pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-11-14 | 7 | Commissioner Dieter stated it did not make sense to her that the ordinance proceeded to a second reading when a complaint was filed with no opportunity for remedy. In response to Chair Little's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff reached out to Ms. Chen after his email to her stating that she could still provide comment; Ms. Chen's response to the email was that providing comment would not resolve her complaint. Chair Little stated that she understands the item was pulled; inquired how doing so plays into the process. The Assistant City Attorney responded the item was pulled for discussion but the second reading did take place; stated a further amendment is going forward to clarify definitions. Commissioner Dieter stated the complaint is about the October 16th meeting, not about anything that happened after. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether a motion should be put on the floor, to which the City Clerk responded the Commission is not required to follow Rosenberg's Rules even though the Council does. Chair Little stated the Commission pushed following Rosenberg's Rules; called for a motion. Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Commission should deliberate before making a motion, to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the negative. Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of sustaining the complaint and that Council be ordered to re-notice the meeting so that community advocates can be heard on the issue of two additional dispensaries. Commissioner Dieter seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Foreman stated there are two cannabis ordinances; the zoning ordinance was not impacted by the complaint; suggested an amendment. The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Foreman, stated the changes were confined to the business ordinance which contains the definition of "delivery-only." Commissioner Schwartz stated that he does not think the ordinance needs to be amended as long as it is clear when re-noticed that the conversion of delivery-only to delivery-required deserves a public hearing; commended the speakers for thorough presentations; stated that he agrees with Ms. Chen that the November 7th final vote did not give the impression that there would be any meaningful debate; to the extent that there are people in the community that want to be heard on this, it should be heard; it Meeting of the Open Government Commission 7 November 14, 2018 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf |