Next week’s City Council meeting is all about cannabis. The council will discuss amending several cannabis rules within Benicia at its regular meeting.
First, on the cannabis-related agenda, the council has to decide if it will amend the moratorium prohibiting cannabis uses and adopting a resolution prohibiting such uses in the Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan by amending the plan after determining the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Current moratorium prohibits cannabis uses downtown and elsewhere. A resolution is required to amend the Downtown Mixed-Use Master Plan (DMUMP).
The Fair Political Practices Commission determined that Councilmember Alan Schwartzman has a conflict of interest regarding this issue due to him owning a business in the downtown area. He will not participate in decisions regarding cannabis in the downtown area. Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Councilmember Tom Campbell also live or own businesses near the downtown area, but the FPPC determined they did not have conflicts of interest and could participate in the discussion. Schwartzman had previously voted yes to the possibility of allowing dispensaries on First Street.
It has been recommended the council first “amend the moratorium to repeal the prohibition on cannabis in the Downtown Mixed-Use Master Plan Area,” according to a staff report by City Attorney Heather McLaughlin and Community Development Director Shawna Brekke-Read. “This should be done by the votes of four Council Members,” they wrote.
Staff also suggested amending the DMUMP to regulate cannabis uses immediately.
The next cannabis agenda item for will be the first reading of cannabis ordinances to establish regulatory restrictions and procedures for cannabis uses by amending various sections of the Benicia municipal code, including clarifying language regarding permissible zones and use permits.
The council will meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 5 at the Council Chambers of City Hall, 250 East L St. There is no closed session.
Sharing is caring!
According to information contained in the FPPC advice letter, First Street commercial property values have already started rising based solely on speculation about cannabis activity. Then we have a First Street business, Cullen’s Tannery Pub, indicating an interest in transitioning from alcohol sales to cannabis. This would seem a perfect location for those with a concern for visible cannabis storefronts on First Street. A cannabis shoppe inside the Tannery Building is a great location, but it is not going to happen with the present council. Even if Campbell were to flip on a storefront on First Street provided it is IN the Tannery Building, Hughes is never going to flip on his beliefs about regulated access, even though he has publicly stated he had “friends that smoke dope” and believes in the medicinal efficacy of cannabis, he does not want us to be able to legally acquire it in Benicia.
You are confused Stan.
I look forward to this all settling in, so we can move on. There is already a movement afoot to fund research and legalize psilocybin mushrooms, as they have been proven, through clinical research, to successfully treat severe depression, neurological disorders, anxiety and addiction, and have even been shown to reduce criminal recidivism.
“Staff” should have their chain jerked about editorializing on staff reports. Their report re: changing the DMUMP includes some personal opinions about First Street. This entire paragraph is drafted with an anti-cannabis slant.
“Prohibiting cannabis uses in the Downtown area is consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and makes sense for several reasons. Downtown is the “front porch” for the City. It is a tourist attraction and the centerpiece of the City’s “Visit Benicia” campaign. The State Capital park and other historical assets of the City attract school buses of children. Unlike other commercial areas of town, First Street is regularly walked by residents and tourists. Prohibiting cannabis retail uses there reduces the potential for conflicting with other uses and eliminates the sign issue. Several commenters have requested that the City adopt special sign regulations for cannabis uses. Because of the First Amendment it is hard to adopt regulations that specifically call out one type of business like cannabis. Cannabis retail uses do not need a walkin storefront in order to be successful. Apps and websites like WeedMaps are often used to locate cannabis retail stores. Walk-in traffic may not be as important to this use as it is for other retail uses.”
Stan they are correct.
I was curious about the DMUMP and started looking through it. Yes it does say sex toy shops are prohibited, and one rejector did say cannabis sales were on par with them. But in the use descriptions under “Medical Services”, it says “…and/or other personal health care services.” This seems to indicate an “M” license only storefront on First Street would be a permitted use.
The practice of pharmacy has a wide range of descriptions, all in the name of patient care, health and wellness. Although the DMUMP does not specifically identify a pharmacy as a permitted use, nor does it prohibit one, there is no doubt that the operation of one is a medically-related service. Here again, the folks raging against cannabis on First Street saw it only as an agent of vice and corrupted morals, not medicine, and they failed to appreciate the fact that the DMUMP allows for pharmacies and by extension medicinal cannabis dispensaries as a “personal health care service.” It’s clear to me that if Tom Hamilton or the Cullens were to pursue an “M” licensed dispensary on First Street, they could not be legally denied. Back in 2006, nobody was thinking about legalized medicinal cannabis of that time or full legalization ten years later, so the word or any of its derisive slang terms are not found anywhere in the document. I’m confidant that “personal health care services” are permitted in most commercial zoning ordinances, so opposition to all cannabis-related business in Benicia would include safe medicinal access allowed by ordinances. The undeniable fact that cannabis IS medicine to a lot of folks in our community, and access to it was opposed by wannabes on the November ballot will not fare well for them. The voters will either share the views of some old smuggler or vote for you because of your exceedingly bubbly disposition and optimistic cliches.