{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nSATURDAY--OCTOBER - 21, 2017-9:00 A.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 9:02 a.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 9:07 a.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(17-646) Workshop on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Repealing Section 30-5.15 (Medical Dispensaries and Cultivation) in its Entirety;\nAdding a New Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses); Adding a New Section 30-10\n(Cannabis); and Amending Sections 24-11 (Smoking Prohibitions in Places of\nEmployment and Unenclosed Public Places) and 24-12 (Smoking Prohibitions in\nHousing).\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation and responded\nto Council questions.\nStated recreational dispensaries were supported by the Alameda voters; expressed\nconcern over recreational dispensaries not being created and prohibiting smoking:\nHoward Harawitz, Alameda.\nInquired about taxation; expressed support for having and taxing dispensaries: Dave\nMaxey, Alameda.\nStated the Alameda High School Parent, Teacher and Student Association (AHS PTSA)\nsupports the overall PTA Council's resolution; urged Council to keep marijuana away\nfrom students; expressed support for the 1,000 foot buffer zone and concern over\nlocating a dispensary on Park Street: Katherine Lamb-Tansey, AHS PTSA.\nSubmitted information; stated Alameda would be a prime location for Steephill Labs,\nwhich is involved with testing marijuana; urged Council to allow testing facilities;\ndiscussed the business and jobs: Donald Land, Steephill Labs.\nExpressed concern over and discussed a statement the Mayor made in a video; urged\nfamilies and citizens be protected: Mark Cachia-Riedl, AHS PTSA.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 2, "text": "Expressed support for local preference; urged other retail locations be considered:\nRichard Poulson, San Leandro.\nExpressed concern over not allowing microbusinesses and prohibiting smoking: Sam\nHensley, Alameda.\nStated the overall PTA Council will be considering a resolution supporting the 1,000 foot\nbuffer zone; expressed concern over edibles that look like candy and support for\nongoing education and awareness: Chuck Kapelke, PTA Council.\nExpressed concern over the City not representing its constituents by not allowing\ndelivery services and over the conclusion that data does not recommend an equity\npolicy: Debra Mendoza, Alameda.\nStated that he hopes the Council allows Steephill Labs to locate in Alameda; the lab is\nworld-class with a lot of workers: Thomas Blank, Steephill Labs.\nEncouraged people to educate themselves on the benefits of cannabis: Suzanne Blank,\nSteephill Labs.\nStated Bloom Innovations would like to operate a dispensary with local partners in\nAlameda; suggested having a community benefits plan, which could dedicate money to\nyouth education and substance abuse; expressed concern over the $3,000 delivery\nmaximum if it applies to deliveries to dispensaries and limiting the buffer zones to the\nmost active commercial areas that might not have sites available: Steven Cassidy,\nBloom Innovations.\nDiscussed his cannabis food manufacturing business, which he thinks fits in a business\npark; expressed concern over the smoking prohibitions: Khari Stallworth, Alameda.\nStated the consensus at the PTA meeting she attended was there are more important\nissues than the buffer zone; cannabis businesses will be discrete and want to give back\nto the community; people already use deliveries services in Alameda; urged recreational\nadult use be allowed; she would like to have a manufacturing license in Alameda:\nSasha Stallworth, Alameda.\nStated that she would like to start a nursery, which is different than cultivation;\nexpressed support for cannabis businesses on Harbor Bay, local preference and a 600\nfoot buffer; discussed nursery businesses: Sandra Square, Alameda.\nExpressed support for a community benefit plan and having taxes go back into the\ncommunity; stated a 1,000 foot buffer is effectively a ban; urged Council to adopt 600 a\nfoot buffer; stated patients should be permitted to cultivate the State minimum of six\nplants; encouraged onsite consumption be allowed: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island\nCannabis Community.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 3, "text": "Discussed the impacts of cannabis legalization in Washington and provided\nimplementation examples; urged Council to consider a dedicated nursery and\nseedbank: Phil Redd, Washington.\nStated that she operates a delivery service in Oakland; residents want money to stay in\nAlameda; the City should allow delivery only permits, rather than tying delivery to a\ndispensary; she supports a 600 foot buffer zone, which has been implemented in other\ncities: Conchita Nunn, Alameda.\n***\nCouncilmember Oddie left the dais at 11:15 a.m. and returned at 11:17 a.m.\n***\nUrged the ordinance focus on medicinal use; suggested surveying existing business\npark businesses before allowing cannabis use; suggested Alameda County Social\nServices Child Endangerment division data be reviewed; urged the total impacts be\nreviewed; stated the jobs that would be created would not be union or have health\nbenefits: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; discussed the addictiveness of marijuana: Serena Chen,\nAlameda.\nUrged following the State requirement of 20 employees for labor peace; discussed\nvending machine technology; expressed support for the 600 foot buffer or less: Mike\nRosati, Alameda.\nStated that he does not think 400 more feet for the buffer zone makes a difference;\nexpressed support for allowing onsite consumption: Adam Rogers, Alameda.\nDiscussed her cannabis manufacturing business, which would like to locate in Alameda;\nexpressed support for a 600 foot buffer, companies being allowed to locate next to each\nother, adopting the State standard for labor peace, local hire incentives and adult use:\nKristi Palmer, Kiva Confections.\nExpressed support for lowering the labor peace agreement, which will guarantee\nsmaller businesses will not undercut bigger businesses, and support for onsite\nconsumption; suggested staff review Assembly Bill 133: Augustin Ramirez, International\nLongshoreman Warehouse Union.\nStated a lot of progress has been made in a short time; redoing regulations that the\nState has already done is a waste of time; urged approval of onsite consumption to\nallow his proposed club business and 600 foot buffer; discussed equipment that can be\nused to test for cannabis use, State grants and educating youth: Nick Portolese,\nPortman Enterprises.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 4, "text": "Discussed increasing participation of black and brown communities in the legal\ncannabis industry: Lanese Martin, The Hood Incubator.\nStated the ordinance does little to destigmatize marijuana; expressed concern over\nPolice involvement; urged everyone work to get marijuana legalized at the federal level:\nAndrew Huntoon, Alameda.\nStated that he is a cultivator and does not understand why cultivation is not allowed\nsince warehouse space is available; cultivation can bring in more revenue than a\ndispensary; 30,000 square feet for cultivation brings in $8 million; the City could kick the\nbusiness out if there are problems: Eric Heard.\nDiscussed the buffer zone; stated that he is ready to submit a permit for a dispensary:\nJohn Ngu, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:49 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:07 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments; expressed support for prioritizing\nincubator space, microbusinesses, deliveries, looking into adult use, nurseries, and a\n1,000 foot buffer, with being open to a smaller buffer for manufacturing and labs; stated\nthe statistics regarding equity concern him; requested more information; inquired\nwhether manufacturing for adult use would be allowed.\nThe Community Development Director responded testing and manufacturing would be\nallowed for adult use and medicinal.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for onsite consumption; discussed specific\nordinance sections.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\noutlined the State law definition of sensitive uses.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested the ordinance read: \"State licensed day care facility;\"\nsuggested adding Blanding and Harbor Bay Business Park as dispensary sites; stated\nmanufacturing and testing should not be limited at this point; the smallest cultivation\nshould be considered; inquired why research and development was removed.\nThe Community Development Director responded research and development is not a\nlicense at the State level.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested immigration status not be part of the background\ninvestigation; suggested the hours of operation be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; stated keeping labor\npeace at 10 employees is important.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 5, "text": "In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\ndeliveries from off Island would be allowed and a permit would be required; additionally,\nthe recommendation is that the dispensaries in Alameda would be permitted to do\ndeliveries.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for dispensaries having a 1,000 foot buffer from\nschools; stated that she is hesitant to apply the buffer to parks, which is effectively a\nban; locations should not be limited to business parks; applicants should have to do\ncommunity outreach; manufacturing and laboratories should have a 600 foot buffer; the\nState taxes are high; suggested the City review taxation of all businesses, not just the\ncannabis industry; expressed support for onsite consumption with assurance people\nwould not drive; stated smoking prohibitions would disparately impact non-homeowners;\nnoted cannabidiol (CBD) is currently sold in Alameda; requested Section 69-59.5(c)5 be\namended because it is overly broad; expressed support for delivery permits; stated that\nshe would like to include a specific review date for co-location for recreational use and\nother possibilities, such as the seed nursery.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed support for a medical use dispensary and\nlaboratory use; stated the City should not assume liability for manufacturing use;\ncultivation should be limited to cloning and small scale nurseries; location will be the big\nissue; applications should not be accepted until the City's fee structure is approved;\nfees should ensure there is no cost to the City and cover indemnification or bonding in\ncase the City has to pay to legally defend itself; regarding equity, Council should receive\nthe breakdown of the data for the past 20 years; regarding delivery, the permits are\nimportant, should cover the complete cost and should be bonded; the scale of deliveries\nshould be limited; he does not support onsite consumption at this point; he opposes\nhaving the selection criteria include contributions, instead funds should go towards\neducation; Park and Webster Streets should not be the only possible dispensary\nlocations; he supports the 1,000 foot buffer and having sensitive uses include parks with\nrecreation centers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda should start small, go slow and not be\nan early adopter; that she is hesitant for Alameda to get into cultivation; expressed\nsupport for: one or two testing labs; two medical use dispensaries, possibly in a\nbusiness park; allowing the dispensaries to do deliveries; and a brick and mortar\ndelivery only service; stated that she objects to onsite consumption; she would be\ninterested in reviewing having the smoking ordinance allow smoking medical cannabis;\nexpressed support for the 1,000 foot buffer, including parks with recreation centers;\nstated the buffer could be lowered to 600 feet for testing labs and possibly\nmanufacturing, which should not be allowed in Alameda yet; community benefits should\nnot be a selection criteria.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the meeting could go beyond 1:00 p.m., to which the\nCity Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated public comments were made regarding recent allegations;\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 6, "text": "requested the City Clerk read the October 17th Closed Session announcement.\nThe City Clerk read the announcement.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has requested more information on the arrest data and\nschool records; provided background information on referrals; stated that she supports\nthe voters approving the decriminalization of marijuana; she will support anything to\nmake cannabis legal; discussed disparate impacts and the black market; stated that she\nsupports the 600 foot buffer zone, reducing the stigma, the 21 year old age limit, and\nonsite consumption; suggested that Council review the list to determine where there are\nthree votes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether whatever Council does not regulate will be\nbanned, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer noted the schools have education programs, which she supports.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether Council wants information on\nthe equity program prior to enacting an ordinance.\nMayor Spencer responded the information should be provided to Council immediately;\nstated the ordinance first reading should be on November 7th.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see how Council can have a first\nreading without the equity clause; Council cannot make a determination on the data\nuntil there is a public meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the equity clause is in the regulations or part of\nthe permitting process.\nThe Community Development Director responded currently, the ordinance is silent and\ndoes not address an equity program; stated the equity program in Oakland has two\npermit dispensary categories; half of the permits are reserved for the equity program;\ntackling amendments to include equity in the ordinance could take at least six months.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could come back to Council when staff\nreturns with the dispensary permit selection process, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nA majority of Council concurred with the suggestion.\nIn response to the Community Development Director's inquiry about allowing medicinal\ndispensaries, the Council voted unanimously.\nIn response to the Community Development Director's inquiry about supporting adult\nuse dispensaries, the Council voted as follows: Ayes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Noes:\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's request that staff provide a specific date when the\nmatter will return, the Community Development Director stated staff would recommend\nreturning 12 months after the effective date, which would be December 2018.\nIn response to the Community Development Director's inquiry about allowing two\ndispensaries, Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for one; Mayor Spencer\nexpressed support for four; Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for two;\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for two; and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft\nexpressed support for two.\nDispensary locations were discussed.\nIn response to the City Attorney's inquiry whether Council agrees to the 1,000 foot\nbuffer zone, Council voted as follows: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nFollowing discussion of the distance between dispensaries, the Community\nDevelopment Director stated the Council consensus is to allow dispensaries anywhere\noutside the 1,000 foot buffer zone and approximately one and a half miles apart.\nThe definition of sensitive uses was discussed and the map was reviewed.\nCouncil consensus was to have staff review the definition to determine whether parks\nwith Recreation Centers would be included and provide two new maps with the\nRecreation Centers added: one with a 1,000 foot buffer and one with a 600 foot buffer.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about allowing nurseries, a majority of Council\nexpressed support.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance will only permit a Cultivation\nPermit Type 7, which is nurseries.\nA majority of Council voted in favor of allowing only one nursery.\nEligibility to receive State grants was briefly discussed.\nThe Council discussed nursery locations.\n***\nVice Mayor Vella left the dais at 2:03 p.m. and returned at 2:04 p.m.\n***\nIn response to the Community Development Director's inquiry regarding permitting one\nnursery located in the manufacturing zone with the same buffer zone as dispensaries,\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 8, "text": "Council voted unanimously.\nThe Community Development Director noted the remainder of the cultivation licenses\nwould be prohibited.\nIn response to the Community Development Director's inquiry regarding prohibiting\nmicrobusinesses, Council voted as follows: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nDelivery only businesses were discussed; there was not support to allow delivery only\nbusinesses.\nCouncil discussed only permitting distribution attached to a manufacturing business and\nvoted as follows: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nRegarding a cap of four manufacturing businesses, Council voted as follows: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nThe location of manufacturing businesses was discussed.\nCouncil unanimously supported a 600 foot buffer within the manufacturing zoning.\nCouncil supported allowing two testing labs with a 600 foot buffer in the manufacturing\nzone.\nRegarding allowing onsite consumption, Council voted as follows: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether onsite consumption would be\nlinked to the two dispensaries.\nThe City Manager clarified two separate businesses could operate in the same space:\nthe onsite consumption business and the dispensary.\nA majority of Council expressed support.\nHours of operation were discussed.\nThe Council consensus was not to limit the hours of operations for manufacturing and\nlabs.\nCouncil discussed whether or not to modify the hours of manufacturing and lab major\ntransactions, such as deliveries of goods and large cash deposits; a majority agreed to\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 9, "text": "have staff review the matter and bring it back.\nCouncil discussed the hours of operation for dispensaries and onsite consumption; a\nmajority of Council agreed to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.\nCouncil discussed Section 6-59.5.c.5 regarding background investigation of owners and\ndirected the City Attorney's office to review the section and return with a\nrecommendation.\nCouncil discussed requiring a cash bond instead of just insurance.\nThe Community Development Director noted the ordinance requires insurance and\nincludes an indemnification clause.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether the Council direction is to bring back\nthe current recommendation with additional information that Council could modify, a\nmajority of the Council concurred.\nIn response to the Community Development Director's inquiry whether vending\nmachines should be prohibited within dispensaries, a majority of Council concurred.\nThe Community Development Director and Assistant City Attorney reviewed minor\nclarifications which staff would incorporate in the ordinance.\nThe Council discussed labor peace and a majority of Council concurred with lowering\nthe number of employees from ten to two.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, a majority of Council expressed support for\nlocal hire provisions.\nThe Council discussed not including what a company gives to the community as a\npreference point.\nMayor Spencer stated the matter would return to Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like any personnel requests to come back\nsoon.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-21", "page": 10, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-21.pdf"}