pages: CityCouncil/2019-04-02.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2019-04-02 | 16 | Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais. The Interim City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Expressed concern over cannabis consumption near the proposed dispensary on Webster Street; inquired how the no smoking ordinance will be enforced: Anita Ng. Questioned the regulations; stated there is a 600-foot buffer zone for children centers; questioned what the City has done to fulfill the good neighbor policy requirement; further questioned the credibility Alameda needing 2 to 4 retail stores; inquired if there is a budget for regulation, enforcement and administration; urged transparency: Joanna Lau, International Chi Institute. Outlined cannabis regulation options; stated The City could follow the State regulations: Phil Redd, Alameda. Urged Council to discard the item and start over; expressed support of medicinal-only cannabis; stated dispensaries need to be in the right locations: Don Sherratt, Alameda. Discussed his online cannabis interest group, Alameda Cannabis Times and the signature gathering process for the Adult Use Cannabis Act; outlined missed revenue and employment opportunities: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda. Outlined concerns raised by the Los Angeles County Health Officer and her experience with working in the health industry; stated City staff needs to improve communications: Serena Chen, Alameda. Stated there have been many meetings where people could express concerns over the last two years; urged the ordinance be kept as is: Ryan Agabao, Alameda. The Interim City Attorney outlined the ordinances and options. Councilmember Oddie inquired if all items can be acted upon in one motion. The Interim City Attorney responded the items should be considered separately; stated Council has the discretion to combine approval, but it is not recommended. Councilmember Vella inquired whether one motion could repeal and replace Ordinance 3227 and another motion could repeal and replace Ordinance 3228. The Interim City Attorney responded four motions are ideal; suggested if Council desires, a motion be made to repeal both, and a separate motion reintroduce both or a motion could repeal and reintroduce Ordinance 3227 and a separate motion could repeal and introduce Ordinance 3228. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 2, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-04-02.pdf |