The Shasta Lake City Council meeting begins at 6 p.m. and the Record Searchlight will provide live coverage here, starting at about 5:50 p.m.
Seats are filling up. Around 20-25 people in audience, more coming in.
Meeting is beginning. All five council members are present. No action taken in closed session.
Julie Ann Decker, who used medical marijuana to treat skin cancer, welcomes competition. Says city benefits from growth.
Distance isn't as big an issue for him (collective only needs about 100 feet)
Says many make long drive, and those senior citizens and disabled could use a drive through
She also says the fourth collective hasn't filed application
She says she worries about dispensaries effects on the town's image in other communities. Says another dispensary would hurt it. Also, she said she already heard negative comments about SLC from people because of two existing dispensaries.
She says dispensary drive thru no different than using one at a pharmacy to get her mom's painkillers.
Next Watkins asks about what if legal recreational pot passes. Thompson says city would still have power to regulate.
Pam Morgan says she opposes shrinking area where a collective is allowed.
Morgan also wonders how many calls for service for drug sales already at Rite Aid parking lot. Also she counted more people in favor than opposed. She comes out in favor of allowing collective to occupy old Starbucks building.
But she also says owner should be in the dispensary, and be knowledgeable of medical marijuana.
Now Councilman Larry Farr speaking, notes Jamie Kerr recused herself during planning commission vote on dispensary (she runs 530 Collective). Farr said he wanted to ask her about the recent changes to state level medical marijuana and he spoke with her. "I want to be open" he says.
Farr: "Staff recommended approval of this" says seems like commissioners had a view that "with 2 collectives, We've got what we want and we don't want to change it."
Farr says measuring parcel to parcel doesn't mak sense. Should be facility to facility. Carla Thompson says that's how ordinance says to do it. Farr says that distance between collectives wouldn't be big deal to him because depending on how you measure that, it could be over 1,000 feet
Farr now asks about the reasoning behind shrinking area a collective could go into. Part of that relates to less LE patrols, lighting in area of train trestle, Thompson says. Farr says Cal Trans will be putting street lights in there.
Now councilman Richard Kern says there are seven collectives in Redding and Anderson (they're illegal). He said marijuana is abundant in California.Says there is already two collective in SLC. Why do we need a third or fourth, he asks. He says "medical marijuana is readily available. I don't see why we need any more collectives, legal and illegal."
Councilwoman Morgan and Kern praise Kerr who said she told them couldn't discuss it.
Only one business commented, Thompson said (a dental offic). Now mayor Chapman-Sifers speaking. Says she believes "100 percent" in #prop215.
She thinks it should be no different than other medication. But she also hesitates to disagree with planning commission.
She says planning commission shouldn't be deciding if we want another collective, echoing Larry Farr.
Councilwoman Morgan said "what I read completely ignored the staff report" of the commissioners' discussion. She said they do a lot of the hard work. Farr says he doesn't think they ignored report., but commissioners should have been more detailed in discussion of dispensary
Thompson on disapproval of staff recommendation: "I wasn't offended" gets chuckles from audience, council.
Watkins notes the Starbucks location was originally thought of as 3rd possible location when city considered banning them. He says shape of parcel is another reason it is too close to ashby ct
Thompson said moving western edge where collective could go in would limit SLC to 3 collectives. Thompson says she'd prefer, if there was a fourth, she'd prefer it on the eastern side of town. Now audience member is saying it's too close to school.
Board getting ready to vote. To be clear: one issue is a third collective. Another would prevent a fourth one from coming in.
BREAKING: Shasta Lake votes 4-1 to overturn planning commission and allow third collective
That should read SLC council
Now council is voting on changing areas where collectives can operate in the city to prevent any more collectives
Now questions arising as to whether they have an appropriate ordinance
City attorney: "I'm totally confused."
Now council is voting on whether to change law. Passes 5-0 to allow third collective, prevent any more.
Still have to have another reading of ordinance