Speaker 3: Again, due diligence states that it's I find it very odd to say the least. And the reason why is in the oral part of the process, you really want to delve down to a level of granularity that will inform the panel members. And so to play this out, in the case of what's in front of us tonight, the panel might want to select to ask specific questions about somebodys background with their financing, specific questions about their abilities, that of businesses they've run in the past. Specific questions if they even know what's in their application or simply wrote a check to a third party to write the application. In this way, what we're doing is we're really digging down. So I would encourage you and see the time assured. I hope you allow me a few seconds extra for that process before, but I encourage you to a ask staff to name the fifth person in the voting from what department so we can understand. I certainly hope it would not be the chief of police back into the process as spoken to before. Secondly, I would ask that, is this a normal RFP process line that the city shall refrain from conducting outside research, or is it unique to cannabis RFP if it is standard boilerplate language that scares me for the city, if it's unique to the RFP for cannabis, I'd be very interested as to why. And lastly, I'd encourage you to open up the questioning to be not only the same questions for everybody, but allow the selected panel to delve in as they think is best. So I was able to do it in 6 minutes. Anyway, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Brian Bradley and the Bill Read.
Speaker 3: That evening. My name is Brian Bradley. I am the chief laboratory officer for Steep Hill, a cannabis testing laboratory. My wife and I recently moved to Alameda, but we lived in Alameda in the 1980s and 1990s. We bought our first house here. Our kids went to Otis Elementary School. My wife taught school at Saint Philip Neri. We consider ourselves. Longtime Alameda residents have just been separated for some period of time when we come back home. The reason we left was because my job left. And the reason we're coming back is because Steep Hill is looking at Alameda as the site for a new laboratory. I've never been a cannabis user in my life, but I believe that the attempts to ban cannabis, like the attempts to ban alcohol, caused more problems than it solved. Steep hill is primarily in the business to help regulate and make cannabis products safe for the end consumer. That's our sole job. We work with the state to set up regulations. We work with the state to help enforce the regulations. We would love to make our company a part of the Alameda community. We found a potential laboratory site in Marina Village. It's been empty for about 8 to 10 years. We want to recondition it and use it for our own. That takes some significant amount of time. And as you've already referenced, the state has deadlines set up for when they need operations to start. We want to comply with whatever RFP process that you put in place. We just find ourselves in a significant time constraint trying to be able to comply with the state and with the process that you want to put in place. So believe me, we would love to become part of your community. We expect to hire approximately 200 people in the first year of operation and probably a total of 400 by the time we're fully staffed. Right now, we have 10% of our employees as Alameda residents and another 41% as residents of the East Bay as a whole. We expect to be we currently have average salaries of about 85,000, but we hire people everywhere, from dishwashers to people with graduate degrees in law and science and elsewhere. So we would be a major contributor to the island's community, a major contributor to the economy. Our people use the entertainment, the food businesses, the business support businesses in the area as well. I think that we can make that contribution if you give us the chance. Our problem is time. And we hope that you can help us with that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: If you.
Speaker 0: Still read. And then Thomas Blank.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Phil Red. You're a local cannabis activist and I hope everyone has a fun and safe.
Speaker 4: For 20 celebration.
Speaker 3: This Friday. I ask everyone here who voted. Ask everyone who voted against access to cannabis to please recuse themselves from this process.
Speaker 9: Their views have not really.
Speaker 3: Evolved and there is nothing preventing them from trying to prevent or exploit the success of our industry. I see what happens when Trump lets people who want to dismantle an industry are the same people put in charge to regulate it. I would sleep a lot easier if only cannabis friendly people were participating in the guidelines from this point on. And of course, I would like to shine a spotlight on the most anti cannabis members on the board Marilyn Ashcraft and Frank Maher. Easy, that is all. Thank you very much. Goodnight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Thomas Blanc. And then Suzanne Blanc.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Thomas Blanc. I'm a Ph.D..
Speaker 8: In analytical chemistry. I'm a Ph.D. and a little chemist. I work for Stepper Labs.
Speaker 3: I'm a grandfather of.
Speaker 8: Four, soon to be five. And I have two kids. And none of my kids smoke cannabis.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's their choice because they were raised to know that at a young age, it's not a good idea. It's like alcohol. It's not a good idea at a young age. And what I'd like to do is appeal to people here today.
Speaker 8: That another thing I see with young people and I worry for my kids is where are the jobs.
Speaker 3: Coming from? Where are the jobs that pay coming from in the East Bay? Where are they coming from? How are these people? How are these kids going to be able to grow up and stay here? This is a very.
Speaker 8: Dynamic and powerful industry.
Speaker 3: The labs are going to supply jobs that are getting close to six figures on average, and kids will be able to be employed in some of these areas.
Speaker 8: And if they get the right background, they're learn all kinds of skills that are.
Speaker 3: Almost forensics in nature. We deal with the safety of cannabis, heavy metals, pesticides. These are key areas which we think are absolutely necessary and it needs to go forward. We'd like to do it in Alameda. We live in Alameda since September. We love to stay here, too. We love the town. It's a very friendly for families town.
Speaker 8: And I like the quiet. The people are courteous. So I'd like to again.
Speaker 3: I'm going to back about Brian said is that we're getting pushed by the state we have to expand our capacity if we can't get this you know, expanded capacity in time for when the business flow comes in, we're going to have to rent another lab somewhere.
Speaker 8: Else. Okay. You know, this is.
Speaker 3: The way if we have capacity and business that we're getting, then we can't we can't do anything about it.
Speaker 8: We'll just have to expand and.
Speaker 3: Make another decision. This is the first choice. I love the community. Our are the jobs we're bringing are about safety.
Speaker 8: Safety of people, which in the future, heavy metals and pesticides. This is all going to impact our health care system. So I would say right now, a forward looking person would say, we've got to cut this out now.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Suzanne Lenk and then Kathy Bean at Warner. And Emily Richardson, if you want to speak on this item, please submit your slips now.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Suzanne Plank. I also work at Steep Hill Labs. I'm a lab technician. I'm also a registered nurse for 30 years. I think people should take time to find out the true medical benefits of cannabis. And at Steep Hill, we spend a lot of our time testing for pesticides and other things, microbes and things that might be harmful to patients. My main concern is patients and the state deadlines and we need to move fast. And we've been living here in Alameda for us since September. It's a beautiful place, a wonderful place to live and would love for our company to be able.
Speaker 3: To move.
Speaker 1: Here if possible. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Emily Richardson.
Speaker 2: F.
Speaker 1: F. Thank you. I'm the cleanup for a steep hill, but I'm honored to be here with a colleague, but also a competitor. And it's very rare for colleagues and competitors from different in the same industry to to be here today. And Emily's going to speak right after me. But between Emily and Steep Hill, we represent CW Labs. We represent the two oldest and most prestigious labs, probably in the United States. And we both want to come to Alameda, but we want to come to Alameda. We identified space, this 40,000 square foot space that you all know that we're looking at, Emily's identified space that's empty and available and ready to go. We have to be up and testing on July 1st to protect public safety. We are mandated by the state to do that. So if we can't move as quickly as possible to get in here, you guys have made the decision to bring in cannabis businesses, if only CW and Steep Hill end up being the two labs that apply to you. We're here to just beg you to move as fast as you can, because, again, we represent public safety. We we don't represent foot traffic. We represent good jobs. And we want to be here and the spaces available. And it's and it's been empty for. In our case, ten years. I think in Emily's case, I'll let her address it. But please consider labs a little bit separately if you possibly can. Several other communities throughout the state have done this. They've carved labs out of the traditional RFP or decision process. If there's any way you can do that, you will be helping the state of California greatly. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now, Emily Richardson.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 7: I am a member or a resident of Alameda. I'm the vice president of CW Analytical. As Kathy said, we're here proudly shoulder to shoulder to really appeal for timeliness with laboratories. You know, as you've heard tonight, we're different or different from other cannabis businesses. We're not selling, we're not producing, we're not distributing or testing in our current location. We're bursting at the seams. So we want to hire more people. We need to bring in more equipment to meet the demand that the state requires. There's currently only 28 licensed laboratories in the state of California to serve the entire state. Steep Hill and CW are two of those 28. In order to really support the state and the public health and safety of consumers using these products.
Speaker 1: We need to we need to grow. We have a beautiful, beautiful space.
Speaker 7: That we literally talk and dream about every day on Bay Farm Island. And a landlord who's fully in support, who's a dentist, a longtime resident of Alameda, who wants us there, who's trying to wait for us as long as possible. As this process continues, I have no doubt in my mind that we will 100% fulfill any of the qualifications on the RFP. We're not worried about that at all. It's the timeline that's really concerning, and I'm really appealing to you to provide some sort.
Speaker 1: Of carve out, raise the cap.
Speaker 7: On labs. There is not the city is not going to be overrun with laboratories. There's only so much laboratory space you're allowing for for manufacturing facilities. I don't know why there shouldn't be a limit on labs. So, you know, it's not to get in there to reduce competition. We're all in support of that. Just please, if there's any way that we can speed along, the laboratory process.
Speaker 1: Would help.
Speaker 7: The state of California. We're in contact with the bureau every day. They're really concerned about capacity issues and we want to grow, bring on more staff, well-paying jobs, all that. So thank you so much for your time and thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So she's our last speaker. I'd like to ask staff if you could address the issue in regards to the process for labs, if you have any ideas of what we can do to try to accommodate.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 1: Our ordinance doesn't require that we include them in the RFP process. It was just direction of council. So it gives you an alternative to say that they could just apply when our application is ready for for lab space. I do want to disclose, though, that I have had three laboratories contact me and you have slots for two.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if we wanted to increase the number of labs that.
Speaker 1: We would have to do that by ordinance. We would have to come back to you and we could do that fairly quickly within, I guess, a month and do that. We can do a first come, first serve as well. On the application. But I do know that we have three. Okay. Interested?
Speaker 0: Okay. I wanted to follow up in regards to these other questions and issues that were raised the the opening on in regards to who's participating from staff.
Speaker 1: The list of who's participating for staff is in the staff report. What we did not do is put it in the regulations. The reason we didn't put it in the regulations was because if a staff is decides to take another job, for example, we would have to come back to you and change that name. This way we would we would be able to get someone in a similar capacity to to serve on the the panel.
Speaker 0: And could you describe but from the staff report what the proposal is currently. But the plan is.
Speaker 1: Yes. So technical support to the panel. Lord Butler, myself. Real estate. Property management. That would be Nanette McConnell.
Speaker 6: By the way, if you want to follow along on people, it's pages four and five of the staff report.
Speaker 1: And finance. It would be the finance services manager, Edwin Catto, a planning person. The City Council asked for a planning person that would be Kathleen Livermore, and she she's a part timer. And then the other city department and related to cannabis is Liam Galan with Public Works. And I missed one for him is health. That would be Jackie Cross with Mastic. She's a manager in the senior center.
Speaker 0: Let me let me finish. And then I'm going to go to other councilmembers the first. Okay. So I want to just make sure that everyone that spoke on that issue understands. You can you can go to the staff report and you can see who at this point we are planning to go forward with ever, as Lois explained , that we in regards to the RFP itself, it would not have or the ordinance itself, it does not include those names so that it does allow for change. If, if, you know, if if it works out that we need to do that in regards to the prohibition, to researching during the process, you want to speak to that
Speaker 1: ? I think the thought on that was that we didn't want the panelists to be biased by doing a lot of outside research, comparing one to another. And so we limited it to no research so that people could evaluate the proposals on their merit.
Speaker 0: And now if they if questions came up during the process between the of the panelists, is there an opportunity for them to, for instance, speak to you to say, we think we need more information on some issue and get that? Is there any. And the ability to do anything like that.
Speaker 1: Is not the way it's proposed.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then is that unique to cannabis, this ordinance, or is that the way we always do if we have to do a selection?
Speaker 1: It it we we do it different ways depending on on the situation. This is pretty unique in this case. It's actually a standard. We typically don't ask for additional outside research. We want the proposals to stand on their own merits. We want the proposals to be evaluated on the basis by which they are submitted. And we don't want panelists doing additional research because part of what we want to know is that people put their best foot forward, they did a complete application or they didn't, and they're going to be evaluated on that basis. And that is the way we conduct our request for proposals for all kinds of contractual services. That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then in regards to questions that goes to the same I assume the same answer if that we do, in fact, want to keep the same questions for all applicants.
Speaker 1: Yes. We do want to keep the same questions for all applicants. And just to clarify what I was saying, we normally do research on when we put out request for proposals. So this is unique. So we research who we put it out to.
Speaker 4: Okay. And also, madam, if I might, as far as answering questions, we can ask follow on questions, but we typically like to have the standard questions. Everybody gets the same question, but as the candidate answers the questions, if we have questions, we, you know, the panelists subsequently want to ask something, follow on. He will do that as a clarification. But we like to have standard questions so it's fair for everybody.
Speaker 0: Okay. So so then I do want to clarify that because that was not my understanding from reading it. Are you allowed to do follow up questions, calling them clarifying questions or some other kind of question? Now that we've.
Speaker 1: Set up the questions for the oral interview is that they are standard questions and there may be a clarification follow up, but there's not going to be extensive follow on questions. It's really intended to clarify. That was the intent of the staff and the committee's work. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Then I want to also just express my opinion that I am I personally do not support having a cap on labs. I know that that is part of the ordinance I'm absolutely interested in at some point as soon as possible, honestly bringing it back. I do see it as a public health and safety issue as well as a job issue. And I would also appreciate if we could, working with council members, figure out a way to expedite the process for the labs. And I appreciate that we apparently have three. I think it's unfortunate that we do have a cap on that. I would hope that my colleagues would be interested in trying to figure out how to address that. And then I'm going to go to vice mayor.
Speaker 7: So a couple of follow up questions. Regarding the list of the staff participating. If the staff. There was no member of public safety listed, correct? Correct. Didn't hear one. And so if a staff member leaves, they wouldn't be replaced with somebody from public safety.
Speaker 1: Right? They would be replaced with someone in these categories.
Speaker 7: In the same categories. I just want to make that clear for the record, for anybody who had any questions out there. Our intent is not because it was there was a question about whether or not our intent was to kind of slide something in that wasn't listed in that. That is not the intent. With regards to the lab, is it? You know, if we did an RFP, is it possible to expedite it based off of what's provided without kind of rewriting everything? I mean, is there a way to kind of separate it out and do an RFP that would be on an, you know, in an expedited manner because of the time sensitivity? And I see John and.
Speaker 1: Debbie getting up went over. We were caucusing a little bit about this and we believe that there if there's an interest in expediting this, we could make a simple revision to the regulations where we talk about a master RFP process, and we could do this at a raise to carve out the lab and run a more streamlined or expedited process, if that's the desire. Or we could open it, shorten the timeframe, or we could sort of have a first come, first serve, submit your application, your operator's application. And we could evaluate the actual operator's application because this RFP is set up to award businesses with the privilege of applying for an operator's permit. So we could, for the labs, streamline that and go directly to an application for an operator's permit. Mm hmm. Is one option? Or we could do a streamlined RFP process.
Speaker 7: Okay. And my question or my concern relative to you moving to a first come first serve, is the notice involved in that? And whether or not we set ourselves up there to potential applicants here tonight, there's one that isn't, but there's one another one that you know of. Are we setting ourselves up to get sued, which would then slow down the process if we switch?
Speaker 1: Well, we're not legally obligated to use an RFP process to award a limited number of permits. It's something that I think the council felt was a fair and equitable process. But if we have the contact information for the the other lab, we can certainly outreach to them and then let them know that the process, if the process is changed this evening, we could certainly do that. We're also planning to placing an ad in the paper next week, letting folks know that the RFP is available and we can still move forward with with that kind of outreach. But we don't have a legal obligation to do this RFP process. I think it's what the Council felt was a fair and equitable way to award limited permits. A number of jurisdictions reserved their RFP process strictly for the dispensaries and didn't undertake an RFP process, even though they limited, for example, in San Leandro, they're capped at five manufacturers and they just do it first. It's kind of, you know, the process is just come in, fill out your your application and go through the process. Sometimes there's more interest in doing this process for the dispensaries. The council was interested in looking at all of the capped business categories, but I think people didn't anticipate maybe the length of time and then the July one start up and some of the other issues surrounding the labs. Okay.
Speaker 7: And I'll just add that I concur with the mayor regarding I think that there's a couple of things in the ordinance that are worth looking at later on, not not tonight, because I do not. My concern would just be delaying this overall process. So, you know, but I am interested in looking at potentially changing some of those numbers and looking at some other portions of it.
Speaker 0: I mean, just follow up. Does that mean in regards to not increasing the cap on the labs? Is that what that meant?
Speaker 7: Well, I I think my concern would be what we heard from staff is that if we increased the cap now, we would be delaying the process. That I would be interested in perhaps having that ordnance come back at a later date to increase the cap or remove it.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 3: Just briefly. So just to follow up on the vice mayor's comment, so this other city department, are we keeping that other city department or are we actually going to say, for example, public works and that's where it is right now.
Speaker 1: It would stay public works. Our intent is to keep this list as it is.
Speaker 3: Okay. I mean, just to follow up on those points, I mean, the state has an interest and I think also everyone that lives here has an interest in having a safe supply of this product. So. I mean, I could go either way, depending on on where my colleagues are. But if we think we can either raise the cap or remove the cap on labs and do some type of first come, first serve, my concern was when it was just too that it'd be like the first one to the first floor permit counter and then they would be the ones that would get it when, you know , maybe we would need a little bit more evaluation. So I mean, if it's possible to do it that way or if it's possible, I don't know if it's possible for them to get permits, even if we did accelerate the make one suggestion. So of course, John. So just to clarify, sorry, I want to start from the beginning. It is true that nothing in the ordinance requires us to use an RFP. What we've done or you have before, you are implementing regulations to implement a portion of the ordinance and that portion is the cap. So you've got in the ordinance language about a cap. Now you have to decide how you want to implement that cap, who gets in and who doesn't get in. And that's what the implementing regs are for. I see two options that are possible, both of which have been already announced. One is to raise the cap. The problem that I see with raising the cap is one it causes it may cause some delay. The other one that hasn't been stated is if you go to raise the cap, can't do it tonight because it's not been noticed. You'd have to do it at another meeting, you a first in a second, and then once you do that, you could raise the cap to three. But then suddenly you have four people now and then you have the same problem.
Speaker 0: So sure, we even need a cap for the second.
Speaker 3: I think so. Then the floor. So then the second alternative excuse me is to. Take the current implementing regulations, make an amendment to it so that the language that talks about having a single master IRP for all cannabis businesses. But instead take that and carve out perhaps testing laboratories to follow a different RFP process. And the only difference is it's on a more compressed schedule. So that's a possibility that you might want to consider.
Speaker 1: And, you know, I would just suggest that we add a schedule to the RFP for the laboratories to make that more compressed. We we take some time out of that. And so we don't have to redo an RFP. Just add a special schedule for the labs. Okay, I can sit down. If I could get a minute and come back up here and tell you where we can reduce the schedule. So I'll let Debbie talk while you have other questions, and I'll look at the schedule right now and try to get a recommendation to you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Because I think the rest of my question, John or Debbie, whoever wants to answer it, you know, even under a compressed RFP, would we have time to select people that are eligible for a permit, get them to apply for a permit, and have the permit approved in time for them to meet whatever state deadline they're doing
Speaker 1: . So that's the concern that I have, because if you remember, the process under the ordinance is that there's an operator's permit as well as a land use permit. So I'm not sure that I mean, July one is not very far away. And I'm not sure that even with the compressed schedule for an RFP, you can get through the operator's permit and then the land use permit. It's a sequential process so that you may want to consider if the goal is really to meet that July deadline that you, whoever comes in with their completed operators, permit application. First we start processing. If someone comes in with a second completed application, if they come in if for any reason, we get them simultaneously. I mean, we can date, you know, we can date and time stamp. And if whoever is deemed complete first because we will, that's the first thing we'll do is to determine whether or not there's a completed application. So, I mean, Lois may take a hard look at the timeline and say, well, we can cut to three weeks, but I don't think. That plus the operator's permit, plus the land use permit and all the noticing that goes with that, you know, like a land use permit in front of a planning board that is without really looking at that deadline that just standing here, it that's going to be tight.
Speaker 3: So in your opinion, because we rely on your opinion or your recommendation, you know what, this is a priority. So for me to make sure we can have these folks that are actually ready to go up and running by July 1st. I mean, what is your suggestion as the best possible way to do that?
Speaker 1: And if you recall, back in December, staff's recommendation was that we well.
Speaker 3: That we didn't.
Speaker 1: Do so. So tell us what we need to do. I would say start feeling sorry.
Speaker 3: I thought I'm yeah, I would.
Speaker 1: Say that even on that given that where we were. Staff feels comfortable with a first come first serve with the labs on a you know demeanor the complete applications and and processing those.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Miss Potter.
Speaker 0: So I just found out, do you need a motion to do something like that or direction? What would you like that to look like?
Speaker 1: You were going to want to.
Speaker 6: I speak to mayor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think we are going to need an amendment to the implementing regs that are before you this evening to carve out the labs and then to to direct us to do something different.
Speaker 0: Is someone keeping track of all these amendments that you may be? That, right? Yes. Someone's doing that for us. Thank you. Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So I first want to disclose that I have actually visited Steep Hill in Berkeley and I met all the speakers and I believe I've met Emily too, somewhere along the way because you look very familiar. But I also at the time felt that we were really almost doing the reverse. We allowed two testing labs for manufacturing facilities, and yet every product has to be tested. And as we heard, there's a startling under capacity for labs. So I would want to do whatever we could to to expedite, which it sounds like. Mr. Potter, you're going to give us a suggestion for the best way to do that. I would be tempted to raise the number to at least for the same number of as we have, manufacturing facilities or lift the cap altogether. But everything is in balance or gets out of balance quickly because does that then inundate staff or is that something to be concerned with? So hold that thought or go ahead and answer it now. I've got a couple of other questions.
Speaker 1: So to lift the cap, we would have to come back to the council with an A with an ordinance amending the existing ordinance. So that is also a process that would take us beyond July 1st, most likely. So we could move forward with the two. And if there's a desire and more demand for labs, we could deal with that on a separate track.
Speaker 6: And if and if you were to move forward with the first two you have, could you still get them to be able to meet that July one state deadline?
Speaker 1: If we if we go directly to what we're talking about, a sort of a first come, first serve for your application for your operator's permit. And we just put aside the RFP process and really reserve that for the manufacturers, the nursery and the dispensaries. And then relative to staff time, if you recall, will be coming back to council with a fee study. This program is intended to be revenue neutral and we have the ability to hire additional resources to assist us with with this effort so that we could accommodate the council's desire, if there's a desire to allow more, you know , more operators.
Speaker 6: I appreciate that. And I would certainly be in favor of that because I understand the dilemma the these operators are in. They want to put money into these sites that they've found to get them ready. And yet they don't want to do that until they really know they're going to be able to move forward with the operator's license. So I think it looks like a vote is coming up. But let me just ask a couple of clarifying questions I realized I missed. And this has to do with it's exhibit one, which is your and it's the the resolution. So on page six, it says, okay, it talks about once an award letter is issued, the awardee has 60 days from the date of the awarding letter to apply for a cannabis business permit. Failure to do so may lead to disqualification from further consideration and immediate revocation of the awarded award letter. So my question is, since the language says may lead to disqualification, under what circumstances would failure to apply for the permit in 60 days not lead to disqualification? Does that make it more limited?
Speaker 1: So the intent of this requirement is that we want to compel folks who who land a slot with one of these permits that they actually open the business and don't sit on their permit. So we want there may be extenuating circumstances, like you need a time extension because your tenant improvements aren't happening as quickly. So we might not revoke it in that instance. But if there's been no progress towards getting yourself open, that might be the basis on which we would revoke.
Speaker 6: And is this where the one time you would extend this one time deadline for good? Cause that's, I think, paragraph. Four of Section G says the awardee. Miss. Well, this is Ms.. Secure all the requisite approvals to begin commencement of operations. But the city manager or designee may extend this one year time deadline for good cause. Yes. Okay. All right. So I guess I'll work on a case by case basis at.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Okay.
Speaker 6: That's fine. Okay. Well, I'm a I would like to see what we can do to get more labs and get them in under the state deadline.
Speaker 0: Does that mean that you would be interested in removing the cap or.
Speaker 6: I would actually defer a little bit to staff because there's no point trying to do something quickly if we're going to inundate staff. But I would definitely say bump it up to four and I get you bump it up to four, you get five, but, you know, four labs going. I just I try to be mindful of it's the same staff doing lots of different things.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Okay. Member matter. Thank you.
Speaker 8: But I think the labs are probably the lowest risk of the three segments that are listed. Probably the most important. Because it's quality control. So I think anything we can do to allow. Them to meet that deadline. Is I'm open to and I do want to make sure they're qualified. And I think we lose some of that ability by deflating the RFP process. So that's a balance that I'd like for you to. Tell us how we're going to ensure that we get a real lab there. Present company excepted, but someone who who's capable of doing this and I think it's important that we spend the precious time , we have it at council meetings to launch the program rather than to try and adjust the program, because I just don't see how it's going to happen. Of if we try and redo the ordinance and then get a lab license to have. So how are we going to make sure that we get a qualified laboratory to submit their permits?
Speaker 1: So the RFP process has to distinguish one lab from another or one business from another of the same type. And what the application process does, it further digs into the business, and it has in fact more questions and requirements. And so they have to go through our application process, which we will be providing you a final draft of soon. It's in its final stages, but that's a more rigorous process that.
Speaker 8: I am sorry to interrupt, but I understand that part. But when we have three interests, two.
Speaker 1: It would be first come, first serve.
Speaker 8: Okay. So that's the option you're talking about. Yes. Replacing. That for laboratories, making it first come, first served. And you go through.
Speaker 1: And whoever gets through the process first they get apply on the same exact date. But they may not get through. They may not get through the the process of the application process and the things that they need to do in a timely manner.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, very good. So I would like a staff to look at parallel a parallel path of either increasing the number of labs or removing the cap entirely. To hear back on that issue. And then the other hand, you can implement this because I'm sure I'm going to have a motion.
Speaker 7: So I would like to make a motion to approve with an amendment where we would pull out the labs and do a first come, first serve process for those. And I agree with the mayor regarding having a parallel track to have the ordinance come back to us, because I don't want to stop the process.
Speaker 3: I'll second that. But if if it's possible to modify that because if if we do decide to move it up to four or take it away, and there is a third one that may be like minutes late or whatever, you know, would we still I think we should still should keep that in process because they may have to go through the permitting process and they may be able to be in the middle of it by the time we change.
Speaker 7: And that would still apply if it's first come, first serve. And that's the process that we have in place so long as we update the ordinance.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So we wouldn't like tell them. No, I'm sorry, you can't do anything. Okay, so I'll second that.
Speaker 1: So it's essentially a rolling application, right?
Speaker 0: Just a way to get it going.
Speaker 6: I think there's kind.
Speaker 1: Of.
Speaker 3: I don't have an idea yet of four or zero or four or no caps. Let's come back with that.
Speaker 0: And my preference is no cap on the labs.
Speaker 9: Member.
Speaker 0: Not member matter.
Speaker 8: Can I make sure the motion, if we could split that into two motions first? Yes. Do the first come, first serve and then second to the ordinance? Yes.
Speaker 7: That's not really my preference because we're still in the consent calendar.
Speaker 0: But but my actually my preference when it's 830, I'm happy to end it, you know.
Speaker 7: Okay, I'll I'll do it. But I just don't want this conversation to keep going because it seems great. Okay, fine. That's fine. I'll bifurcating.
Speaker 1: Fractions.
Speaker 6: Different question. Yes.
Speaker 0: So embarrass craft.
Speaker 6: Through the chair and vice mayor. Is it do you also include the streamlining of the the application approval that Mr. Potter was talking about?
Speaker 1: We just talked about first come first come.
Speaker 7: First that what we're voting on.
Speaker 6: Well, okay. But not to go through the whole RFP process.
Speaker 1: But two laboratories would be carved out of the.
Speaker 7: Layers of motion in a second.
Speaker 6: That's what I'm looking for. Okay. Okay. It's included, right.
Speaker 0: So everyone so we're just doing the first part, the first come, first serve now. Right. And Corbin has a crack at us the carbon. Okay although some favor I that part that motion passes unanimously and now the second part of the motion.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 0: To remove or to look at.
Speaker 7: To have staff come back directing staff to come back with the ordinance relative to the cap on the labs to either remove it or increase it. August 2nd in a parallel track.
Speaker 0: All those in favor.
Speaker 8: I know.
Speaker 0: Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I think.
Speaker 1: That want to get through that and then the next the next part of that would.
Speaker 0: Be so I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: We're not done. The next part of that would be to approve the form of the RFP with the NOW. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: Well, I actually need her to finish. I need you to finish your the entire motion so it's clear.
Speaker 1: Okay. It would be to carve out the laboratory from the process.
Speaker 0: Oof! That got you moved, right? Yep. Second, all of them favored by that motion carried unanimously. You guys need anything else on this issue? All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: That item. Thank you very much. So now we are on, I think, five. I think my.
Speaker 2: Recommendation to authorize the acting city manager to execute a cooperative agreement with the Department of Transportation, Caltrans, an amount not to exceed 284,000. For Caltrans to review and approve the project initiation document, which is required by Caltrans, determine the project scope, cost and schedule for the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project and execute a contract with CDM Smith
Recommendation to Approve the Implementing Regulations Governing a Request for Proposals (RFP) Process for Allocating Limited Privilege to Apply for a Cannabis Business Permit and the Request for Proposals. (City Manager 1010)