Speaker 3: certain zoning districts and consider phasing the number of dispensary delivery permits through the request for proposal process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, as I've done in the past, I will recuse myself for this matter, for the reasons stated before. Oh, I guess I have to say more than that, because my house is close to a place that is specifically benefiting from any changes and in my opinion, is not a public generally issue. It's a very narrow issue. And so as a result, I have to recuse myself.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Oh, okay.
Speaker 7: Briefly. Yes, very quick.
Speaker 0: You know, city manager Mike Brooks.
Speaker 7: Because council is is well versed in this whole issue. In November, the council adopted two ordinances, 32, 27 and 3228 concerning regulating cannabis businesses in the city. A complaint was filed under the city's Sunshine Ordinance that the agenda title for these ordinances, when the council first considered their introduction, did not reflect certain provisions in the ordinance that was introduced on October 16th and adopted on November 7th. The Open Government Commission conducted a hearing on the complaint, sustained it and as as a remedy held that the ordinances were deemed null and void, and that the Council may consider re noticing the ordinances following a public hearing on February 19th of this year. Council directed staff to notice a public hearing concerning the repeal of the two ordinances and consideration of the replacement of such ordinances with the same or similar provisions. Those items are before you tonight in the four ordinances that the city clerk has read. The city and the Council may also choose to consider phasing the number of cannabis related dispensary permits through the request for proposal process if it so chooses. I'd be glad to answer any questions concerning this item.
Speaker 0: Any clarifying questions. If none of the no questions now, do we have speakers lips?
Speaker 3: Yes, we have six speakers.
Speaker 0: Six speakers. Okay. So if it's six, then in 3.
Speaker 3: Minutes.
Speaker 0: They should get 3 minutes. Okay.
Speaker 3: If we have one more submitted.
Speaker 1: Gets to.
Speaker 0: Two. Yeah. What comes in the next people go in. Did you get that?
Speaker 3: The first one is Anita Lou and then Johanna Lao. And then I'll read.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Anita Eng. I'm a long term longtime Webster Street business owner located near the proposed dispensary. I understand that the city has spent a great deal of time of bringing this industry into town. But I would like to ask that you provide as much consideration to the business that I have been here as well. Our opinions and voices have not been heard until now. What are the concrete way that the city will enforce our existing no smoking laws on Webster's? People currently sit on benches and smoke, Anderson, and the smoke rose into our business. Murder is dispenser attract more smoking as well. I want to know, how can you make sure no one will buy and step out the store to consume pot in the business district or around the neighborhood? Stay low, banned, consuming marijuana in property and sit up. Alameda banned smoking on Webster Street. But how can we increase compliance with the law? Call the police every time I see or smell something. How soon were the police response? They probably leave before the police come. So how do we know if someone consumed pot on the street inside a car and start to drive home? Is this safe to drive under influence? Wilson is a very busy district and Webster is the main street leading to the tunnel. We have so many cars every day. Do we have extra police officer to enforce the law? Please consider our existing business.
Speaker 6: Residents.
Speaker 1: And pub owners concerned and arise. We want to see Webster Street private businesses and service that are compatible with the children, family and seniors who live there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, Madam Square.
Speaker 3: Oh. Looks like we have one more speaker slip, so we'll lower.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we just went from 3 minutes to 2 minutes per speaker. Yes.
Speaker 3: So the next speaker is Joanna Lao John.
Speaker 0: Hello. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Evening. My name is Joanna. I our person, myself and also international cheating should do. First, I want to qualify that there is a 600 feet buffer zone for all the children in a center. And the second, I would like to ask, is there any way to fulfill the what the requirement of good labor policy? What did the city do to fulfill this kind of requirement? And how can the city fulfill this kind of requirement as well? And number three, the city wants to allow up to two cannabis retailers out of an impact street and also a Webster Street. My simple question is, if we want to serve more people in Alameda, why is only on two grand streets in alameda. Is up to two though often. Why is not. Fairly lay in different location and number four in the city mentioned there is a formula to support that alameda needs 2 to 4 retail stores in Alameda. And my question is this is a business model calculation. What is the credibility and this where does this formula come from? What is it based on? And the fifth item, do we have a budget for regulation or enforcement? And also the costs of immigration, the costs of drug prevention, education. If we don't have a budget gets why we are in was to give out the permits if there is a budget. We are asking for transparency yet. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Then Phil read Don Sharrett and Rich Moskowitz.
Speaker 2: So you forgot the best options. We can go with no ordinance and use the state minimum standard and issue permits on a case by case approval. We can treat marijuana like alcohol and marry alcohol or marijuana on a safer ordinance and treat them both equally as we should. I can go to a dozen businesses around Alameda High School for Girls. I can get beer at the local coffee shop, a popular student hangout and pipe our kids in for many of you, less than 350 feet from the school. And to me, that's crazy. I say screw the friends of the dojo. We are the friends of the dojo. We declare war.
Speaker 1: On the Syrian army and their fake outrage. All the alcohol retailers and only retailers were scared and rallying behind her. They don't want to see her.
Speaker 2: Alcohol permitted go. And I doubt.
Speaker 1: You do too.
Speaker 2: This proves it's not about kid safety, so stop pretending I'm trying. I'm tired of the bias and phobic NIMBY jerks trying to tell me how to live in this town. My cannabis.
Speaker 1: Gardeners is the.
Speaker 2: Best time to plant.
Speaker 1: Outdoors.
Speaker 2: If you would like in advance, you can find me on Facebook. I need a politically incorrect or YouTube's opinion in greens. Cannabis is in the bag for the 2020 election and any step backwards will be a waste of time because we're inverted and we'll go right back to petitioning for.
Speaker 1: Cannabis through the 2020 election events. And you all.
Speaker 2: Know that.
Speaker 1: Don't tread on.
Speaker 2: Me. I will scoff the cannabis laws if I.
Speaker 1: Think they're unjust. I would like to address the mayor once a probation.
Speaker 2: Officer, and I would like to know, have you ever drove any.
Speaker 1: People for cannabis use in the.
Speaker 2: Past, legal or not? How do you feel about that today? Have you ever.
Speaker 1: Commented on your experiences with cannabis.
Speaker 2: Law enforcement as a probation officer?
Speaker 1: During my first gig.
Speaker 2: At City Hall, you said.
Speaker 1: To me, Stop what I'm doing.
Speaker 2: It's illegal. I get in trouble and I want you to.
Speaker 1: Be holding back and you admit that your piece was lives. And I never thought that you can do anything about it.
Speaker 2: What's your views on this? I was a probation officer. I was. I'm still here with my bag of mystery. How many points like you walked up?
Speaker 0: How many stones like.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Try to take away from their families? How many dopers like me did you make pee in a cup?
Speaker 0: And what? How do you feel? About 3 to 10.
Speaker 2: Using the word opium to describe the cannabis use.
Speaker 0: So I was actually going to stop you when you verbally attack Serena Chen. You should be able to make your remarks without including ad hominem attacks. This is this. Okay. And. And so anyway, this is it. This is an example not to be followed by other speakers, but I'm pleased to say that most people don't. Anyway, we do avoid personal attacks and my colleagues wanted to.
Speaker 6: That's what we.
Speaker 8: Did. That was what I was like.
Speaker 0: That's all they wanted to say. Point of order. Thank you. Yeah, I am again in Alameda. We should be able to discuss anything, but we should be able to do it with civility. And to the extent that one is not able to do that speaks more to the strength or weakness of your argument rather than whoever you might be attacking. So with that, we have. Mr..
Speaker 3: Okay. Moskowitz then Serena Chen and Ryan Agaba.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right.
Speaker 2: I give my equal time.
Speaker 0: You do?
Speaker 2: You're lucky I have a head call tonight, so I'm not going to take much time. Mayor Ashcraft, member of the City Council. We've had an interesting trip down here with the cannabis issue. We've had two council members who are sitting up here now supported all the way from day one. And we have an ex mayor who supported it. So the votes were always three two. The acting city manager looked like he worked for the cannabis industry. He probably has some interests someplace.
Speaker 0: Somewhere, and once again, the same window. I like to.
Speaker 2: Say that attack free speech and have a right to sue.
Speaker 0: You do.
Speaker 2: But I'll get down to the facts tonight. You have tonight on your agenda something you should just discard and say no to and move on and call time out and get some things corrected before you try to move forward. You know, you double the number of storefronts. No, you drop the medical only requirements. That's what we were pushing before. A couple of council members were. We want the medical. Medical is good. The dispensaries are good. If they're in the right location, increase the you know, the areas where stores can locate. You gerrymandered this last one in, you put the dispensary right next to the Juno. The, you know, art, the, the, the place that was Juno. And I got another problem, too, talking to my good friend Nick Cabral the other day. He's you know, you're he's in charge of the west end of town. It was for that way. And he looks at Tony De Saag here, who's a council member who excuses himself from this issue. Mr. De Saag was elected by everybody. He should stand up, at least make his opinion. Two of you have made your opinion very clear and it's appreciated. I don't mind to disagree, but I don't like the fact and he does neck and he'll do something about it that he bows out on every issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Moskowitz. His next.
Speaker 2: Mayor Council members, thank you for the opportunity. We've been doing this for a little over two years. For the record tonight, I'd like to state a few things. I'm a Alameddine for 14 and a half years, like the member of my club. We spoke earlier tonight. I will be leaving in a pine box at some point. I'm a founding member of Alameda. Ask of the group. Ask who you've heard from for the last two years. I'm the founder of Alameda Citizens Task Force. Excuse me. I do that all the time. I'm a little nervous. I'm the founder of Alameda Cannabis Times. It's an online action group with over 300 interested individuals. And I'm the author of the 2018 Alameda Citizens Responsible Adult Use Cannabis Act, which was in the signature gathering phase one of six that have ever been done throughout the history of our city. And as Ms.. Butler can tell you, within 60 days of that, we immediately received over two thirds of the signatures necessary, and we suspended that because the city council specifically sought to follow the state and add responsible adult use cannabis into the discussion. I'm here tonight to thank you, not for the past. I'm here tonight to thank you. Unlike what you've heard earlier, for the opportunity to meet my neighbors. I've never been involved in city council stuff before and quite honestly, it's been quite a big pleasure to meet Ms.. Chan, to meet Mr. Jarrett and certainly to meet many people who agree with me. But nevertheless, that is an Alameda value to meet my neighbors and to have the opportunity to have public discourse no matter where we fall on this. So tonight I'm here to remind you of this and to also point out something that's not been discussed in the extensive discussions we had about the the pin point of this issue, sales of public sales. One of the things that's been missed in this constant delay is not only the employment opportunities, but the revenue opportunities from the manufacturers. I understand certainly what's in the public eye is the storefront.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz. Our next speaker is that I missed him.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft, members of the council. You all know that I come from a public health background and I brought with me 25 years of experience in pushing back big tobacco. And I want to say that the city of Alameda is going to be entering into a grand experiment. We're looking at allowing cannabis into this town. And all I can say is I know what I know from tobacco. I know what I know from two years of doing research in everything cannabis. And what I have to say is just to quote the public health officer in Los Angeles County who just has these four points for all city officials to consider as they go down this road. Number one, in October, the American Journal of Psychiatry found that marijuana may pose a greater risk to teenagers brains than alcohol. In terms of memory learning and higher level thinking, marijuana is addictive. 9% of adults we use marijuana may become addicted 17% of teens. However, these numbers are based on a marijuana THC content of 2 to 4%. The current marijuana on the market is at 15 to 20%. Number three, childhood infant exposure. They have found that it has a lasting impact on memory and executive functions and IQ. I'm just citing the public health officer in the county of Los Angeles and drug driving. There's an increase in the number of drivers who were fatally injured in accidents who tested positive for cannabis. That does not mean causal. It just means there's a correlation. And this is in all the states that have legalized marijuana over the course of this, I've come to realize from talking to my neighbors is there is a need for city staff to improve communications with the impacted communities. And I just want to say I'm happy to move forward and work with Joel and work with my Kurzman. I'm trying to put the best organic.
Speaker 0: Chemistry in our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Ryan Acaba.
Speaker 0: Mr. Acaba.
Speaker 2: Hello. Council members, Mayor Ashcraft, appreciate you letting me speak tonight. Just want to just make this real brief. We've been all of us. Well, you know, two or three of up there. We've been seeing this same same item coming up for over ten. Feels like 20 meetings at least. You know, we've done a number of town halls, special meetings and workshops. And so those who are opposed to it had their opportunity to speak out. And you know that the public has already spoken. You know, the majority of the public has already spoken. And so I just urge you all to pay respect to the work that we've done the last two years, getting this to where it is and to if we are to get a first reading to keep it as close, to actually just keep it the same way it is, it is. Don't use this as an opportunity to change anything. Just keep it the way it is. Because we've everyone, including two members of this city council who are sitting right now, you know, we all did a bunch of work and let's just respect that and, you know, just keep this the way it is. And that's it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we have another speaker? Was it. That was our last speaker. Okay. Mr. Rausch, can you go over procedure with us?
Speaker 7: Well before you tonight are four ordinances to would repeal 30 to 27 and 30 to 28. And then the other two would reintroduce 30 to 27 and 30 to 28. As drafted, they would parallel or they would be the same as the repealed ordinances. So those are the the options that the council has in front of it. And then also, we have on the agenda, if the council decides to move ahead with the with the ordinances that you could have a discussion about whether you want to phase the retail dispensary permits in some respects. So those are the items that are before you tonight.
Speaker 0: QUESTION Councilman, really?
Speaker 6: Thank you. We can do.
Speaker 2: All of that in one motion.
Speaker 7: I think I think it would be better to consider the ordinances separately, because I think there may be some there may be some issue about trying to put them all together. I think the council's policy typically has has had consideration of ordinances on a on a one by one basis.
Speaker 6: But we did the budget two weeks ago with one one motion. I think there were multiple.
Speaker 0: Well, okay. So. Okay, so you're asking if the budget is parallel to or comparable to repealing and reenacting ordinances?
Speaker 6: Well, I'm just wondering why we would want to do it inconsistently.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do you want to respond to that before I go on to the next question?
Speaker 7: My advice would be to consider them separately. The council has a discretion if it wants to do it that way. I'm not going to say you can't do it that way, but I would not recommend it.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 8: You said there's two separate ordinances. So you mean 32, 27 and 32, 28. So hypothetically, we could do one motion to repeal and reinstate 30 to 27 and then we could do a separate motion to repeal and reinstate 30 to 28. Or are you saying that we have to do those separately? So it would be four motions.
Speaker 7: Ideally, it would be for emotions. If there's a desire to, you could, you know, you could split it up and, you know, emotion to repeal both or you could split it up and do repeal 3227 and reintroduce it. And another motion to repeal 30 to 28 and reintroduce it. You could mix and match, I suppose, if you want to if you don't want to do four separate introductions.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then the vice mayor.
Speaker 10: I just want to clarify what I heard you, which is it would be cleaner if we did four different votes, but there's nothing that actually precludes us from just doing a single. I think that there's some reasons why people might want to just do things as one vote. And I just want to make sure that if that if that's the case, there's no reason not to do it. It just leads to the potential for confusion later.
Speaker 7: Correct. Because what will happen, even if you do it that way, the clerk is going to give a separate number to each of those ordinances regardless of how you get there. Right. If assuming that the motion contains all four.
Speaker 0: Advice. Mary subsequent.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 10: I just I have a couple of comments if that's not the case. And so for me, as a as I think I said, maybe not as clearly as I would have liked at the first or second meeting in January regarding this. I think that we've heard a lot of speakers, we've heard a lot of discussion about all the work that went in. At the end of the day, our Open Government Commission found that one piece of. One of these ordinance was mis titled on the agenda and therefore violated the Sunshine Ordinance. And for that reason we are now here in April still talking about something that could have been finished in November. You know, I had a conversation with a number of people who reminded me along that four years ago when we had a changing of the mayor, etc., the Del Monte building was approved and an incoming new member of the council tried to change everything. It ultimately failed and I was not impressed at that time. And so even in January, I came forward with the idea that there was a lot of work that was done on this that I'm not going to try to undo. Because while it is true that the ordinance was not noticed correctly, there was only one small thing there. During the discussions I've heard I have heard conversations we heard tonight about the concern of doubling the number of cannabis dispensaries. But I also believe that, as I as I said in January and said again in February and now here we are in April, a lot of people have spent a lot of money and time waiting around to get this thing moving forward. In January, I proposed the idea of approving the ordinances in this case, repealing and replacing with the exact same ordinances with no changes, and giving staff some direction about moving forward with three and then a fourth permit. There was some confusion around what that meant, how that would look, etc. And talking to staff, I've talked to them about the idea of basically setting a delay between when the fourth permit, not necessarily the fourth person on the RFP, but the fourth the fourth person across the across the line can open said basically to the opening, I would say six months after the opening of the first cannabis dispensary in town to give us some time to make some adjustments before we necessarily get to four cannabis dispensaries. Personally, I think that the timing of all this, we're not going to see four dispensaries open very quickly. But I do think that it's a way for us to show those in our community who are not a small minority, the voice that we're hearing and that we are trying to take the concerns that are being raised about what could be what some people perceived to be the impact of these forward. And so I would like to propose and, you know, I guess I can wait, but I'd be happy to make a motion also. I would like to propose that we replace repeal and replace the the ordinances as written and give staff in the same motion direction to work with you delay the issuing of the fourth. Okay to open the store to six months after the first opened or the July 1st of 2020, whichever comes first.
Speaker 0: I think I'd like to hear a little more discussion, but I mean, if they hear a little, you can make it in motion, but there might be a friendly amendment, so maybe we like to hear a little more discussion. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 6: Start with me.
Speaker 0: Well, do you want to? I think you're looking.
Speaker 6: I didn't make eye contact, but I.
Speaker 0: I can go now, sir. I can go next.
Speaker 6: I mean, we have.
Speaker 0: One or she can go next, I think. Okay, go ahead. Councilmember Bell.
Speaker 8: I've heard a lot of people say we didn't know about this, we didn't know about this. But we you know, we appealed it. We didn't know about this. But we we brought people out to speak at the planning board to oppose it. I find a lot of kind of I would find it more. I just feel like the finish line keeps moving and I would find it more genuine if a concern was being raised about consumption, if the same people in the same groups weren't opposing on site consumption. The reason that we have talked about on site consumption is because essentially you can't if you're a renter, by the way, it means now that you if you smoke and you're taking your medicine in a multifamily building, you're technically in violation. If you are on the street, you're technically in violation. And that's part of why we originally proposed the on site consumption. And the proposal isn't that people then consume and get in their cars and leave. We also have bars where people consume alcohol and the what they're supposed to do is they're supposed to find a safe way to get home. And part of what we were talking about with onsite consumption and this was happening when we were having these conversations, was essentially that, you know, part of what we're looking at from the business owner perspective is, you know, is there going to be you know, are you going to be working with different ways to make sure that people are actually safely leaving the building? But I am not of the mindset that we criminal we we pass this and we create these dispensaries and then we find ways to criminalize it again or to punish people for consuming. What is this, in essence, medicine. So that's that was the conversation around consumption. Those meetings were agendas. Nobody appealed the title or the process at that point. There was a lot of public feedback. We had workshops on this, we've had numerous meetings on this, and I think that there's been a lot of public comment. I'm frankly, I feel like with the delays coming from the state and by the way, this is an issue where you have to get you have to go through the city process. You also have to go through the state licensing board. You actually have to do a lot more here than you do just to get your liquor license, to be honest with you. And I find compelling. Yes, there's evidence coming out in terms of the impact on minors. These dispensaries are not selling to minors. That's not what's happening here. So I think that, you know, I would like to focus on on what's being proposed and what we passed. And that's about adult use, which is much more regulated than alcohol and everything else. And the the buffer zones that we've talked about in the sensitive uses, which we agenda is we've had multiple meetings on. In terms of this delay, I, I would like to I mean, I'm frankly, I'm not really in support of it. I think it's kind of an optics thing. And I would like to know how staff proposes to actually administer that because it seems very arbitrary. And frankly, as as you noted, vice mayor, there is going to be a delay. I think, you know, if we have that earlier date of July one, 2020, I think it's more more likely than not, frankly, that. Just the overall process. Once we go through the RFP and we issue the RFP and then you got to go through the state licensing board. So I guess my my question be why? Why do we have that? Is that kind of a security blanket to make people feel good? But I don't I, I just I think it's an optics thing. If that's what you need to have this passed, fine. But I really I just I just don't understand what the purpose of it is.
Speaker 0: Through the chair if you care to respond or you don't need to.
Speaker 8: And I would want to hear more from staff about how they they plan on even administering that. How do you decide who the fourth one is.
Speaker 2: And go.
Speaker 8: And and what is this minimum of July one, 2020? I mean, does that mean that at that point we just issue the fourth RFP or the fourth permit? And what does that mean for the delay for them?
Speaker 4: So the idea is that if there is a desire on the part of the Council to require that the forth permit would be issued no sooner than six months after the first dispensary opens, or an outside date of July one, 2020, because staff felt it was important that there be an outside date. The idea would be that we would issue the RFP once the council completes its first and second reading of the re-introduced ordinances. If that's the way it goes. Then we would issue the RFP, we would issue the RFP. There will then be three three additional permits that are available to be issued. Those applicants are ranked. That's the standard process under our RFP and they get a score. And the the top three highest scoring applications would then be awarded the right to apply for a cannabis business operator's permit, the lowest score. So the third ranking proposal would be told it would be in the RFP that if you are the third ranking proposer, that you would not be able to open your business six months any sooner than six months after the first dispensary is open or July 1st, 2020, whichever happens first.
Speaker 8: Does that include the one that's already going through the OR gone through the RFP process?
Speaker 4: That's correct, because that's the first one. We've awarded one one business, the right to apply for permits. That process is underway. They have submitted for their their operators permit. And we have three more. Three more permits under the cap.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 6: Okay, thanks. First of all, we've had a lot of meetings on this, so I'm not going to go into. I will trust the folks who said this was a notice issue and not a second bite at the apple or third bite at the apple to kind of reopen and relitigate the intricacies of the ordinance. So. Way I understood the idea was that the occupancy permit would be.
Speaker 2: No matter who finished.
Speaker 6: First, second or third in the RFP that whoever got to the door first to get a occupancy permit, that would be where would be keyed off of. And then whoever's last whether it could even be the one that's in process now whoever's last get in their occupancy permit has to wait a certain period of time. And I'd prefer something shorter, like three months if we were going to go with this before they get their occupancy permit. So it's not dependent. The number four in the queue of RFP scoring is not dependent on waiting until somebody else opens that they all could open. And whoever gets there first, the first three get to open whatever, and then the fourth one has to wait, you know, six months under the original motion, three months is my preference, but or to July 1st. So it was keen on the occupancy permit, not on scoring. I mean, that's kind of an idea that I could live with.
Speaker 4: Right? So we think that the combination of a date that is no sooner than six months after the first businesses open and an outside date of July 4th, we're proposing July one of 2020 that with that outside date, it is the most straightforward to rank the applications that come in under the RFP, which is how we handled the first RFP, and that we would notify as part of the RFP that the third ranking applicant, the condition of your right to pursue a permit would also include the condition that you couldn't open any sooner than six months after the first businesses open or July 1st of 2020. Because that is that brings certainty that outside date provides certainty so that even if applicants two and, you know, one and two that were ranked higher, it doesn't matter how far along there they are in the process because the the outside date provides certainty that that would be the latest point at which you would be allowed to open your business. So it that seemed to staff the most straightforward way to handle it.
Speaker 6: Well, that's not how I described it. So I prefer something longer along the lines of how I described it, that it doesn't really matter how you rank, it matters how you get who gets the occupancy permit first, because otherwise you're going to have one business who supposedly meets all the requirements of the RFP dependent on somebody else before they can open. And to me, the fair way is let everyone go as fast as they can. And then, you know, the fourth one who's like behind whatever, maybe they don't get in line fast enough, maybe they get delayed at the state or whatever. They get their occupancy permit last even if they're already in the process.
Speaker 4: But with an outside date, you are not tied to the first.
Speaker 6: I understand that, but I'm not buying into the proposal that, you know, it's number four and, you know, you wait on somebody else. So this is the idea.
Speaker 0: You just wait. Let him finish. Let him finish. And then I.
Speaker 6: Mean, this is kind of how I understood the discussion. So all right. So maybe the vice mayor can clarify what he means by staging.
Speaker 0: Okay. Here's the chair. Would you like to respond, Mr. Vice Mayor?
Speaker 10: What Councilmember Ortiz said is what I proposed.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: So and and so there.
Speaker 10: Is a backstop for July 1st, 2020. Right. Right. But all four move forward. The in once the first first store opens, there is a ticking clock. The next two can open at any point after that part. And if it's within if it for my six months, if it's within six months that the fourth permit, the first person you've gotten a permit can open until that six month clock is finished. Unless in July four. Unless July 1st comes faster. So. Which is what I heard you describe.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. My turn. So I'm thinking just listening to the two of you. Councilmember Odean, Vice Mayor Knox. Why? That maybe there is some semantic. Semantic confusion there because I think. Vice Mayor, when you said you could have delay in issuing that RFP six months after the third one approved, you didn't necessarily mean the third ranking in the RFP order. Just the third one to get to the point of.
Speaker 10: Once the RFP is done and the top three people are because there's already one in the markets the next three. So that's where the number three is coming from. It's assuming one's already. So I'm looking Jim questioning those three would move start moving forward through the process to the planning board, get the city permits, go into the state process and then the first two to open would have no constraints. And the third of that one, the fourth permit that has been issued by the city, would possibly wait.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 6: And so well or it could be the one that's already in progress. They may encounter some delay that we don't know about.
Speaker 0: And whoever gets her first.
Speaker 6: Could get a jump ahead of them if they're really good. And they were mis scored somehow.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay, Major. So I like the idea of that that delay that lag time. Just because what we've talked about all along since we began talking about this topic is you do want to give staff and public safety and everyone else involved in administering this ordinance and this very new business model in Alameda. Time to just get the details right in there. You know, there's bound to be some things that weren't anticipated. And so I think a little more time sounds reasonable. I I'm willing to compromise on some of this. I would have preferred going back to what came before this council previously and then kind of morphed and led to some problems with the Open Government Commission that we were going to add delivery only dispensaries. But you know, they that morphed into four that would also require delivery. But I do just want to be mindful of the impact on city staff and just, you know, the finance department and all the different entities that will touch this. The one area where I would really like to see the council make a modification, not for the the business that has been approved and in fact, has come to the planning board. And by the way, that's the one on Webster at hate in the planning board in there their conditions of approval did not allow them to have an actual onsite lounge so they won't be using on site. What troubles me about that is the disparity in the definition of a sensitive use.
Speaker 1: Use.
Speaker 0: Of sensitive use, and what constitutes a youth center. Because LAPD runs very much the same sorts of programs in its facilities, they don't have to have 100% youth students, but the majority and that is from everything you understand, the situation of the martial arts facility on Webster. I can't go back and unring that bell that that process is moving forward to the purchaser about the building. They've gone through the planning board process. However, I think that for the sake of consistency and just being respectful of our private operators as well as our, you know, public schools and in LAPD facilities, that we should include martial arts centers that that satisfy the definition. And we talked about this months ago that you could say that a certain percentage of the enrollment has to be shown to be at a certain age range. But I really feel that we should do this moving forward. And, you know, I, I understand the argument and I certainly, you know, have spoken to staff about this, that, you know, Maryland, it's just so hard to find a place to site a cannabis business if you if you do that. But that also speaks to the fact that we are a family friendly city and we have lots of facilities for youth. So I would ask that we make a modification to include private, private enterprises like like a martial arts school that have a certain whatever the requisite percentages. That they be considered just as sensitive users and have the 600 foot buffer. It would not apply to the the business on Webster Street because that's, you know, that's moving forward. But I would like to see that added to the ordinance. And then I think what I just want to make sure that people know is that we we also abide by state laws. So we're beyond that. Just allowing medicinal. It is going to be medicinal. It's going to be recreational adult use. And those are those are my thoughts. And that's how I and I very much appreciate the the suggestion that the vice mayor made of of how procedurally you would move forward with the applicants. So so do you want to see you have a motion for it? You want to just restate it? So we're.
Speaker 10: Clear. So my motion is that we repeal. Let me say this really officially repeal ordinance 3227, repeal ordinance 3228, reintroduce ordinance 30, 3227 and reintroduce Ordinance 3228 and give direction to staff to limit or to issue the RFP for three additional permits for a total of four with an expectation that that fourth permit would and I will compromise a little bit. How about if we could save, you know, five months, four and a half months within four and a half months of the the first one? I understand. I do want to acknowledge I understand that Councilmember Vela doesn't see value in that, but I do. And so I guess since you don't think it's meaningful, I'm hoping you'll support it. Four and a half months after the opening of the first one, or by January 1st of 2020, I hope that is clear.
Speaker 8: So if it's by January 1st of 2020, then that's different.
Speaker 10: I was there July, July 1st of 24, 2022.
Speaker 6: So occupancy permit, I think that that word should be added.
Speaker 10: So I did speak to. Do you want a second? And then we can have a conversation and we can just technically work and somebody.
Speaker 0: And I'd actually I'd actually like to ask if you will consider my friendly amendment.
Speaker 10: I, I'm willing to consider it, but I don't know that we have the votes. And so I'd prefer to move this forward and then have a conversation and see if there are three votes to move that forward.
Speaker 0: To move what for.
Speaker 1: It.
Speaker 10: To that that friendly amendment forward like to have that conversation. So here I'll work with well withdraw my money and we can discuss some stuff more.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll just, you know, in the interests of transparency and for the public. If you are willing to support that, my friend, the amendment, then it you know, it's still going to need three votes for to move anything forward.
Speaker 10: For for me, I'm more than happy at another date to talk about youth centers. When I did my own thinking about that, it was on my list of things I would like to do as a part of my kind of trying to compromise and move this thing forward. I decided to not push for it in this round. As I said in January, I don't think just adding martial arts back in actually makes it a better ordinance. I just think it makes it complicated and convoluted in a different way. And if we were going to look at how we're going to define youth centers, I would like to look at it significantly differently than than just the martial arts issue.
Speaker 0: And I will just say that I believe there was a time when they were included in in fact, the martial arts centers were specifically removed. Is that not correct? Ms. POTTER.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 4: The ordinance never characterized martial arts studios as a youth center.
Speaker 0: Well, but it talked about activities and classes and about.
Speaker 4: Right. Social and recreational.
Speaker 0: Right. And where the majority of the students were youth of a certain age range.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And that same use in an LAPD facility would be deemed a sensitive use.
Speaker 4: A youth center? That's correct. And that was a carve out that the from the prior discussion about this. That was a carve out that the council had suggested and voted on. And when you had asked for kind of reciprocity, the support from the council wasn't there. So it wasn't changed at the time. There weren't three votes. You were looking for that reciprocal language and it wasn't approved. And that's why the RPG language is still in in the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I just think we're sending a message to the community. And I think that we should treat private enterprises that serve majority use the same way we treat those run by LAPD or girls. Think so. But APD is a better analogy because they would offer programing for both adults and children. Anyway, I've stated my position with that amendment. I could support.
Speaker 6: This.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 6: My concern about that, I mean, I wasn't prepared to discuss that because it wasn't agenda as and if we would do that, I think we could open up the whole well, I'm probably not Sabrina, but somebody else could open up the whole Sunshine Ordinance and kind of undo everything we're trying to do today.
Speaker 7: So I was going to chime in that if there's council support for the mayor's amendment, my recommendation would be that we would re notice. We would we would not introduce that ordinance tonight. We would bring that back as a a first reading.
Speaker 6: Well, there's no support here, with all due respect. So on the you know, if the vice mayor is willing to go with was it four and a half months? Yes. You know, maybe we can go four and a half months in April 1st. And that kind of is in the middle of everybody. And maybe that's a that's a compromise we could live with. I want to make sure my powder you're clear that it's the occupancy permit. It's not that.
Speaker 10: Let's not say occupancy permit, because that actually is a different point in the process. It's actually the opening their doors. So there's won't be there is no it's when they open their doors. Right. Mr. Potter, we're.
Speaker 4: Talking about a certificate of occupancy is not required for it's not there. There could be a cannabis business that can open and a CFO. A certificate of occupancy is not issued for that business because you're moving into a retail facility. So I think the better the better metric is for open for business.
Speaker 6: And you're clear on that versus the original idea that was talked about maybe a half hour ago.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yes, I okay. I understand that we will be. Yes, okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you've got a motion in the second.
Speaker 10: I know.
Speaker 0: I think owe you is true.
Speaker 10: So let me just ask the question, because like I said, I am happy to I believe two weeks ago or four weeks ago when we directed for this to come back, actually, the idea of talking about looking at youth came up and that was actually the direction of the majority of the of the council that we were not going to tonight. Look at that item that that was specifically stated. And so I would be a little uncomfortable doing that. I also am not confident that there are three votes to move that forward. But I'm open to hearing from Councilmembers Vela or Odie that they would be open. And we can, you know.
Speaker 6: Like I said, know already.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm just I'm just saying I.
Speaker 8: Know that hasn't.
Speaker 2: Changed. Okay.
Speaker 0: So my question to you, Mr. Vice Mayor, is, are you implying that you would be you would contemplate considering it at another time?
Speaker 10: I have let everybody in this process know that I've been able to talk to because of the Brown Act, know that I have that I wish that youth centers were the definition of youth center was significantly different than the way that we have done it here. I feel that it has been a little ad hoc with people throwing things like PD youth centers in and it got very convoluted very quickly. And instead of being based on outcomes and and the protections we're interested in, it's become a list of things. And what we ended up doing was changing that list and upsetting somebody on that list. So I would like to have if we were going to open it, I would be more than happy at some point. But I'm going to also point out that we're about to issue an RFP and I don't want to delay the RFP . And so the first these first four people are going to go through with the current definition. And then we can talk about changing youth youth center definitions for future, for any future. I would be happy to have that conversation for after the RFP, any future people have to meet a different definition of youth center. But I feel, you know, I've been partially responsible for delaying this as long as it has been delayed. And the last one was on me, I you know, so I do feel that we kind of owe it to moving this thing forward at this point in time.
Speaker 0: And I understand your viewpoint. I would also point out that I think it's a bit dangerous to decide that we want to see where businesses want to locate, and then we'll go back and look at what might constitute a sensitive use. And we certainly have some definition now. But I, I mean, I think you raise a good point that perhaps a more comprehensive discussion needs to take place. I'm just wondering when that might be or how it might take place.
Speaker 10: I, I.
Speaker 0: Think the chair. Go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 10: I mean, I worry a little bit that we're going to we're getting into just having circular conversations that never end. I would really I tonight I would like to regard this what we do about youth centers. I would like to move this forward as I proposed tonight. If we can get three votes. If we don't get three votes, then per my conversation with the city of. 32, 27 and 32, 28 have been null and void. From the Open Government Commission until such time the Council takes to take action to uphold or are push back on that which was the result of our conversation on Friday.
Speaker 0: Mr. Abbott?
Speaker 7: Well, I think that what I what I tried to communicate to the Vice Mayor was that it wasn't critical from my point of view that the Council actually take action to repeal those two ordinances. That, in other words, if the Council didn't want to feel because the the ordinance concerning the Open Government Commission is on the books and it does provide that remedy rather than trying to have the council sort of go against that. If the Council simply wanted to reintroduce the two ordinances without repealing the 32, 27 and 30, 28, I thought that was an acceptable way to go for the reasons I think that I have stated previously. I, you know, I don't feel that the commission had the legal authority to set it aside. But in the in the interest of trying to move this process along, I don't think it's necessary to for the council to have to repeal those ordinances. But just to go ahead and reintroduce them in order to put into place something that applicants can can then deal with. So I'll answer the question that way.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Vella, did you want to add something?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I just feel I feel like this whole conversation about when we're going to discuss youth centers and youth centers, frankly, is not agenda. And I feel that that's a Brown Act issue and subject to the Open Government Committee, and I'm getting really uncomfortable with the conversation along those lines. So I'm going to raise that now. And frankly, I would like us to drop that that topic at this point in terms of this status and whether or not it's null and void, I think, you know, we've gotten several different answers. Frankly, you know, I think the responsible thing is I just want to clean this up. If we want to repeal and replace, that's fine. I think it should be done in the same motion in terms of these deadlines. I think they're arbitrary. I think it over complicate something that's very simple. I'm not going to I don't think that four and a half months is meeting halfway. I think six months came out of nowhere. So I you know, we're starting at zero. You want to add something? Four and a half months to a year and halfway. But I also think that the I wouldn't mind the proposal being put forward by Councilmember Oti of an outside date of April one, 2020. So if your proposal is for four and a half months and April one, 2020, I'll support that. I think that was the friendly amendment being put forward. But I also just think that we need to put this to a close and I'm frankly a little insulted that we're talking about how we're going to change this relative to a definition, because the definition was also discussed relative to different buffer zones. And frankly, this isn't something where we said you can locate this anywhere. And part of why we were looking at those definitions and what the impact was was that you were narrowing it, narrowing it. And I've heard public speakers say, well, why is it only being located in the two business districts? Well, because we had people come out and advocate and say it should only be located in the two business districts. We don't want it located anywhere else. So again, the finish line keeps moving. We keep having these different conversations. I think it's inappropriate for us to say, let's pass this tonight, but then let's make plans in the future. That's not the message I really want to send to the business community. It's part of why earlier I was saying, why are we having this enterprise zone meeting when we're, you know, being asked to pass something else? Let's just be consistent. So that's what I'll vote for, is Councilmember Otis Friendly Amendment, and I'd like to put this to bed.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Do you have Madam Kirk, do you have the.
Speaker 10: I will accept your friendly amendment for April 1st.
Speaker 6: So are you going to make the motion April? Because it is a year from now. I mean, a year from today, basically. So. Okay. That should be more than enough time. You're going to make the motion.
Speaker 10: Will make the motion. If that so if everybody's okay.
Speaker 0: I'm going to make sure the clerk is clear that.
Speaker 10: We are going to repeal Ordinance 3227, repeal 3228, replace with 30 to 27 as written, replace with 32, 28 as written and give direction to staff to issue three permits for a total of four, with the fourth operator not being allowed to open until four and a half months after the first operator is opened or April 1st , 2020, whichever comes first.
Speaker 3: That's the same motion just with April.
Speaker 0: And do we have a second.
Speaker 6: Answer, contact.
Speaker 0: And brief discussion. As far as Brannick violations, I don't think it's a BRANNICK violation to ask staff to to consider something that is very much in the purview of this ordinance and that we heard from speakers tonight. So I'm I'm cognizant of the brannick, too. Okay. We have a motion in the second hour in favor. I posed no to the motion case. 3 to 1. Somebody went to retrieve Councilmember Day.
Speaker 6: So just to be clear, though, we didn't give direction to come back with any further discussion on anything.
Speaker 0: No, but it wouldn't have been a breather.
Speaker 6: Okay, well. Well.
Speaker 10: Actually, I just want to point out, we re noticed this and it is noticed properly and it says we're going to be talking about these ordinances and we could have changed anything in these ordinances and it would have been perfectly noticed. Well, and that was that was what this whole issue was about. And I just want to say thank you. STAFF Yeah, I feel very good about the way this was, but if we'd wanted to go there, I also felt that we had already said we weren't going to talk about this.
Speaker 6: And I think because there's things I'd like to work out.
Speaker 4: Relative to the RFP, from staff, from staff perspective, based on the direction given tomorrow, I will issue the RFP after the second reading of these ordinances, which will happen on April 16th. So on or about the 22nd of April, we anticipate that the RFP will be issued and we won't be coming back to council because we've received our direction this evening.
Speaker 0: And for the record, I also discussed this with the interim city manager, a city attorney before this. So I didn't just raise this issue without any consideration of the legal implications. Okay. We are moving on to item six de Main Kirk.
Speaker 3: Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Eric J. Levitt as City Manager Effective April 10th, 2019. And as part of this.
Speaker 0: Do you want to explain this right?
Speaker 3: In accordance with, I'm going to read a brief statement that's required in accordance with government code.
Speaker 0: Hold on one minute. Could everyone please take their conversations outside so we can continue the city business? Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 3: In accordance with government code section 5495333, a summary of the city manager salary and benefits is reported as follows The yearly salary for the city manager will be 259,000. The city manager will also receive a monthly transportation allowance of $500 in annual contributions, a deferred compensation of $12,000 and the first year of employment. And in lieu of the monthly contribution to deferred comp of 1000 per month, the city manager may elect to receive as reimbursement 3000 per month for no more than two months for his housing in Alameda. Regardless of the reimbursement, the maximum in your contribution will be $12,000. The city manager will also receive a relocation allowance of $16,000, consistent with other executive management employees of the city of Alameda. The city manager is eligible for health benefits, which include vision, dental and comprehensive vertical insurance. Other benefits include life dependent life and disability insurance as well as workers compensation. Paid time off includes 13.5 holidays, 64 hours of administrative leave, which can be cashed out if not used in an annual accrual of 200 hours of vacation. Further benefits include pet repairs, member retiree benefits and a tax deferred savings plan. These benefits are set forth in the contract attached to the staff report and Ms..
Speaker 0: Do you want to just explain briefly why we needed to do this? Because we already did vote on Mr. Levitt's contract, correct?
Speaker 3: We you actually this is back because he's going to come two days earlier. So that's part of the good thing. And then this and reading out of this statement is just a overly cautious way of making sure we're.
Speaker 1: We're following the government.
Speaker 0: Right. Because this isn't a special meeting. It's a regular meeting now. Okay. So any comments, questions or should we just entertain a motion to approve this contract?
Speaker 8: Madam Mayor.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vella may.
Speaker 8: Move approval.
Speaker 0: Please. All in favor. I proposed abstain. Here. We pass it unanimously again.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. Okay. City Manager Communications is over it.
SUMMARY: Consider Four Cannabis Related Ordinances (as directed by the City Council on February 19, 2019) and Provide Direction on Phasing Cannabis Permits as Follows: Two Ordinances (A and B) to Repeal the Existing Cannabis Regulations; following a Public Hearing, Two Ordinances (C and D) to Adopt the Same or Similar Regulations; and Consider Phasing the Number of Dispensary/Delivery Permits through the Request for Proposals Process

Recommendation to Consider (A) Introduction of Ordinance to Repeal in Its Entirety Ordinance No. 3227 Concerning Cannabis Regulations in Alameda Municipal Code Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries) that, Among Other Things, Establishes the Number of Retail Cannabis Dispensaries to be Open to the Public (including Delivery), Disperses Their Operations, Creates a Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses, and Permits the Sale of Non-Medicinal Cannabis;

(B) Introduction of Ordinance to Repeal in Its Entirety Ordinance No. 3228 Concerning Land Use Requirements in the Zoning Ordinance of Alameda Municipal Code Sectio