Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (2) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, and (3) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement. (Economic Development)
There was a there has been sorry there has been a complaint filed with the Open Government Commission related to this, contending that the Council's deviation from the specifics of the agenda title violates our Sunshine Ordinance. We've already opined at the previous meeting that we think the agenda was clear and specific enough to embrace the action that the Council took. And our opinion is and will be that that the Council can consider this item on second reading and adopt the ordinance. Thank you. So we have two public speakers, Don, share it. And then Mark Hersman, if you want to speak on this item, please submit your CIP. Mr. Sharrett. Good evening. Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. You pulled the consent item, which means tonight is the time to react to that consent item. Is that the process? Correct. We pulled it so that we could take. Yeah, that opened it up for discussion for tonight. And we will be voting on it tonight. More than likely. Okay. That changed my whole speech. Yeah. All right. I'll go ahead. Don Shaw, longtime resident in Alameda, a retired educator. The hat I'm wearing tonight is an antique cannabis. Operations around kids. I'm dead set against that. I don't believe that they should open up dispensaries by any school. And the thousand foot limit that was put on that before has just been there for six months. Then three of you turned it around and want to come back and look at something different. Want to lower that distance? I still have a problem with child care centers having cannabis around that. And it's just to me, it just doesn't fit. But I'll go ahead here. You pulled it. Thank you. Congratulations for those who were elected in yesterday's elections. And congratulations for those who were not elected because you put your hat in the ring. I think it's commendable that we had choices in Alameda and I'm glad the election process went forward. We are basically charged and you are charged with doing what's right for all citizens. That's little kids. And not to listen to someone tell you from an industry or someone tell you from another group someplace else on what to do. You are independent thinkers. Hopefully you stay independent that way and can make up your own mind on a lot of these decisions. This is one of them. Why change something that's only been on the books for about. Six months. Why not let it play out for a while and see what happens? Look at other cities that have had similar audiences. San Leandro is a good example. And where do these cannabis places end up? Not by kids, not around daycare centers, not around someone's house who has kids there. So I'm definitely opposed to that. Don't cave in to the cannabis industry. Since day one. You hired a. Cannabis, what I believe a cannabis boilerplate consultant who came into this city and put together what was going to be the ordinances for the cannabis. Take a look at what that was. It was a boilerplate from the industry, as far as I'm concerned. You want to move forward. So why the rush? Why is the fast momentum to change this ordinance? Again, are there some violations, some of the Brown Act? Who is pushing the agenda? And again, thank you for pulling it from the consent. Real fast story was out of Peter Pan the other day and at the Halloween parade, and one of our good citizens was smoking his grass out the window of his house right by that where all the kids are. Thank you for that. Second is, I hope that you really know what you're doing as you move forward with us. And I trust the fact that you'll listen to people and consider your own mind. Thank you. Thank you, Mark Hersman. And then if there's anyone else that wants to speak on this item, please submit your stuff now. Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Council. I sent you a letter this afternoon and I would like to read that into the record now, if I may. Dear City Leaders, as we approach final passage of the updated cannabis ordinances, it's come to our attention that a handful of local anti cannabis citizens have made a last minute appeal to broaden the definition of sensitive use sites, which require a 600 foot buffer zone around a retail cannabis dispensary in order to protect children from exposure to cannabis. As you consider this last minute appeal, we ask that you also consider the following facts. It has been two years since Councilmember Odie first submitted the referral to consider cannabis cannabis business presence on the island. We cannabis business operators have been waiting patiently and there clearly has been enough time for public comment on this issue. Retail cannabis dispensaries must comply with the following safeguards in an effort to keep cannabis out of the hands of children. Exterior windows must be opaque, with no cannabis products visible from the street. Signage must be minimal and approved by the planning department and must conform with community standards. IDs are checked at the door by a licensed security guard. Then, upon entry to the dispensary, that idea is then scanned into the customer or patient profile in the computer and recorded as having visited the dispensary. This is a state tax track and trace requirement. All cannabis products are to be tested for purity and potency and label as such, and all cannabis products must be sold in child resistant packaging. Also, the application for a conditional use permit allows neighbors and businesses within 300 feet of operation to weigh in on the establishment of a retail dispensary. As long term Alameda residents and parents of children ourselves, we at Portland Enterprises share these concerns regarding keeping cannabis out of the hands of children. Anecdotal evidence. Com coupled with scientific studies, show that cannabis has real therapeutic benefits for adult patients and a wide array with a wide array of ailments and new uses and discoveries with therapeutic use of cannabis are happening in real time. We are committed to providing cannabis and cannabis information that promotes medicinal wellness and responsible use by our patients and customers. In conclusion, we believe the safeguards noted above provide the best possible balance between safe access for adults who should be free to make choices about how they treat their own ailments and the protection of children. Prohibition has clearly failed, and we are striving to advance a solution that will replace illegal street dealers, many of whom have no reservations about supplying cannabis to our children with regulated and responsible businesses. We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive approach to this issue, and we sincerely ask that you not backtrack on progress at this final hour. Thank you. Thank you. Member, Odie. Thank you, madam. I just had a quick question from staff. Who's doing this, John or Debbie? John, you're doing this. So I think there was a comment from a resident about a thousand foot radius. I'm looking at staff report, page 22. It does say no cannabis business. Engaging in dispensary, retail or dispensary delivery shall locate within a 1000 foot radius of a public or private school. So we didn't change that, even though the state law says 600. And the school district requested a thousand and we kept that. Isn't that correct? And John Lane, assistant city attorney, that's my recollection. I think we did change. I think we went to a two tier system. Right. But the comment was made that we somehow we got rid of the thousand foot buffer between, you know, the thousands to make sure that the never changed risk was not what we did. That's correct. We've always had that thousand foot buffer for schools and see the as a U.S. resolution. That's correct. And that would be for public as well as private schools. So all schools have a 1000 foot buffer or around schools for the location of the retail dispensaries. And can you go over what's this, the footage for the daycare centers, licensed daycare centers. Licensed daycare centers, 600 feet, as well as all other sensitive uses, have a 600 foot buffer zone. And the 600 feet is actually the same as with the state law. Is that correct? Well, the state law is 600 feet in the absence of a jurisdiction. Having any buffer zone. Of its own. So if if the city did not have a buffer zone around sensitive uses, it would be 600 feet by default. But the city has proactively established a two tier buffer system. That's what's reflected in the ordinance, actually. Five M, not five L The ordinance that's being contemplated as item five M would establish that two tier buffer system. And that's the second reading this evening. And the two tiers is that for K through 12 schools, public and private, it's 1000. That's correct. Which is more than the 600 feet of what the state requires. That's correct. And then the 600 feet is for the licensed daycare centers and youth centers as defined in our ordinance. That's correct. And I would like to point out that there has been some correspondence that the council has received regarding whether or not martial arts studios should be considered. Youth centers and staff does believe that there is some ambiguity around that issue. And what we would propose is to come back to council at its November 27th meeting with a discussion about that definition and with some suggested language and a draft ordinance at that time. But staff believes, as the attorney office reported out, that council can move forward this evening with the second read for the land use ordinance, as well as the regulatory ordinance. And then we would come back with an opportunity on the 27th for a robust discussion around clearing up any kind of ambiguities around the definition of youth centers. That's in our existing ordinance. All right. Thank you. Remember? Is that an appropriate motion to give through? Four, five, 5 a.m.. I mean just. It's really it's really covered in five the M the regulatory ordinance as opposed to five L the land use ordinance. So in regards to five L, it stuff's a city attorney's legal opinion that we can proceed with the final passage of the ordinance. Yes. Any other questions from council members? Just want to make sure that since there was a sorry there was a letter sent in and an open government complaint filed that there aren't any other speakers. Before we make a decision on this, just. Do we have any other speakers on this item? Not on the Senate, but on the next item. All right. All right. Thank you. Do we have a motion to proceed with this? So moved. Second. All those in favor. I. I. All those opposed. No. Motion carries 3 to 2. I am. Final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 16 cannabis businesses of Chapter six businesses, occupations and industry to eliminate the cap on testing laboratories allow for two additional cannabis businesses to operate as dispensary delivery delivery required within the zoning district for cannabis retail. Amend the disposition requirement to require no more than two cannabis retail businesses to operate on either side of Grand Street. Create a two tier buffer zone from sensitive uses for cannabis businesses. Amend certain portions of the regulatory ordinance to enable cannabis retail businesses to dispense non medicinal and adult, use cannabis and modify requirements for off island delivery and make other clarifying. Or conforming amendments thereto. Speakers like.