Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Summary and analysis of Benicia City Council’s compromise and reversal of retail cannabis ban

By Craig Snider, Benicia, June 19, 2019

The meeting went about the same as the last few.

The same string of opponents highlighted the same issues as before.  Who knew (?!) that…

    • administering cannabis retail will cost a city nearly $1,000,000 per year,
    • kids should not smoke weed,
    • you could turn into a murderer of old ladies if you smoke pot,
    • a cannabis shop could get robbed at gunpoint with dire consequences,
    • crime skyrockets in towns with cannabis shops,
    • home values will plummet by $100,000-$200,000 in the vicinity of a cannabis shop,
    • the presence of even one cannabis store will destroy a town’s reputation and send it on the road to ruin,
    • the black markets will persist despite the presence of legal cannabis stores, etc., etc.

The pro-retail cast of characters was smaller than past meetings, and continued to refute the outrageous claims of the Reefer Madness crowd.  I’m guessing many are simply suffering from CMF (Cannabis Meeting Fatigue).

I presented the petitions with 593 signatures.  About half came from the online benicacannabis.org.   The Council asked me about next steps and I said we were encouraged by the ease of a handful of folks gathering so many signatures in just two weeks, and would likely move forward with a ballot initiative if a retail ban were enacted.

Not surprisingly, Largaespada and Strawbridge were unmoved by any sort of argument.  They are both aligned with the Reefer Madness crowd and unwilling to view the issue objectively.

As demonstrated often in the past, Tom Campbell sought a compromise position and to his credit, decided to honor the current process by “grandfathering in” the nine applicants under the Feb. 20, 2018, ordinance; but awarding just one permit (not two).  In a nod to the anti-retail crowd, he agreed to impose more restrictive buffers around parks, etc. for any future retail cannabis applicants.  This was a compromise on Tom’s part because throughout the process he’s been steadfast in restricting retail to the industrial park.

Personally, I was disappointed that we won’t have two locations.  From a business perspective, with a goal of fostering successful small businesses in Benicia, it would be better to have some competition and, if one fails, the other would hopefully succeed.  On the other hand, one store will still be competing with the well-greased Vallejo contingent and a single store might be more likely to succeed in the more limited Benicia and vicinity market.

Of note was the discussion of administrative costs to the City.  The council peppered city staff with questions about cost, especially after Largaespada suggested it run over half a million dollars. City staff consistently stated they didn’t know, but that it would not differ much from other businesses.  Staff deferred to Chief Upson, who suggested they would likely hire a contractor to do periodic compliance checks regarding security and operations for two cannabis shops.  He suggested the cost could be as high as half an employee-year, but he would contract that work at significantly less that the cost of a police officer.   He thought it could run $30,000 per year for the contract.  With only one retail store, the cost would, of course, be much less.

Craig Snider

Benicia City Council reverses cannabis ban – votes to approve one retail outlet

Brief report by email from City Council member Steve Young this morning:

“The Council voted 3-2, (Largaespada and Strawbridge opposed) to allow for one retail dispensary. Staff was directed to rank order the applications and to present to Planning Commission for action. If the Planning Commission approves one of the nine existing applications, after review of all relevant issues (parking, security, etc.), the choice can be called up by the City Council for final approval. The result was a compromise.”

Steve Young: Benicia City Council to consider re-writing cannabis rules on May 7

[Editor: Attend City Council on May 7 if at all possible.  This is an issue of fairness and could affect Benicia’s economic viability and reputation.  If you can’t attend, check out How to write to Council and staff.  – R.S.]

By Steve Young, Benicia City Council member
Steve Young, Benicia City Council

On May 7, the City Council will consider a proposal by Councilman Largaespada to expand the buffer zones around cannabis dispensaries. The proposed changes would, if adopted, add buffer zones around any day care center (or places where kids congregate), park, or any residential zone.  If adopted by the Council, the practical effect would be to eliminate virtually all retail locations in the City.

Cannabis issues have been on the ballot twice recently. In 2016, Benicians voted 63% in favor of Prop. 64 which legalized personal use of cannabis by adults. In 2018, Benicians voted 68% in favor of letting the Council impose excise taxes on cannabis businesses (which we did last December). The current rules, adopted by the previous Council after more than 18 hearings and dozens of hours of testimony, limited cannabis dispensaries to just a few commercial areas in the City. The Council eliminated First Street and all of downtown, as well as all of the Southhampton shopping center. We also limited the number of dispensaries to just two.

When we finally opened up the application process last fall, we had 9 applicants for these two possible permits. Applicants were required to pay the City $20,000 each for processing their application, including for a Public Safety License to be issued by the Police Department after significant vetting of the applicants. In addition, the applicants were required to show some form of site control. This required them to rent or lease, or obtain an option to lease,  commercial space at significant costs while waiting for the City to finally recommend which applicants were recommended to move forward to the Planning Commission to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). (Some applicants have reported absorbing over $100,000 in costs each.)

In my opinion, regardless of how you feel about cannabis, it is fundamentally unfair to treat these businesses in this manner.  They have followed all the rules set forth by the City in August,  paid substantial fees to the City and even more to rent vacant space, and have waited over 9 months for the City to act on their applications.  It is simply not fair or equitable, at this late date,  to have the City change the rules in the middle of the game.

If you are interested in this topic, please attend the Council meeting on May 7 or let the Council know about your opinions.

Benicia City Council to consider updated Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) on April 16

April 10, 2019

Council receives report and recommendation from staff, will discuss and vote on Tues April 16

The agenda for the Benicia City Council meeting of Tuesday, April 16 was distributed to the public today.

A very important issue will be under consideration: the much-needed update to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), complete with an emergency evacuation plan and plans for mass care and shelter.

The staff report gives a very brief overview and details the process by which the update was developed.  At the end of the report are these very important links to the heart of the EOP:

1. Resolution [this is just the wheras’s and therefores…]
2. EOP Volume I – Basic Plan – https://tinyurl.com/y5o85k8b
3. EOP Volume II – Emergency Operations Center Guidance – https://tinyurl.com/y4fhyk3l
4. Annexes
a. Dam Failure – https://tinyurl.com/yyuauq2e
b. Evacuation – https://tinyurl.com/yxfg3gwv
c. Mass Care & Shelter – https://tinyurl.com/y69axyqt
d. Public Information – https://tinyurl.com/yxqyuayd

All of these documents are searchable.  You might find it interesting, for instance, to search each of them on the word “refinery” or “smoke.”