pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 5 | there would be an increase in the number of dispensaries, whether it is delivery-only or delivery-required. Commissioner Dieter stated that she understands that the Assistant City Attorney is in a position of defending the City and that he believes there were no substantive changes; the Commission's role is to defend the public to what a reasonable person would understand; she would consider the changes substantive because a cap on retail businesses was removed; the changes were not included in the staff report or agenda title. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the legal standard Commissioner Dieter refers to does not apply to the general agenda description because the changes happened before the first reading and before Council introduced the ordinance. Commissioner Foreman stated that he understands substantive or non-substantive is not the issue; inquired whether the City's position would be the same if Council changed the retail cap to eight, as long as they corrected it by the second reading. The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not like to opine on hypotheticals, but responded in the affirmative; stated the standard that applies is the notion that there is a description for the members of the public to decide whether or not they should appear. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was a basis to dispute Ms. Chen's claims that community advocates might have attended the meeting had they been aware of the changes. The Assistant City Attorney responded that it would be speculative to speak to that; stated that he has attended every meeting regarding the cannabis issue and is surprised by the amount of support versus the amount of opposition to the issue. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney was aware of a vocal minority of public health advocates who are opposed to the additional public dispensaries, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded Ms. Chen and one other speaker are the only ones he is aware of that attended and spoke at the November 7th meeting. Commissioner Dieter stated the public did not know that more retail businesses were going to be open; at the beginning of the process, there was a lot of concern about the amount of retail, but the public was relieved and reassured by the City Council that there would be a cap; the Council directed staff to bring back a report which included the cap; the cap was then removed; Ms. Chen's complaint is not about what happened at the November 7th meeting, it is about the first notice and whether members of the public were alerted to changes made before the second notice. Chair Little clarified that the ordinance clearly states "add two cannabis retail businesses." Meeting of the Open Government Commission 5 November 14, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |