The Benicia City Council will continue to tackle cannabis at its Tuesday meeting, this time focusing on areas outside the downtown.
Following the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2016, communities have been working to come up with their own rules regarding cannabis. The issue has been hotly debated at 14 public meetings throughout the year, particularly over whether or not dispensaries should be allowed and where they could be located. Proponents of allowing cannabis retail in Benicia have cited potential economic benefits, the fact that cannabis has already become mainstream and that it can be regulated in a similar manner to alcohol. Opponents have expressed concerns over youth access, public safety and potential zones being too close to schools or parks. Benicia Unified School District’s Governing Board adopted a resolution expressing concerns and asking the council to provide a portion of revenue to the district for youth prevention programs. The Economic Development Board suggested adding a buffer around religious institutions. The council voted 4-0 at its Dec. 5 meeting to prohibit cannabis dispensaries downtown. Councilmember Alan Schwartzman recused himself because he owned property near the downtown. Since the council voted to deny downtown dispensaries, Schwartzman will be allowed to vote on other cannabis-related items at Tuesday’s meeting, which will address personal cultivation; potential buffers around schools, parks and day care centers; cannabis delivery, glass storefronts and whether or not to allow cannabusinesses in the following areas: Columbus Parkway, the Arsenal, East 5th Street, Solano Square and east Second Street, North Benicia near Lake Herman and Goodyear roads, and the west side of Benicia.
With cannabis, the city must hold the continued hearing schedule hearing from Dec. 5, review its earlier policy direction related to residential and commercial cannabis activities including requiring a public safety license and use permit for all commercial cannabis uses and consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations, community comments and staff suggested changes for usability and clarity. The city could, at the end of the hearing, give directions to staff on the to finalize ordinance changes for review and possible introduction on Feb. 6.
Staff has recommended the council finish taking finish taking public testimony, provide direction to staff regarding cannabis uses, direct staff to prepare ordinances and continue the public hearing to the Feb. 6 meeting.
Julie H., a citizen of Benicia, sent a letter to the council expressing her opposition to the deregulation of cannabis ordinances.
“I am extremely disappointed that our conservative values town is even considering being one of the first to bring something so potentially harmful within reach of so many citizens-all for the sake of money,” she wrote. “If you vote this in, you can consider my vote for you in the future as a NO.”
Meanwhile, resident Marnix van Ammers wrote in favor of cannabis dispensaries.
“Because cannabis has long been demonized and associated with criminals, I understand the reluctance to initially allow cannabis stores on First Street,” he wrote. “But to disallow cannabis stores anywhere in Benicia is not going to do anything positive. On the other hand, having a cannabis store somewhere in Benicia (e.g., Industrial Park) would provide much needed extra revenue for the city.”
In consent calendar matters the council will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of a 45-day interim urgency ordinance prohibiting construction or placement of unattended
donation bins for charity or profit within the city of Benicia after determining it is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act.
It is recommended by staff the council adopt the ordinance to allow time for the city to consider appropriate zoning regulations, after determining it is exempt from CEQA. A four/fifths vote would be required to adopt the ordinance. Staff determined there will be no impact on the city’s General Fund revenue.
The council will meet at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in a closed session to discuss legal matters. The regular meeting will start at 7 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 250 East L St.
A live stream of the council meeting can also be found online at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.
Sharing is caring!
Our Raley’s was the scene of a violent robbery this week, by two bold criminals that simply loaded up a shopping cart with energy drinks and attempted to leave. They were eventually detained by the loss prevention officer until BPD arrival. Last year about this same time frame, Vallejo experienced two identical MO robberies of energy drinks in shopping carts and running for the doors, One at the now-closed Raley’s and the other at Safeway. Internet info indicates energy drinks are hot items of the dark market. Is there a dark market for energy drink sales to youth of Benicia? There must be, because the youth themselves admit to consuming energy drinks during the day and consuming cannabis edibles in the evening to help them sleep. This directly from a Benicia Youth Action Coalition study that also indicates cannabis is “sold openly” at BHS. The district should get a handle on energy drink consumption by youth and the popularity of cannabis as a sleep aid will go down accordingly.
Weak defense.
“This Colorado city declined to allow pot sales. Now it’s having second thoughts”:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-springs-marijuana-20171215-htmlstory.html
This is a time of historic national cultural shift about cannabis. The polls are showing it, election results across the nation are proving it. Savvy conservative-labeled pols are discarding the old hard line stance against cannabis and winning elections. Even Orinn Hatch wants more research about cannabis and for government to get out of the way. Others have no problem with regulated cannabis.
I am not surprised at the interest now being shown by Colorado Springs, home of the Air Force Academy and historically deeply conservative. But now they too are seeing their neighboring cities reaping the benefits of regulated cannabis while experiencing none of the foreboding warnings from prohibitionists about crime, cost to regulate, increased youth stoners, etc.
We have four good votes for regulated cannabis in Benicia. We have the League of California Cities and California Police Chief’s Association supporting unrestricted regulated activity, and in fact were instrumental in crafting the present legislation, SB-94, that brought us MAUCRSA. We have example over example of regulating cities counting the money pouring in and improving their communities.
Councilman Hughes has no chance of re-election if he runs next year. Councilman Schwartzman is guaranteed re-election because he will have ten thousand plus voters that share his views on regulated cannabis. Strawbridge cannot win, nor can Largaespada, especially since he was the only candidate last time in support of CBR (Largaespada is undeclared at this time, but expected to announce.) I thought it was constitutionally out of place for the Economic Development Board to recommend a safe zone around churches. No religious assembly in town has asked the City to protect them from cannabis with an exclusion zone.
Stan this is about Benicia. You are wrong on Hughes and Schwartzman. Hughes wins and Schwartzman will not run. The political spring board goes to both Hughes and Largaespada. It is only about Benicia. All your glamour profiling will not change that. It also could hurt Mayor Patterson and Vice Mayor young on a yes vote. We shall see. Are you going to show up on Tuesday Stan?
Sixteen days and counting.
None of the anti-cannabis assembly has offered an alternate path to improved fiscal health in our city. We have heard calls for service reductions and the classic “something else” to fend off regulated cannabis. This is an economic plan being considered and very likely to be implemented. Next November, we will be voting on an added local tax that will be overwhelmingly supported. Vallejo residents approved an added tax back in 2011 by a whopping 76 percent. We need sustained new revenue to stop the loss of senior staff and fully fund all services without added burden being placed on residents. We will have three beneficial streams of revenue following regulated cannabis. We will get grants from the state depending on how much excise tax we generate. The chances of anyone with persistent anti-regulation views to be elected next year are slim enough now but will be compounded by being on the ballot with the tax measure. I notice that a lot of the voices in opposition are the same people that have spoken in support of Valero, with a lot of them citing the relationship to our GF and their community grants. This is all very good from a fiscal perspective, but you have to consider the long game. A cannabis-based economy will be here forever, that cannot be said about Valero. It’s that simple.
The prohibitionists are down to the last few complainers about sales in Benicia. Small town charm, with a filthy refinery? Please! I notice the complainers are pretty much the local stooges for Valero.
I do not think I am a STOOGE for Valero. If you are referring to me I expect an apology. Thank you.
Was the refinery in Benicia when you moved to Benicia”? That would be an interesting comment from you. If it was already here, why did you choose to move to Benicia. Please give us an answer. Thank you. I love being a supporter of Valero.
We can put a DMUMP amendment on the same ballot and put the First Street issue to bed.
You are wrong Stan. Cannabis excise tax should only be on manufacturing, distribution etc that can be done at the present industrial park and the Siino property. That is where the money is not in retail cannabis sales. Any candidate that is against retail cannabis has already out run your 10,000 votes. Any candidate that is pro retail cannabis sales will lose. The glamour is not selling well Stan. You can buy medical/recreational cannabis very close by. Not a big issue.
With that comment Stan I just may now run for City Council just to prove you wrong. I notice you are not saying you will run. Just who is on your preferred list. Craig Snider, Birdseye?
13
I think the majority of Benicians choose not to have pot openly sold in the city. They completely understand it’s legal. They understand tax money may be related to the sales of the drug. But the majority may not want it grown and sold here.
If that is the choice of the citizens, so be it.
But a clear majority of Benicians voted in favor of legalization. If they are now saying yes, I’m for legalization but not in my beautiful little town then they are either severely misinformed or very idealistic. If it’s legal it’s legal. It is the height of hypocrisy to say make it legal, but not here.
Nonsense. Most people support alcohol sales, but very few want a bar or liquor store in their neighborhoods. Many people are ok with gambling but absolutely opposed to casinos or racetracks in their community, I think making marijuana legal was fine, but that doesn’t mean I voted for stores in Benicia, That was not on the ballot at all, The ballot measure left sales up to the local governments; it did not mandate it be allowed everywhere or anywhere. It is legal, I am fine with that. That is different from sales locations. Completely different issue.
Great reply. Agree 100%. I, too, support legalization. But don’t want a cannabis store in my neighborhood or 1st Street.
And I say if I can walk into a store and buy alcohol or tobacco then I should be able to walk into that same store and purchase cannabis, if the store owner wants to sell it.
You will still be able to buy recreational cannabis very close by. Is that a problem. Maybe just not in Benicia, for sure First Street.
As it has been pointed out repeatedly… you will be able to find the drugs anyway. They are prevalent everywhere.
I think this debate has evolved. It appears it started with decriminalization/legalization (concluded) to now, total acceptance by the entire population. It appears that John is not satisfied with mere legalization and availability, he must have total acceptance of his ideas on the subject. Sadly for many, while the drug is now legal it may not be available at every market or store. But, it is readily available and legal. Why is that not good enough?
Stan what is your take on the tainted recreational cannabis that will be sold after Jan.; 1., 2018. It is not at present fully regulated. What say you Stan.