Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (a) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (b) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-Medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, and (c) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement; and (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 3228; and Introduction of Ordinance: (1) Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (a) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (b) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as “Dispensary/Delivery” (Delivery Required, Open to the Public) within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (c) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (d) Create a Two-Tier Buf
And so I'm trying to I'm trying to square what our action is doing, because I think it's important. The last time I listened to all the candidates, this is my first cannabis hearing. I was actually hopeful that this would be done before we got here. But from for all of our times. But I'm confused because there's confusion and also in the community about what these actions are doing as they relate to applicants. And so I see Debbie Potter with you and introduce yourself and enlighten us. We use in Development Director. So just to clarify, it is correct that there has been one applicant who has been given the right to pursue a land use permit as well as an operator's permit that that provider is pursuing their applications under the existing ordinance, because the ordinance that the council approved in November is actually effective this Thursday. So they have they have made application and they're pursuing their applications under the original ordinance. That ordinance was for medicinal dispensaries only. So in the event that either the ordinance is reintroduced today or nothing happens this evening and that the new ordinance goes into effect on Thursday, that ordinance will allow for adult use so the applicant could amend their application under the new ordinance and proposed to do adult use as well as medicinal. So it there is an indirect impact on the applicant who's going through the process. And can I ask a quick question? The floor member and our vice mayor knocks later. Yeah. The so the successful applicant the RFP process has the ability that if changes are made in the future you can just amend it. It seems to me that that applicant would then need to reapply and that in under the new program we're making a you know, I would submit that this open government committee commission thing is about the fact that, you know, these changes are substantive. Right. It was unanimous twice that that, you know, public, publicly available dispensary. It's why don't we hear the answer to your question? First, you posed the question of what would happen. And so the and then there's a time for discussion. But this is clarifying questions. Trying to explain my question. But thank you. So I believe that. We staff would permit then an amendment to the land use application as well as the regulatory permit application to permit the adult use sale. Because the new ordinance would then affect that. We would not we did not anticipate running that applicant through that the new RFP process. And was there another part of your question? Well, I guess my so still wasn't my question. My question was, is that how the RFP is stated? Does it state in the in the RFP that if if future changes are made, you can just amend your application? They've been selected, but they haven't even actually completed the process to be a successful applicant yet. They have been they have been granted the right to apply. They have applied for both their land use permit and their regulator permit. Right. Has the RFP allowed? Does the RFP allow for that? I'm not sure. John, I'm going to ask him next. Okay. Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the council staff and members of the public. John Lay, assistant city attorney, is I want to make sure I understand the question is a question whether or not the person, the ALP, the successful applicant would have to resubmit because the RFP process has already gone through. They applied under a process for medicinal use only. And now we're saying, oh, there's going to be a process for adult use or medicinal use or just adult use. I'm just curious how it is that somebody who applied under a past program can then just say, Oh, we want the other one. Well, one. Of the way to answer this is, um, and I've had a discussion with the. And we staff has had a discussion with the applicant about this, that many of the changes that happened before they reached the stage of receiving their land use entitlement would apply to them. So that would include the adult use provision that you're discussing now, but that would also include some of the other provisions that the applicant has actually expressed concern about, particularly certain sensitive uses that might be applicable to them. And they have expressed concern about the applicability of those definitions. And because of that, I think the the applicant is concerned that many of the requirements are going to apply to them. And as to your question about whether or not they can amend their application, we currently do not have, I don't believe, a specific provision that prohibits an applicant from amending their application. And that doesn't mean that we can't say that they can't do that, but we also don't have one that sort of freezes it in time. They've currently submitted an application, it's currently pending and staff is in the process of reviewing that application. And so I guess the answer to the question is in the instance in which we do have applications that are pending, whether or not an application can be sort of and resubmitted and if it has been done in other contexts, that might guide the analysis. Thank you. Did do that. That is the question. Okay. Councilmember Vela. I want to ask the inverse, which is if and you'd kind of hinted to this, which is if we had changed something that would have negatively impacted them, do they then lose the ability to apply after they've already invested? Well, um. It depends on the particular provision, but, um, that could be a possibility. Yes. And that's something that I believe was raised in a previous meeting as well. Um, and it was in the context of discussing the notion of vested rights. You may recall that discussion. Okay. Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. Sorry. I don't remember the reinvestment, the investment rates, but. Sorry. The best. Thank you. I knew I was going to miss some of that. The event, the vested rights. So you're suggesting that because they applied under the old program, they have vested rights? I don't know if it's actually the opposite. Is that because they've not actually the IRP process, the conclusion of the RFP process provides the applicant, the successful applicant, a conditional award letter that allows them. And the only thing it allows them to do is the ability to submit an application. And from there, it would it would sort of stand in the same shoes as an ordinary sort of copy. But it also has the additional layer of an operator's permit. So just as in operators excuse me, a copy applicant has not had their hearing, has not obtain their land use entitlements. There's also an additional process of getting the building permit. To the extent that there are any improvements that need to be made or any other construction related tasks that need to happen. So they're really starting at square one. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further clarifying questions? So then we're going to go ahead with our question, our public comment. We have nine speakers slip. So under the council rules, that means each speaker has 2 minutes. So I will and keep things moving because it's almost 9:00. I'll call the first three speakers and you can just be ready when it's your turn. I'm a bit of clarification. I've got a spruce up for Mark Kurzman and then I have a speaker slip for Nick Portolesi with a notation, give my time to Mark who's so suggests, you know, under the newest council rules, we don't cede time. But if you would like Mr. Kurzman to have your 2 minutes, he has your 2 minutes and his two. Is that okay? Okay. Then I will take Mr. Palacio out of the out of the queue. But we're still 2 minutes because we have eight speakers. All right, Mr. Holzman, Mark Kurzman, you're your first. And we don't see time. We don't see time. That's what I was telling him, that either one of them has 2 minutes, but one of them can't take two plus two. But, Mr. Blasi, I believe if I was reading his hand signals, you don't want to speak at all. Is that correct? No, no, no. You can have your 2 minutes if you wanted to. You're right here. I can put you back in. It's okay now. Okay. Hi. Hi. Mayor Ashcraft and Council. Thank you. I am my business partners. And I sent a letter to you yesterday that we would like to read into the record tonight. As you're all aware, one of the final acts of the previous council was the finalization of the cannabis business ordinances. It's our understanding that the Open Government Commission has an objection to the nullification process leading to the passage of the ordinances, as discussed at the October 16th City Council meeting and finalized on November 7th. Specifically, the complaint focused on the change from the authorization of two storefront dispensaries and to delivery only dispensaries to the final decision allowing for storefront dispensaries with a minimum of two offering delivery services. Regarding the specific issue, we were attendees to that debate. I reviewed the video recently and we noted the following. The key issue debated was not the visual footprint on the city of having for storefront dispensaries. Primary concern was access to cannabis delivery for patients who are compromised in their mobility. Once council received guidance that they could require a minimum of two dispensaries to provide delivery services throughout Alameda City limits, the physical nature of these dispensaries, storefront versus warehouse, became irrelevant to that discussion. Further, it was noted that delivery only warehouse dispensaries would need to conform to the same regulations as storefront dispensary. And the city attorney gave guidance to the council that the change from warehouse delivery to storefront was not material enough to require a new first reading for public comment as witness to the council meeting in question. It's our opinion that the previous council acted in good faith and by requesting advice from the city, attorney was well aware and respectful of their obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance. Clearly, the LGC disagrees with the city attorney guidance, putting you the new city council in a very difficult position. While we understand that opening up this one issue for public comment is being done to satisfy the request, the LGC we respectfully request that your actions be limited to this one item regarding the public notice requirement concerning the nature of the approved dispensaries and not relitigate the balance of the cannabis. That's time. Thank you, Mr. Huseman. And the next speaker is Rosalind Fortuna. Good evening. I'm Rosa, Linda Fortuna, and I request that Tony Dyson be able to participate in this. It's not correct that he is admitted. He is a property owner. He's a neighbor. He knows the area. And for him to be recused from this is not right. When I heard that, it just didn't make any sense to me. He is a person that would know his neighbors and how they feel and how the families feel in that neighborhood about any cannabis coming, a storefront coming into that neighborhood. So I'm sorry that that's my opinion. Also, he is a citizen of Alameda. That doesn't make this this really doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, I you know, when I talked to some merchants on Webster Street, I was just shopping. And then. The merchants said. Oh, did you know the cannabis center is coming? And they were saying, We're so upset. And I said, Oh, I didn't know that. She said that she was told that when she went to City Hall. They said it was already approved and then nothing could be done. And then now you're saying, oh, it's subject to the land use permit. So she doesn't speak English very well. She was told that it's already done. Then I there was another merchant that I talked to. She's super upset. She said she doesn't want to see the long lines of people standing out waiting for their cannabis purchases or whatever they do to, you know, to interfere with her business. And she's very, very upset, just like in Oakland. There's just long, long lines. Having you in storefronts is not the right place. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Phil Read. I've got it. Which I would like to remind people. When we voted for recreational marijuana by 68.9%, we already had medical use in medical businesses in our city. I believe we voted for legal cannabis because the real danger is not cannabis. We know that after five years of legalization, that is pretty benign. And what happens if you drink too much coffee, you get the jitters. If you smoke too much weed, you get high. Funny how we all treat cannabis as more dangerous than guns and alcohol in Alameda. Parents are expected to teach their kids how to be responsible around alcohol, cigarets and guns and sugar, fire and a million other worldly dangers. Why can't we just expect the same for cannabis? Statistics say legal cannabis decreases alcohol use, so you are literally killing people if you deny them this, right? The only difference between medical use and recreational use is the intent of the user. In no matter how you use it, it's always non-fatal. You know, the real danger is the danger is in the illegal supply chain. If back in the day, I used to buy weed from gangsters in high school and I've been robbed at gunpoint maybe a few times. It was an acceptable risk back in my day. Where there is a void. They will exploit it. If you take away a healthy legal market, you leave yourself more vulnerable to the illegal markets. And they've had two years to set up shop while you've been sitting on your hands. And the Wild West of cannabis is already here. Also, any changes to the ordinance undermines two years of hard work by the last council and speakers on both sides of this issue. This would also be a hard step away from current progressive values. Legal cannabis protects children, but you also have to look at the big picture to know that I know I don't have to explain to you again how safe a dispensary is. It's guarded and guarded and all that good stuff. Take away. Take it away. And it leaves too many more potential customers just sitting out in the dust looking for new sources. And organized crime will more than take it advantage because currently cannabis is a scofflaw. I'm sitting here with cannabis right here. That's true, Red. Your time is up. And our next speaker is Tyler Chisholm, Champlain Heavyweight Champion. Champion. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. I'm here to speak in support of item six, be and encourage council to once again adopt this ordinance. As we all know, as we are all aware, there have been countless hours staff, council stakeholders and members of the community have put into this ordinance, given the multiple public meetings that have already taken place and yet another staff recommendation to adopt. I would hope this would be an easy vote for council, as noted in the executive summary provided by staff along with their recommendation. Staff notes that 68% of Alameda voters voters supported the ballot initiative to allow recreational use and sale of care and the sale of cannabis. The citizens want this. We we have a solid ordinance that staff the previous council and stakeholders all are all in support of stakeholders, have secured locations and are incurring costs and are prepared to submit applications now. Again, I am in full support of this ordinance and encourage Council to approve the first reading and move for a second reading on February 5th meeting in anticipation of opening the RFP as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Spencer. Evening Council. City manager. City attorney. But I wanted to speak to and I appreciate all the earlier comments. First of all, I want to. Thank member Odie for. Bringing the first referral on this. Item over two years ago. I want to remind Council that every step of the way we did in fact. Ask our city attorney. If it was appropriate for us. To proceed, especially after the. Complaint. Was brought to the Open Government Commission. And so we I believe we. Were advised. By three city attorneys that it was appropriate, including our current acting interim city attorney. In regards to what happens if you make it null and void. What I didn't see. Discussed was there's always. That 30 day period. After the second vote. When someone can bring. A referendum. And we've just gone through that and you. Know how long it can tie up an item. And I don't know what would happen if we, in. Fact, had. A. Referendum brought during. That 30 day period. That did. Not happen. When we brought our did our final vote on November 7th. Which made it. Effective December. 7th. And if you all. Decide to open it up again. What happens if a. Referendum is brought? And we all know it's. Critical that we allow. Cannabis businesses to open and know that they have that. They can count on this. Council to. Allow them to do. Their business. I strongly encourage you all to give the green light to cannabis business. Let them know that we do. Support medicinal and recreational and that. We all know we've been trying to. Provide safe legal. Cannabis. That has been the cause. We've worked really, really hard. However, that's my why I. Decided to come tonight. What happens then. If we do get a referendum? My guess is that. Everything gets tied up in. Who knows where we are. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker is John Sherritt. Well, good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the city council. Here we go again. Confusion, staff responsibilities that probably have not been met. And I'd hate to say it. What are we voting on or what are we fooling with here tonight? Let me go ahead with what I had prepared. I would like to thank Serena Chen for formatting the cannabis issue and maybe staff should talk to her about how to put something together on the agenda. That makes sense. She has facts from day one and a council member of John Knox wife or at least being open for a dialog on the issue. Where am I coming from? I'm coming from 38 years as an educator with the scene. Too many kids use marijuana as a starter drug. I'm not saying stop all this. I'm saying take time and start something, but start it right and monitor it right. I'm not against American medical marijuana. Dispensary is not in a place where kids have activities such as preschool, parks, etc.. And it is regulated. So since December 19th, 2017, when the original ordinance regulating cannabis in Alameda passed the highly organized cannabis industry and I give them a lot of credit has pulled strings on the acting city manager and some of the council members and has chipped away at many of the protections for kids that were listed in the original ordinance. The changes proposed are examples making again more moves to chip away. I have to cut my whole thing in about half and I just want to end it with a comment made. There is a group formed and a group formed is called Pot Watch to Protect Alameda Kids. And I'm going to say they're going to be monitoring. Everything that goes on with this from start one and I'll end with a comment by a retired. School teacher Candice Good Lehman, a retired, a U.S. city and community member. When she says that's time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is your time. But you can submit your comments in writing to the city clerk if you'd like to do that. And I come back next time and say that. You certainly can. Do you have is it like one sentence that you have? Okay. And we did get the letter from Ms. even. I'm just trying to figure out who's on first. Thank you. Our next speaker coming from. Thank you. Our next speaker is Deborah mendoza. And our last speaker after Ms.. Mendoza is Richard Paulson. Good evening. Nice to see everyone in the new year. Welcome, John Knox White. And I didn't prepare my statement tonight. I came here and I kind of learned some more information as I went along. But some of you may know that I was involved in. Advocating for cannabis to be permitted here in Alameda. Back in November. I put together a petition for allowing. The delivery only. So one thing I'm a. Little disappointed is it. Went that four. Of the storefronts can have two deliveries, but that. Doesn't. Address that delivery only is are. A way that people most. With the least amount of perhaps wealth, access to resources, equity can enter into this industry. And I and I agree with my neighbor. Who spoke earlier. About, you know. Criminalization. So when we do not, you know, allow people to operate, you know, legally, it does push it does push the underground market, which we don't want to see. That's not what public safety looks like. So I would just I'm also I also. Believe that that we should be able. To transfer medicinal to adult use, because that was the whole you know, that's the whole. The point. Of this new legislation is to allow cannabis to be consumed recreationally. We don't you know, the medical model is from years prior. So it doesn't make sense to me. With businesses moving forward, should that should be. Easy to make. That transfer. Thanks for your consideration and I'll see. You later on. Thank you. Richard Paulson. Ashcroft City Council. My name's Rich Polson. I'm a local attorney here on the island, and I have two children that are school age emerging. The Council to move forward with opening Alameda to cannabis businesses. I've been following this issue and seen firsthand how much time and effort has been put in by the City Staff Council. Long hearings, a lot of public comment, a lot of opportunity for people to raise their issues. And I think there's still seems to be a misunderstanding of how heavily regulated this industry is, not just at a state level, but the effort that the city has been put into it to make sure that the citizens of this community are being protected in a fair and evenhanded way. But I think we need to move forward at this point. I mean, there's clearly demand, popular support is high for this issue. And we should move forward and bring this theory and bring this process to a close to the extent that any complaints about long lines in front of a dispensary. I think the obvious solution would be to open more dispensaries. There's clearly the demand for it, and I think the city needs to move forward and make this a reality. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That was our last public speaker. So we will move into council discussion. And just for clarification, I'm in the city clerk and the interim city attorney, if you would help me on this. We are actually considering introduction of two ordinances and on the second ordinance, I suggested a word, one word change. Do you want me to read it? It's the it is so interjection to ordinance amending the muni code section 16. And this is paragraph C which currently reads Amend the dispersion requirement to require no more than two cannabis retail businesses to operate on either side of Grand Street. And we would my suggestion, I think the clerk and the interim city attorney agreed, is that we would change the verb required to allow because we don't we're not requiring. But we were allowing. So I just want to note that for the record. Okay, who wants to open the discussion or make a motion for that matter? I guess I'll speak to. Vice, the person who's. Actually weighed in on this. Right. Right. This is not how this meeting was. I expected it to go. I thought we would have at least a couple of new voices up here. And so I'm going to make a couple comments. The first one is I just wholly disagree that if somebody submits under an RFP, that is one thing that they just automatically get to have the more expanded whatever else. I think that that that, you know, it is possible with adult use that there could be furthermore people who are interested in going and as we're expanding forward that's that's a new program. So yeah I kind of think that that's something that maybe should come back from the for the council possibly. I'm going to assume there are legal issues related to that decision, but then possibly in a closed session, I just I did that was completely news to me. And and I it does change it. Well, it changed the complex, the complexion of this board. So I want to I want to I want to I just wanted to mention that I wanted to just really quickly, there were some comments. It's my understanding Mr. De Sung asked to be recused and then confirmed that that his decision was but he was not forced to recuse himself. That's a decision he gets to make. So I just wanted to and as the person who was asking the question, it was not that somebody told him he could not participate. And then I'm hoping maybe at the end of this, Debbie, if you could maybe speak to to Ms.. Fortuna about the process, because it is true that there is a successful applicant, but they have not gotten through the process by which they have been approved and are definitely going to open. There is still a process whereby neighbors will be able to give input, etc. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. I've really struggled on this and I think that the way that, that, that, that, that this has been set up is I think the agenda its agenda is badly and out of out of whack with what our sunshine ordinance requires. I don't think that even if somebody were to challenge that, I don't think that it means that it would get thrown out. But this is one of the most difficult titles I've ever read. And the specificity of specificity of it makes it so that we cannot talk about anything. We have to either move it forward as written or restart the process again and come back in four weeks with a new first reading. And I think that's unfortunate. I have up until yesterday been using the term I think we need to go slow. And I have heard very loudly that, you know, while being aware that we have been working on this for two years, we've gone slow. I think we still need to go small. And I'm going to just jump ahead to reading, reading the board a little bit. I would be willing to. Support. Maintaining this as written, but I would like to do so with direction to staff that they only issue an RFP for two more two more dispensaries. I don't think there's been a case made for that necessary. I think that we can issue two more and and, you know, take it take it a little take it a little , you know, start small, learn, learn from what we're learning and have the the ability to go out for a fourth as well. You know, I do think that there is some concern out there. To Mr. Sherrod's point. I do want to point out that there is a subsection here that says the chief of police, if there are welfare issues that he leave, sorry. Anyway, the chief of police has the ability to actually take immediate action to suspend operations. If people are violating the rules on these things, I will expect that our chief of police is not going to do so under a very ticky tacky complaint. But if people are doing things that are shown to be attracting or impacting children, I would expect that that action will be taken very, very swiftly. I also the reason I feel well, I would like to see some changes here. I know that a lot of work has gone into this and I'm going to honor that work. From my standpoint, I believe that the annual permit people would be coming back every single year gives us a lot of control. If there are bad actors, they will find themselves. At least for me, having invested a lot of money to operate a business for a year and then not being permitted to continue to do so. So with that, I'd love to hear from my colleagues. Thank you. Who's going next? Councilmember Vela. So I am a little concerned and I want to echo the vice mayor's comments about the interpretation of the RFP. I. I want to assume that we will we will get more advice once there's been a little more research into that, because what I heard essentially from Mr. Lay was that he wanted an Ms.. Potter, was that they wanted to look at other groups and how we'd done things. So I would like to get guidance on that. What concerns me in particular is, especially with the recusal issue, is that essentially if so, does that mean that if there's another, you know, person who's thinking about applying and I live within 500 feet of that, you know, that area that I'm now or any one of us would then be recused. I just I think it creates a kind of we could dove down a rabbit hole where we're in. Essentially, everyone could potentially have recusal issues because of the possibility of future changes or future applicants. And so that when that occurs, it seems to me that that's an issue of kind of general, you know, that it applies to everybody. And therefore, the recusal law wouldn't necessarily apply that. That's kind of an off the cuff thought that I'm having. But I would like to get some clarity on that because I think it will become an issue as to the specificity and how complex this title was. That was specifically in response to the complaint, which said that the title itself did not clarify with enough specificity what we were discussing. And so that's kind of the outcome of that, is that we get these very long titles that kind of lay out every single change since. That was my understanding. That was that was Ms.. Chen's complaint. Additionally, you know, I'm not inclined to change. I haven't heard anything that's that made me inclined to change my position on the substantive issues. I think that there's a lot of misinformation in the community and a lot of people who don't really understand. And I think we need to do a better job of clarifying what the specific process is, where there's an opportunity for community input. And we've had several meetings now where we've heard from community members that are near certain locations. And the feedback that I've given before and I think that this counsel has given before, is we need to clarify where and when the opportunity for those concerns to be raised would be and how people can go about doing that . And that's going to be largely before the planning board. But the other thing that we'd given direction on in past meetings was that there be some sort of good neighbor policy work done where we can kind of establish so that we avoid these sort of ticky tacky violations. But there can be standards put out where people can give feedback and the good neighbor policy can exist. It's something that's been done in San Francisco and other communities so that we know where what sort of things would constitute a substantive violation wherein, you know, the permit would not be renewed on the annual basis. I also think that, you know, regarding the delivery only thing, part of the discussion centered around around the time this came back to us, there were changes to the state regs. Prior to that, the state regs essentially allowed for delivery only to be operated under a different set of regs from storefront properties. And the state regs changed over summer. And they essentially said, nope, delivery only. You've got to comport with all of the regs that exist for storefront property. So now you have to have a separate location, you have to do all these different things. And that's been an extensive conversation that was going on with the state, and they changed those regs over the summer and it did have a significant change. And that was part of the reason for why we said, okay, you know, if they have to be the same, let's make it storefront, but let's require that they offer delivery only. And then the other reason that we we instituted the Grand Avenue dispersion was that the mile dispersion was an issue. It was hard to calculate. It made it difficult to kind of have people planned out. And you you made it dependent upon when different applicants came in, it became a very difficult process. But what we did institute relative to that Grand Avenue dispersion was that essentially you have to have one on each side of grand before you can get that second one. And that was something that we had talked about and we had put in there. And so what that does is that means that we will go slowly. Implementation will be considerate, it will be thoughtful. There is a process. We do want community input. We're not saying no to the community. The community, just like in other conditional use permit situations, will have an opportunity to input and give input. But this will stagger when different businesses come online. And so it's not that we're going to go from. 0 to 4 overnight. And in fact, when we look at other neighboring cities like San Leandro that are similar to two cities like Alameda, San Leandro, Emeryville there, they've been working on their cannabis rags for quite some time. San Leandro just finally got to a point where their cannabis dispensary is finally getting moving through the process. And it's been three years or two years, something like that. Three. So anyway, so I'm not compelled to change the substance of this. I do hope that in the future we can discuss and go over and be more considerate and thoughtful of transparency and access, but also lay out a process where we can address these procedural challenges sooner so that we're not drawing out the process for longer than it needs to be. Thank you. Councilman Brody. I'm way over here by myself. You lonely? You're hot. Just a quick question of the interim city attorney. So I there was a question raised about a possible referendum. So I believe a referendum would either make us like repeal this ordinance, which I think, if that happens, would revert us back to what we have today. Or we would have we would suspend the implementation of it and put it on the ballot, which I think also would revert us back to what we have today. Is that correct? That is a correct analysis. Okay. So I appreciate that. So, I mean, and I appreciate my my colleague, Ms.. Vela, you know, kind of re restating the history. But I think it's important to understand how we got to where we are today. I mean, the important thing to me is we can pass this, you know, we can quibble about why we're here and, you know, whether we should be here or not. But we're still going to have the same thing we have today. And if we don't pass it, we're still going to have the same thing we have today, except maybe a little bit more legal risk that the city attorney is concerned about. So, I mean, okay, I mean, six and one half dozen the other, I'd rather have less legal risk than more legal risk. And also, if I'm looking at this, you know, I'd rather pass it and then, you know, make it a little bit more ironclad. I, I sit up here and, you know, this. I don't know how many times we've had this discussion. I think if I counted it out, we've had, what, like 44 meetings over the past two years. I think 25% of them have had cannabis come up because I think there was my referral, I think to Spencer put in another referral. I think we had a discussion and we had a workshop. So I think that's three. I think we had one ordinance that had two readings, so that's up to five. I think we had a second ordinance that had two readings that's like seven. I thought we did something related to the July 1st testing lab. I don't remember if that was one or two. So if it was two, that's nine. We had the the discussion about the youth centers, that's 11. So now this is like meeting 12. And then if we have a second reading of this, that's like 13 meetings and we've talked about this a lot and I'm not going to use my whole time because, you know, there's probably an hour and a half worth of me talking on this. So I'm a little concerned that we're getting that people are getting a second bite at the apple to try to get rid of this. But now I'd like to pass it and get it done. What we did as a council and this is what I wanted to do. And I think Councilman Avila talked about, you know, San Leandro. I think it's been four years. Someone could check me if I'm wrong and I'm sure it'll be over Twitter if I'm if I'm incorrect. But it's been four years since they issued the first permit, and I think they're just starting to open. And then they had to go back and do a second one and then they had to go back and do a third one. So what I wanted to do here, and I think our council agreed, was set a framework to allow these businesses to go forth and let the market and let the planning process sort it all out. And then so we're not coming back, you know, you know, every time doing Whac-A-Mole, when, you know, somebody said somebody got a wrong deal here. Somebody didn't get a fair deal here. You know, we set the framework and the market will decide if there's four, maybe there won't be, maybe there'll be four and they'll be long lines and we'll have to reconsider that. Maybe they'll be one. Maybe in four years like San Leandro will still be struggling to have one open. I don't know. That's what the planning process is for. That's what the market is for. And I think our our job as council was to set a high level policy and put the framework in place for those other processes to play out. I think that's exactly what we're doing. I prefer that we don't have any delay in our piece. And, you know, I'd like to keep the same for so I'm not going to support any direction that would change our piece from, you know, four to any other number. So that's where I am on this. Okay. So I'll go last. And I, I think my position has been pretty clear all along. I have supported medicinal dispensaries all along. Testing laboratories, manufacture delivery only is fine. But I am troubled that we have managed to with a, you know, three two majority but it was still a majority morph into all of the dispensaries being able to dispense adult use as well as medicinal. And I know I've heard the statistic cited that 68% of Alameda residents voted in favor of legalizing recreational cannabis. And I'm sure I was one of them. But that was not a vote on. Wanting to have it in our in our city, in just any location. I am troubled because I don't think we have been respectful to segments of our community. We have an open government commission for a stated purpose, their mission, and they're there. They're the tasks that they're to complete and conduct were reviewed by the city attorney's office. So it is somewhat curious that the city attorney's office is now telling them, no, you don't have that authority, but be that as it may. I've also been troubled with the changing definition of youth center and the fact that I don't think we've heard or that we've been respectful of merchants on Webster Street. I get that they can come to a a hearing and object. But I think it was perhaps premature for the Webster Street or the yeah, the West Alameda Business Association to say that the Merchants Association approves this when we've heard from an awful lot of Webster Street merchants who certainly don't. But I do have a question for the city attorney. Interim city attorney, is the the issue of the changing or changed definition of youth center? Is that coming back to the council? No, unless there were three votes to have the matter returned to the council. Okay. Well, I doubt that that would be the case. Okay. So so I'm not going to support either either of these ordinances, but are we ready for a vote, folks? And city clerk you want us to do each separately. Do a vote on both. The vote and both. Okay. So is there a motion to consider introduction of, you know, let's well, that probably doesn't make a difference. Okay, we're okay with that city attorney interim city draft. Okay. So public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code as stated in the first paragraph of item six B and then introduction of ordinance, amending the municipal code by amending the articles and zoning districts and all stated in the second paragraph of item six B Is there a motion? I'll make that motion as long as I don't have to read the whole thing. I was avoiding it too. We have a motion by Councilmember Otis. Do we have a second? Is there any discussion? I'd just like that Vice Mayor. Discuss for a couple of seconds. Sure. And rather than make an alternative motion or whatever else, I guess, I mean, I'd like to ask for consideration of limiting the RFP. I haven't yet heard a heard a. The original consultant on this said that Alameda should look at 3 to 4 dispensaries. I haven't heard a compelling reason why four has to be the number, and I've heard that people are okay with Ford, but I've also heard a lot of concern in our community, and I just wonder if we could pass this and then do the RFP for three and and and vote and get at least three votes on this to just move it forward, get rid of the, you know, legal whatever that the attorney has referenced. I am just wondering if you would be willing to consider that I'm making a last minute. I know you said no, but I'm asking again. Madam Chair, if I may, and I did say I wouldn't be and I. I still wouldn't be. I appreciate the ask. I think if I recall correctly, the consultant said it's like one dispensary for 15,000 people. So, you know, Ford may actually be one less than our market would support. So because we have, what, 78, 79, almost 80,000 people. So, you know, I would like to just keep the process that we passed and keep moving forward with it without any changes. Your hand. Councilmember Avila Yeah, and that was a point that was also raised at the I think the last time that we voted on this. And specifically he had said it was for one for every 15,000, and that was based off of the total number of sales that they do per day plus the the volume that that because they're limited in terms of how much they can sell per day, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay. So we've had a motion and a second all in favor. I opposed. No. Okay. So the motion is tied to into. The item film. So so yeah. With more legal risk and exposure to the city. All right. Thank you, everyone. And at this point. I'm just going to give you a roadmap of. How we're going to get our. Oh, yeah. We have another calling. Um. Okay. I'm sorry. You've lost him. How could you lose a council, mate? I thought he went through there. Okay. A Tony de song? Yeah. This one here? Mm hmm. So while the city clerk is hunting for our highest council member, we've rarely lost one for long. This is. This is the way the meeting is going to proceed, unless anyone has strenuous objections. We're going to finish items seven, eight, nine and ten and 11. I'm going to adjourn this council meeting. We are going to go back for a brief closed session because there was one item, but it's a short item we didn't get to before this meeting. And then we will return. And I'm told, I believe, no more than 30 minutes. Mr. Potter, give me a nod of the head, everyone. Okay? No more than 30 minutes for the closed session item, and then we will come back. And take a break. I don't want to do. An issue and then we're going to come back. To use the bathroom. Okay. But I'm still I still want to proceed, as I. Know you guys can figure. Out what. To figure. Out. Okay. Okay. We are going to take. Are we still in the matter? No, we we finished. We finished that item. It's done. And okay, we will take a ten minute break. This meeting is resuming at 940. Thank you. It's 940 and we are going to we're going to we're sorry. Went the wrong agenda. Okay. City Council. Okay. Here we're. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for keeping that to 10 minutes. And this is what we're going to do. Well, I'm just having a little trouble bringing my agenda up, but I'll try again. Okay, so we are on item seven and this is a meeting. It's a little unusual because we have a special meeting following the regular meeting, but I'm going to insert a brief, brief closed session because there was an item with Debbie party that we did not get to before seven. We had to come to the 7:00 meeting. We were a little late to that, so please bear with me. So I'm going to just go down the list. We are now at City Manager Communication. No report. All right. And do we have any oral communications non agenda? Okay. And we don't have any council referrals. How about council communications? Councilmember Odie, can I start with you?