City of Benicia releases carefully worded cannabis update

PRESS RELEASE
CITY OF BENICIA
City Manager
250 East L Street, Benicia, California 94510
Contact: Lorie Tinfow, City Manager, (707) 746-4200, ltinfow@ci.benicia.ca.us

City of Benicia Stays on Path to Allow Retail Cannabis Business

Number of businesses reduced to one that will be selected from existing set of nine proposals.

Benicia, CA (June 20, 2019) — On June 18, 2019, the City Council for the City of Benicia held a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 17 of the Benicia Municipal Code regarding cannabis. The City Council did not approve any amendments to the Benicia Municipal Code regarding cannabis during this hearing. Instead, on a motion of Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, seconded by Councilmember Steve Young, the City Council approved, on a 3-2 vote, to direct City staff to draft and submit to the Planning Commission and City Council an ordinance which amends Chapter 17.84 (Cannabis) of the Benicia Municipal Code as follows:

  1. Reduce the number of permitted cannabis retail businesses in the City from two to one. The existing nine cannabis retail business applicants would be subject to all requirements of the existing cannabis ordinance.
  2. Amend the existing definition of “school” to clarify that education provided is consistent with State curriculum standards.
  3. Prohibit all future applicants for retail cannabis businesses from locating within 600 feet of a child care center, youth center, learning center, residential zone or public park that is in existence at the time the use permit for a cannabis business is issued.

In addition, City staff will draft for City Council review and action, a resolution which establishes the procedures for issuance of cannabis use permits, including the process for selection of the cannabis retail business.

Because there are multiple steps (including hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council) which must be taken before these amendments can become effective, City staff will continue to put any further review and processing of cannabis retail business applications on hold until it has been determined which ordinance amendments, if any, will become final.

All other types of cannabis businesses—cultivation, testing, manufacturing, distribution, delivery and microbusiness—are allowed subject to adopted conditions.

For more information, contact: City Manager Lorie Tinfow at (707) 746-4200 or ltinfow@ci.benicia.ca.us

###

Canadian Senate passes large tanker traffic ban off British Columbia coast

Breaking: Canadian Senate passes impact assessment act, B.C. tanker ban, arctic drilling moratorium

By Shawn McCarthy and Jesse Snyder, The Energy Mix, June 21, 2019
[Full story: Globe and Mail and National Post]
Max Goessler/Pixabay

The Canadian Senate adopted Bills C-69 and C-48 last night, along with a lower-profile measure enshrining a moratorium on Arctic oil drilling, clearing the way for the country’s new Impact Assessment Act and a federal ban on large tanker traffic off British Columbia’s environmentally sensitive north coast to become law.

“The assault from the oil and gas industry on this legislation was unprecedented,” wrote one observer, but Canada finally has “a new environmental assessment process, and the national energy board has been transformed to a new and improved institution.”

“Better rules will provide certainty to business and show investors that Canada is the best place in the world to invest,” said Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna in a statement last night, reiterating that many of the contentious amendments to both bills had been handcrafted by the fossil lobby before being adopted by compliant but unelected senators.

In the end, “Bill C-48 was passed with only modest amendments, despite efforts by some senators to create a so-called ‘corridor’ that would allow oil tankers to dock in some designated areas,” the National Post reports.

Sen. David Tkachuk (C, SK), the transport committee chair whose conduct of hearings into Bill C-69 became a matter of public discussion among some senators earlier this month, was critical of the vote, the Globe and Mail writes. But Sen. Paula Simons (I, AB), who some said was “harassed” into casting the deciding vote to defeat C-48 in committee, supported the final version of C-69. She tweeted that the 99 amendments the government had adopted, mostly from Independent senators, had “improved it hugely”.

The Post notes as well that Senate adopted the less heavily-debated Bill C-88, amending the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to ban offshore oil drilling in the North.

In December 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “announced a moratorium on offshore oil drilling across all Arctic waters, which the federal government enforced not through legislation but by simply rejecting any new bids for licences or exploration permits, effectively shutting down any would-be resource extraction in the region,” the Post explains. “The updated legislation now provides the federal government the right to enforce the drilling moratorium based on ‘the Canadian interest,’ but does not explicitly define how the threshold will be met.” In June, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett told a Senate committee that Trudeau was concerned about the risk of an oil spill in ecologically sensitive waters.

Massive refinery explosion in Philadelphia

Video shows explosion at Philadelphia oil refinery

CNBC Television, June 21, 2019

Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery is on fire. The refinery located outside Philadelphia is the longest continuously operating refinery on the East Coast. Gas prices are moving upwards on the news.

More:

Benicia cannabis compromise explained in detail

Mary Amey (writing as Manoa Kahalaopuna) has paid close attention to the cannabis controversy in Benicia, posting regularly and in detail on Benicia Nextdoor.  This review (and a second comment far below) is helpful…  

On the June 18 Benicia City Council cannabis decision

By Mary Amey (Manoa Kahalaopuna), Nextdoor

So to explain specifically what happened (there was a lot of back and forth and there was a last minute pivot on the motion to secure Campbell’s vote)…

The motion that passed last night approved ALL of Largaespada’s proposed buffers from the May 7th meeting (600′ around childcare center, youth center, learning center, residential, park – which would ban all appropriately zoned properties), but with the caveat that the the motion would apply to any future dispensary applicants and the existing 9 applicants would be grandfathered in and be allowed to proceed forward under the existing rules that were in place when they applied.

Also, the Council will be allowing 1 retail cannabis license (down from the original 2).

Next step will be the 2nd reading of the ordinance change. Per the Staff Report presented last night, this will occur on July 2nd. So mark your calendars and spread the word! We’ll need as much live in-person support as possible!

It was incredibly frustrating last night is that Largaespada continued to spew misinformation about his buffer zone change claiming all cities have these buffer zones, after I very specifically corrected the record on that item during my statement. His residential buffer zone of 600 feet is the most aggressive buffer zone for residential zones in the Bay Area (and only 2 Bay Area cities with operating dispensaries have such an aggressive residential buffer zone).

And Largaespada showed his true colors by voting against the very buffer zones HE proposed in the first place (just with a compromise to avoid lawsuit). It’s clear he just wants a ban under the guise of him “protecting the people.”

The buffer zones are totally disappointing, but I can accept major compromises needed to be made to prevent an outright ban. And the 9 applications can proceed forward under the old rules for the 1 retail cannabis license, which is a good thing!

[…and a second comment in a later Nextdoor post by Manoa Kahalaopuna…]

There was a lot of discussion regarding clarifying the definition of “schools” in the City Code and adding a 500-600 foot buffer around city public parks. But the Council pivoted at the very last second and modified the motion *right* before the final vote to garner Campbell’s vote because he said he wanted all the buffers (it happened so fast that I missed it last night and had to rewatch the motion this morning after the video was posted online to fully understand the specifics of the motion that was passed).

The motion that was approved was to amend the zoning code to include “all the buffers around the list that we had on the request” (i.e. Largaespada’s full buffer zone list) and “all the applicants would go forward with the hearing process” (i.e. grandfathering existing applicants), and it was further clarified that the new buffers would apply to all future applicants (not existing applicants).

Video below – Fast forward to 4:18.

http://benicia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=3112