Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (1) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (2) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as “Dispensary/Delivery” (Delivery Required) Within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (3) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (4) Create a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis Businesses, (4) Amend Certain Portions of the Regulatory Ordinance to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or “Adult Use” Cannabis, (5) Modify Requirements for Off-Island Delivery, and (6) Make Other Clarifying or Conforming Amendments thereto. (Economic Development)
And I just want to clarify. From a city attorney or staff in regards to this proceeding, with this item. This is appropriate as well. We did receive an open government complaint, but once again, as I stated previously, it's appropriate for counsel to consider this now on second reading. Thank you. And we have six speakers as my understanding. So then each speaker gets up to 3 minutes. Just so you all know, if we had seventh and it's 2 minutes each, but we're at six, so it's still 3 minutes each. So our speakers are Sarina chan and Don share it. Enrich Moscow with the Ryan cabal. Philip Read and then Andrew Huntoon. If you want to speak on asylum, please submit your slip. Good evening, Mayor Spencer, members of the council. My name is Sabrina Chan. I've lived here for over 20 years and moved here so that my son could attend Alameda Public Schools, which he did and did quite well. I'm here because I spent the past 30 years in public health trying to protect youth and trying to protect the public health of everyone through tobacco control laws. So when this cannabis law came forward, I said, Why don't we apply everything we've learned about public health to cannabis so that we get it right from the start and not just rush into it. So when I saw that the vote was coming up on October 16th, I read with great interest what was on the agenda and what was on the agenda. Said that you would be adding a delivery only to delivery only dispensaries conditionally permit delivery only dispensaries closed to the public in the sea zone. So when I looked at that, I said, Well, if they're delivery only and they're in a m zone, I didn't have any particular question about it, although now I do have to. But to me, that's a delivery only location where it's kind of a company where they just get cannabis and deliver it and they do not have public access. So I was in Iowa that day and when I came back I was too tired to come to the council meeting. But had I known this was going to magically change on the agenda, I would have come the during the after public comment was closed off, this council decided to change the permit delivery only dispensaries which were closed to the public into two full service cannabis dispensaries in which the public would be welcome to come. So that would be doubling the number of permitted recreational cannabis dispensaries in this city. And in my humble experience, as someone who fights for public health policy, I've often been told whenever you have a substantive change in an ordinance, you need to start over again, come back with the proper language, and then reintroduce it so the public has a chance to comment on it. So that's why I really felt that it was a violation of our Sunshine Ordinance, which warns people in advance as to what's going to happen. And my, in my opinion, a delivery only dispensary that's stipulated close to the public is not the same as a full service recreational marijuana dispensary. So adding those to that night without public comment, I felt was a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. And then just as a matter of information. All of you felt that the Ruby tablet tumbling was a youth center in which very young children tumble. So in my estimation, a martial arts center, a martial arts clinic, is a place where a lot of youth attend. So that's a definition I think we really need to look at. Thank you. Thank you. Don't share it. And then Rich Moskowitz. Welcome again. I get my 3 minutes. Yes, you heard a lot of reasons why on that first part. But the second part that I have in this ordinance. You're looking at changing some things that were in the original. Again, the original order that was passed and there's a lot of gaps in here that I totally don't understand. I wish we had more time to debate them. I hope that no one on your staff has cannabis interests and no one from the city manager on down, as ever been involved with cannabis industry because it looks like again, here we go, let's work work it out so those people can get what they want and do what they want in the city of Alameda. You know, you look at this thing, eliminate the cap on testing laboratories. What's that mean to go on to 20 ad to delivery only dispensaries? I can understand that one. Dispensaries again and delivery allow adult use. Fine. Adult use is legal. That's okay. Create a two tier buffer zone from sensitive uses for dispensaries and cultivation businesses. What's a two tier? Buffer zone. Two blocks. Thousand feet. 200 feet. What does that mean? I don't know who wrote this, but I think they'd better start. Explain it a little bit better to the public, or at least give the public a chance to look at it and maybe get a chance to react to it if that's your business. Better start doing a clearer. Okay. That's it for me. I don't like it. I'm speaking against it. And I hope it's more than a32 vote again. Thank you. Thank you, Rich Moskowitz. Mayor. Vice mayor. City Council members, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Rich Moskowitz. I've been in Alameda for 14 years and for the last year and a half, two years or so, it's been my privilege to be involved in this issue. My first exposure to Alameda politics and quite honestly, separate from the cannabis issue, I started to learn a lot about our government. I've attended a lot of these meetings and it's been an interesting but wonderful experience. Also as primary founder, one of the founding members of ASCO, the group that worked on medical law last year and the founding member of Alameda Cannabis Times to work on the recreational issue this year. And also the author of the ballot measure that we're trying to put to bed tonight. So I want to address one of the things I've heard tonight. Just to be very clear, I believe all of you are very clear on this. We've worked hard together to establish a very sensitive ordinance that has exceeded the state requirements when it comes to schools by 40%. And additionally, we've added a list of sensitive sites that's not good for the schools. Before you, tonight is the culmination of a lot of hard work on both sides. And I also want to address what I've just heard is I was personally involved last year at the Mastic Center in putting on an education program for the city. And back in July. Just one other thing to address. I heard tonight I'm not sure who is from that. One of the speakers felt that you up the dispensary's and you did it without them realizing it. But to bring everyone's attention back to the July meeting, your group passed four dispensaries and two additional deliveries. When we came back, the city staff had changed that to consider deliveries dispensaries. I was at that planning board meeting and the logic behind that was discussed there and summarily somewhat rejected without time assured. I won't keep doing. I won't go down that road. We can all look at those tapes. I'm here tonight to urge you to pass the ordinance. As it stands, the issue I'm very aware of that has come up is a clarifying issue. I appreciate the staff's position that this would be a second reading and the clarifying issue would be part of a rigorous debate, as it should be on 1127. And quite honestly, if there's something I've learned in the last two years is we as comedians are really great at a vigorous debate. So I urge you tonight to pass this ordinance and finish the work that we've all been doing here in 2018. And we've really all started this two years ago. This is not to do anything but to provide a benefit for Alameda. And as Mark Herdsman said earlier, we are very concerned that we want this to be safe. We want this to be off our streets, and we want this to be accessible to everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Ryan Agbal and then Philip read. Hello, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, thank you for joining us tonight. My name is Ryan Agbo. I was born and raised here in Alameda, so that's 34 years. And you know, just what I'm bringing it to everybody's attention that, you know, Kansas has been cannabis has been here on the island this whole time and there's been no dispensaries. And like my cousin said, you know, the dealers that are on the street, they don't check for it. So the safest way to keep cannabis out of the hands of youngsters is to have dispensaries, because dispensaries tend to dispel dealers because, you know, people don't want to go deal with some some some guy out of their apartment. They want to go to an establishment and they want to they want to be, you know, treated with respect. So, you know, just dispelling that that whole argument that it's opening a dispensaries is going to put it in the hands of kids that just don't seem to make sense. No one goes to a dispensary and and accept. No, no one go. No kids aren't allowed in surgery. So that's yeah. That's just a a pointless argument going to the the other the other point of trying to equate cannabis to Cigarets. That's another argument that doesn't make any sense at all because, you know, there's no no kind of evidence, no kind of amendment, no kind of proof that tobacco has any kind of benefit, medicinal benefit to to anyone. All it does is harm people. So to equate cannabis and cigarets just because you're smoking something, I think that speaker should rethink that because cannabis is proven to to help a number of of individuals, whether it's cancer or, you know, even something as small as sleep issues. And so, you know, we we're so we're so quick to judge people who who use a certain medicine, but yet, you know, we're okay with going to CVS and going see a pharmacist or going to a liquor store and grabbing a bottle. And, you know, for some reason, cannabis has a stigma around it. So tonight, I mean, I'm up here to urge the city council to proceed with the second with the second reading. And also, I mean, if it's possible to maybe get the clarifying language tonight, you know, it's as simple as limiting these youth centers to businesses that cater 100% to youth. If it's something like a karate studio where, you know, for example, there's one on Webster Street, it's a taichi qigong institute. I would not consider that a youth center. I don't see kids trying to take qigong or tai chi. I mean, it's usually for adults. So, you know, there's that. Does it make any sense to try to make that a youth center when it's not primarily used for or catered to to the youth? So that's all I I've got to say. Again, I encourage you to move forward with with this reading. Thank you. Thank you, Philip Read and then Andrew Hunter. If you want to speak on the side and please submit your. Hi. My name is Phillip Red and I'm a local cannabis activist. I agree. With apologies. I have to interrupt, but we just received another slip, which means from this point forward we have had seventh and now the time amount changes reduce us to 2 minutes and we will start your clock at the two. And I apologize that that that's the policy. Okay. I agree with everything the second speaker said. We've been dealing with this for far too long, and we've covered this exact issue in the past. We've already agreed on this, and there's no reason to change course at this point. Just to let you know a story about a city I was in for a while, Spokane, where some rich guy decided to use arcades as a way to block the Green Zone in his town. He could afford property and he just started sprinkling garbage arcades all over town. Now, city ordinance eventually kicked in and decided to make that no longer a protected use. But what it was, was one person's opening their wallet and closing the whole green zone for the city. So be careful of that happening. I don't think any Ruby tumblers are going to be going into the cannabis stores and they'll be passing a lot of bars on the way there so they get their IDs checked on the bar. Don't know really what you're worried about. I think the first speaker is kind of misinformed. There's no winners or losers declared in these races yet, and we're still 10,000 votes away from declaring a winner. He was also misinformed about the dangers dispensaries pose to kids. There are dispensaries are here to protect kids and the stores are provide many safeguards for that. And that proves that marijuana is safer than alcohol. Once again, they can go into any store in shoplift or a marijuana store or they can't even go inside the building. I personally have my own agenda in cannabis. I think that I want to see access for everybody and I have unlimited access to cannabis personally, and I've been giving away free cannabis all over town at certain fairs and events. The Beer and Wine Festival I've been in concert at The Cove. Kids are present handing out free weed. Nobody can stop me. So why don't you guys give safe access and I'll knock off the free access. All right? Otherwise, somebody else might do exactly what I do, but they'll use it as a gateway to sell harder drugs. And believe me, it's not that hard. Thank you, Andrew. And Andrew Hunter and then Roslyn Moya. Andrew, and go ahead. Sorry. If you are sorry, you got can be quiet so we can appreciate those speakers. Thanks so much. My name is Andy Huntoon. I'm essentially a 70 year Alameda resident. And I think that we need to recognize that there's a big difference between regulating a legal industry or nit picking a legal industry out of existence. They were confined to an island. And if the intent is that we were to have two dispensaries, one on either end of town, putting a yardstick on it and finding that they intersect by by even eighth of a mile in the middle of town is a ridiculous restriction. We're handcuffing ourselves and punishing our citizens by dragging our feet on this issue. I urge you to pit past this, and if any other regulation needs to be made, talk it over and come up with a respectful answer that accommodates the citizens of Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Roslyn lawyer. Hi. Sorry for my Late Edition there. I didn't know that this was on the agenda that we were changing or increasing from, um, deliveries to dispensaries. So I just wanted to mention my being against that, mainly because I've passed by dispensaries and they look very scary. They have an armed guard person in the front with a gun and they have barred windows. It's just not something I want to see in my neighborhood. I also I grew up with people who used marijuana regularly and it just is not good for public health. We don't need that in Alameda. I think that the delivery systems can get to the people that need it, but we don't need dispensaries. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. That completes our public comment on this item Council. Do you have any mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, in the circle back? Remember Ashcroft. Okay. Thank you. Just from the top, I'm going to vote to oppose this only because I have said all along that I wanted us to go slow and start small on our marijuana businesses, because it's what I learned from attending a number of seminars and educating myself. And I was concerned about the impact that the opening up to all the different businesses would have on staff, time, regulation, enforcement. But I do want to go back to something that the first speaker said that I took exception to, and that was an inference that on our staff we might have people who are involved in cannabis businesses that might have some underhanded reason for the regulation. I think there was also an inference that we had I can't quite remember the reference to the the consultant we used, a cookie cutter consultant or something like that. I attended an all day seminar in Santa Clara and it's probably a couple of years ago now put on by that consultant. It was extremely impressive. They're very knowledgeable. They have experience all over the state. I did not feel that they were advocates, but I know city staff even better and I can impeach for I can vouch for their integrity. And so while I don't agree with everything that has been proposed and I will say to Mr. Cohen, I am concerned that I do think we made a significant change in the ordinance by adding the adult use dispensaries that weren't noticed. But I you know, I'm not the city attorney, so I'll I'll defer to you on that one. But I would never suggest that someone had a less than honorable reason. Our staff are professionals and I just wanted to make that public. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I think part of the fix is that we've pulled the item tonight. We've heard from everybody on this topic. I've read the correspondence. I think it's our intent to address the questions that have been raised relative to defining what is a youth center. And I will say that that to me saying, well, Ruby's tumbling is similar to a martial arts studio. Pretty sure that at Ruby's tumbling, it's marketed to people like my niece who are toddlers and doing tumbling classes. And yet, yes, there are parents that go there. They go there to watch their kids participate in classes. It's certainly not marketed to adults. And part of our intent is really to make sure that there are businesses, there are spaces that businesses can locate. I've gone to a number of meetings on this. I've been working on this issue since 2011 when I was working for the state of California. I visited a number of different facilities. I think that there are correct ways and safe ways to do this and there are best practices, and I certainly think we're working towards those. But we've also not we've also limited where dispensaries and different cannabis businesses can locate. And when we do that, we can't then say and now we're going to put in all these other things that limit the distances, such that there's no place that you can locate. Because effectively that's what we tried the first time we did the RFP. And what we found was there weren't a lot of applicants and in certain cases we had zero applicants. And what we were getting feedback from, from folks that were originally interested in locating here was that they could not find space. And when they started doing the measurements, they would be a couple of feet within the 600 feet or a couple of feet within the thousand feet, or they would be within so many feet of another potential location. And so that was the intent, at least my intent, behind the changes that we gave that I gave directing staff last time. I also think that at least again, my reasoning, the number of delivery only we had proposed to that was something that we had talked about before. My mother had breast cancer this year. She did not want to take opiates because of addiction issues and everything else. She went through several rounds of chemotherapy. I went to every session with her and sat there and watched her get chemo. I took care of her after chemo for several nights. The only thing that got her through it. Was cannabis. It helped her keep food down. It helped her. And. And part of it. She was so weak by the end, she couldn't go and pick up the cannabis that she was taking. And my mother's. Absolutely. Anyone who's met my mother, she's an SNL alum, never done drugs in her life. One of the cleanest cut people you've ever met. Absolutely hate smoking. Totally opposes it. Did not smoke any cannabis. She consumed it, but she went to a dispensary. Prior to starting chemo, she did a consultation with a couple of people at a couple different dispensaries. She tried to be as educated as she could. She talked to her pharmacist. She talked to her doctor, tried to figure out dosage. And she she went with edibles and topicals. And unfortunately, not all dispensaries provide the same products. They all it's kind of like a, you know, a boutique shop. They carry certain products. So we had to go to a couple of different places to get her medicine. And she got so weak that she couldn't go, I would have to go. And not all of those dispensaries even offered delivery. And through the delivery only services there were really limited. And she couldn't go and get that consultation and that retail experience that she could at a dispensary. And what happened between when we first started discussing this issue and when we made the decision at the last meeting, was that the state started treating delivery only operations similarly to retail dispensaries. So the state started saying retail delivery only. You have to have all you have to meet all the benchmarks of a retail shop. So you have to have all the security provisions. You have to go through all of these different steps, but you're only limited to delivery only. And so for that reason, what I what I said was, rather than having four dispensaries or, you know, two dispensaries here and not having that equity, let's go ahead and have four dispensaries total. Two of them have to offer delivery. And so in my mind, it was kind of merging what we were originally talking about rather than adding to it. And I take the security provisions very seriously. It's I don't want some place that a kid could walk into. There should be a security check. I don't know about an armed guard outside, but there should be a security check. I don't want advertising outside. I want to make sure that track and trace is followed to a tee so that we know what's being sold and to who and when. That's very important. The state has has made this one of the most regulated substances out there. That's a good thing. And I think we do have cannabis and we have a cannabis black market right now. Certainly when I was going to school, the easiest place to get it was at school. And I don't think that that's how it should be. I think we need to get rid of that and I hope that this will address it and this will do it in a regulated way. But I do want to make sure that we we have that robust conversation relative to what is a youth center and that we follow staff's recommendation to separate that out and have that meeting on the 27th. And we can have that continued conversation then. But I plan to move forward tonight with with the other changes. And. BRODY Thank you, Madam Chair. I would agree with pretty much everything my colleague said. I do want to have that discussion on youth centers because in the email that we received was, you know, how is staff going to interpret that? So I think the more guidance we can give our staff, the better. But I didn't want to just touch on a point that my colleague Councilmember Ashcraft mentioned. And maybe, Alan, you can help with that. I mean, staff members certain staff members have to provide like form 700 ethics disclosures, right. So if they did, can you kind of just for the public's purpose, if there was anyone who had any material financial interest in a cannabis industry or business, you know, talk about how that is disclosed. And just kind of briefly. I mean, if if a person did have an ownership interest or had a significant investment in a local cannabis business, they would have to publicly disclose it on their form 700. And they if it were a member of the body, the member of the body would have to recuse themselves. If it were a member of the body, the member of the body would have to recuse themselves. And once again, this this would all be available in the in the publicly available form seven hundreds. We have those on our websites for high level staff that would be making these types of decisions. I don't know if we have them available on our website. But we're at the clerk's office. There's a clerk so that if anyone had any questions or any concerns, they could look. And all the reportable staff have these things filed. Yes, that's absolutely correct. Thank you. Did any other council members want to speak on this item? I want to speak on this item. I'm actually glad that we have so many youth here in our audience today. I believe our council has been extremely responsible and trying to come up with a policy that it is as safe as possible. I've raised four children in this town. Cannabis is available in Alameda. I am. I am very concerned that we have people come and speak and suggest that it's not and that somehow we're doing something that is not safe for our students. Why? Because we actually are trying to make it safe, as safe as possible for those that use those that consume in any manner whatsoever, those that are concerned because of stigma, other reasons. And what I have in fact. So one of my girls came home from either Lincoln around me to high risk not too many years ago because my youngest graduated 2012. But a student showed up late to school who had been pistol whipped after a a deal with cannabis going wrong something about. So so I have heard stories. I have also during the time that two years I don't I don't think two years is moving fast. I think, honestly, many people, many districts, many cities have addressed this issue in significantly less than two years. We've been looking at this issue for two years in regards to so in regards to safety, we are trying to make it safe. We're trying to have it lab tested. I was going to add that during the time during the two years, I've had several people come to me and tell me that when they thought that they were buying marijuana, in fact, they bought something that was mixed and they ended up in county with in a coma. Each of them had similar stories of approximately like three days and not knowing part of their life. So there are serious consequences sometimes for which is, you know, for buying anything, anything on in the black market. So that's exactly why we're trying to make sure that anything that's consumed is lab tested so that people know it has, in fact, been lab tested. And we're trying to also have access to dispensaries, as other council members have said, so that people are able to go and and you have to be 21 or over or you have to have a doctor, a permit from a doctor, a note from a doctor or something like that. So that this is very high. There's lots of safeguards here. I am also a 11 year breast cancer now. I myself did eight treatments of chemo. I currently do treatments that are a result of that chemo. I am one of those people that am very concerned about any of opiate drugs that are prescribed. So I don't do them. And honestly, I think if we really want to tackle issues. Cannabis is not the problem. It's opiate addiction. And. And. And and I'm going. To say it's all of you. That's why I'm happy to have so many youth here. We're going to have to figure out a better way than prescribing opiates because we know what's happening with that. And this is your counsel stepping up and trying to be responsible. And honestly, it's not the six. And also, we did have a veteran Marine here that served in Vietnam and he has come to multiple meetings and shared his. Horrible stories of going through that whole journey, the pain and and on why he's now an advocate for cannabis. We know we have many veterans, the fastest growing demographic for this. It is actually senior citizens as they age. They have many, many health issues and they're trying to figure out a way to age gracefully and not become addicted to opiates and have to die young and have someone else take care of them. Honestly, it's trying to figure out a lifestyle to move forward and to think that people can drive into Oakland or drive to San Francisco, and that's okay that our city shouldn't be having any dispensaries here. Let me tell you, if you're doing chemo and I was doing chemo and many of you know, people that have done chemo , you know, a lot of times now we can't we can't drive to Oakland. We can't drive. We are totally dependent upon our community and for helping us that that's the reality. So distance does matter. And sometimes, you know, there's a lot of things that are available that you're not smoking. There's a lot of different things. And it is something that I that I am I am an advocate for this. And another serious problem is reducing the stigma, because, unfortunately, you have people and I've seen this and you can go to the cancer center, you can see people unfortunately, they're in very, very compromised health situations and they aren't eating. They have nausea and they won't try cannabis because of the stigma attached to it. It's really, really sad. We have to figure out a better way to move forward. I will be supporting this. I want to commend my council members. Member Odie and Vice Mayor Molly Avella are really moving forward with this journey. I also want to commend our community activists that have gone to these meetings for the last two years and we are moving forward as a community. I also want to say we did have many business people try to open businesses on the east end of town and on the farm. And I had I have heard stories of of not of the business of the seller refusing to move forward once they hear it's about a cannabis business. So we did respond at the council level and we said, okay, on the west end of town, they do seem more open to trying to help us meet this need and move forward responsibly. So we did agree that we could have two on the West End and not wait one and then one because we have to respond . And to those businesses that think that, you know, we're just going to say no and we're going to somehow keep cannabis off the island. It is here. It's been here. And we want to move forward responsibly. And I ask all of you to join us and move forward responsibly. So we have a motion. You don't want to mention it. Really? Yes. The other thing is, relative to neighboring businesses, one thing that is out there that I believe staff is considering and looking at is the San Francisco good neighbor policy and that that policy went into effect. And it deals with things like smoking outside of the business, posting signs that says no smoking, no loitering, things like that, making sure cars aren't double parked. Things that could relate to how safe and operational the businesses. So if if we if we were to give staff direction tonight in terms of looking on the 27th at the definition of youth centers and other things that could be considered as part of the later process and conditional use permitting, those are the types of things that we could be looking at to make sure that when something is permitted, there are operational things that we can look at to make sure that they are they continue best practices once a permit is there. And if they don't comply with what those best practices are, that we can actually take action. I also want to share real quick in regards to what the appearance looks like outside of these dispensaries. Some of you have seen them. You go down to Carmel. You're going to see cannabis animals. It looks honestly like an art gallery. There are no armed guards. It's actually very, very nice. And there is a way to have these businesses in our community where they don't stand out there just like any other business. And they are responsible owners. Member. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like to move approval of the item with additional direction to staff to come back with a discussion on youth centers and how that's going to be interpreted. Second, all those in favor i. I. I suppose those. Motion carries 3 to 2. And we're going to take. A short recess at this time. 830. Thank you. Everybody. If everybody could, please take your seat. We're going to resume our meeting. Oh, I should really dim the lights. Here we go. All right. Thank you so much. That was actually great. We're going to resume our meeting. We are now on item six A. The introduction of ordinance amending a lease amendment with the maximum three year extension of the lease with CSI mini storage. The California Limited Liability Company for Building 338 608 and 60883c located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue at Alameda Point. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Ninette mercado. In the. Base. We use. Community development department. What you have before you is a renewal of a lease. With an.