact that in Santa Barbara’s case, the criteria was spelled out in the beginning rather than an ad hoc decision being made. That way, people could know if a dispensary was not too close to a school.

Vice Mayor Steve Young noted that medical marijuana was permissible in most areas of California and asked if medical and recreational marijuana would be treated the same after Jan. 1. McEwen noted that Gov. Brown wanted overarching rules for both.

Young also noted that Benicia allows delivery of medical marijuana and that the delivery of both types may not be distinguishable after Jan. 1. McEwen said that the regulation of commercial deliveries has always been difficult because the situation is difficult to enforce.

“Many cities will temporarily disallow commercial deliveries but allow deliveries by caregivers,” McEwen said. “There’s a lot that has to be worked out at the state level.”

Councilmember Mark Hughes noted that medical marijuana can be obtained by nearly anyone and asked if a distinction would be made after Jan. 1. McEwen said the laws are different and that, for instance, caregivers are permitted to possess more.

“It will become a challenge for law enforcement,” McEwen said. “It creates immunities for patients that would not have had that privilege.”

McEwen noted that while it is relatively easy for individuals to get a medical marijuana card, the rules should be tightened up.

Patterson asked McEwen to elaborate on how the new legislation would impact the youth’s access to medical marijuana.

“Prop 64 only allows individuals 21 years of age and older to possess or use marijuana products,” he said. “What we’re gonna be seeing is the regulations will be designed to make sure that the 21-year-old age limit is met in terms of the businesses and retailers, making sure marijuana does not get into the hands of people younger than that. How successful that’s gonna be will be a work in progress as this process plays out.”

Schwartzman asked what would happen to the prices as marijuana becomes legalized. McEwen said it would depend on taxes and opined that a high tax rate might create an incentive for marijuana users to stay within the black market.

During the public comment portion, many speakers addressed either the benefits or consequences of legalizing cannabis. Robin Cox, a health education manager for Solano Public Health, said she was neither an opponent or proponent of legalizing marijuana but felt the public should be informed of the risks. These included birth defects as a result of smoking marijuana while pregnant, increased risk of driving accidents, impaired memory and potential for social anxiety disorder. She also said that edible marijuana with child-friendly packaging— e.g., an edible called “Pot Tarts” and using a logo and packaging almost identical to Pop Tarts— was becoming more popular.

She concluded by saying that the rules should be strongly enforced, vulnerable populations should be careful and youth should not use cannabis at all.

Gary Wing, the chair of the Benicia Youth Action Coalition and president of the Benicia Unified School District’s Governing Board, expressed concerns over the potential harm marijuana would have on youth.

“We need to carefully consider how we can minimize these harms by developing strong, responsible local policies regarding the youth and marijuana,” he said. “We (the Youth Action Council) encourage the council to carefully consider all aspects regarding medical and recreational use of marijuana.”

The next to speak was James Hinton, a representative of the dispensary Vallejo Holistic Health Center, which he said has seen several patients from Benicia.

He noted that the results of a healthy kids survey were presented at a recent Vallejo City Unified School District meeting that getting high on campus was down in Vallejo.

“Vallejo has 10 dispensaries, so by regulating the dispensaries, marijuana use in the Vallejo school district has gone down,” he said. “We’re putting bad actors out of business. The businesses there that are contributing these taxes don’t want to lose their licenses. They want to comply.”

“If you want to identify a good actor to serve your community, you can make sure they’re gonna be checking the patients to make sure they have medical cards,” he added.

Although he noted that nobody wants kids to take THC, he encouraged Benicia to have a properly regulated dispensary or two.

Resident Larry Fullington requested that Police Chief Erik Upson talk about his experiences dealing with the marijuana issue when he was working with the Berkeley Police Department. Upson said the situation was different in Berkeley because those involved in the marijuana trade were doing other drugs as well. However, he was supportive of a thoughtful public policy and against the idea of dispensaries.

Resident Craig Snider felt there was a lot of talk about the problems of marijuana when he felt that opioids were a bigger problem. He also noted that the city should look at the regulations and take them into consideration while being open to a new economic opportunity.

“I prefer to be in a city that embraces this new law and efforts to decriminalize (marijuana) and get the wolves out of the forest,” he said. “I think it would be a good stroke for the city to move forward with allowing the cultivation and dispensaries.”

Hughes said he was close to considering a ban because he felt the risks of recreational marijuana would far outweigh the benefits and that the only benefit he could identify was revenue growth.

“We desperately need more revenue, but I’m not willing to go down this path to find that revenue,” he said.

Hughes remarked that he would be willing to “bend a little” on certain areas after listening to colleagues but not on introducing dispensaries.

Councilmember Tom Campbell expressed skepticism of the arguments of both sides but felt that a ban would be hard to enforce and a waste of time.

Schwartzman said he was not in favor of a ban, but he felt that dispensaries should be regulated and the populace should be educated.

“We need to do everything we can to be thoughtful,” he said.

There was no consensus on where a dispensary would be located. Young said he was not in favor of having a dispensary in a commercially available location like First Street or any of the major shopping centers, but he felt the Industrial Park could work due to its isolation and not being a big hotspot for youth. Campbell felt that a dispensary in the Industrial Park would be in too close proximity to the Jack in the Box, but Patterson noted that fast food was a bigger public health risk.

Ultimately, the council directed staff to come back with a preliminary estimate of the time it would take to get regulations. Patterson suggested holding a public workshop, and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin said options could be brought to the Planning Commission for input.

Because of laws scheduled to go into effect next year, the council agreed that time was an important factor.

“If we don’t have something in place by Jan. 1, then we’re subject to whatever the state decides,” Young said. “It is in our best interest to act expeditiously on this.”

In other business, the council heard an annual report from the Planning Commission and members of the Arts and Culture Commission presented potential spots for murals around town.