ALAMEDA — There will be no changes in Alameda’s cannabis rules, despite a complaint filed with the city’s open government commission over alleged inadequate public notice of a proposal to increase possible dispensaries.
Interim City Attorney Michael Roush said the City Council did not violate the city’s sunshine ordinance when it adopted cannabis ordinances in November 2018, including one that would allow two “delivery-required” dispensaries.
But on Tuesday, Roush still urged the council to repeal the ordinances that triggered the complaint, saying it would help protect the city from a possible lawsuit.
He also recommended adopting replacement ordinances with the same language as the ones approved in November.
The proposed actions were out of “an abundance of caution only,” Roush said.
The recommendation left council members confused.
“I may not be alone in wondering why we are even bothering going through this exercise if the outcome is already known,” Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft said.
Councilman Jim Oddie echoed Ashcraft. “(If we pass new ordinances), we are still going to have the same thing we are going to have today,” said Oddie, who nevertheless supported Roush’s recommendation. “And if we don’t pass it, we are still going to have the same thing that we have today, except maybe with a little bit more legal risk that the city attorney is concerned about.”
Roush said the city’s sunshine ordinance — which aims to promote open government — was not violated when the agenda describing the cannabis ordinances was posted last year. And even if a violation had occurred, he said, the commission does not have the authority to render an adopted ordinance null and void.
The council ended up splitting 2-2 on whether to support Roush’s recommendation. Councilman Tony Daysog recused himself because an application is underway for a marijuana dispensary near his home.
Ashcraft voted against the recommendation, saying she was concerned the cannabis rules had been revisited multiple times since their original adoption.
Roush’s recommendation also seemed to undermine the city’s open government commission, she said.
“I am troubled because I don’t think we have been respectful to segments of our community,” she said. “We have an open government commission for a stated purpose. Their mission and the tasks that they are to complete and conduct were reviewed by the city attorney’s office. So it’s somewhat curious that the city attorney’s office is now telling them, ‘No you don’t have that authority.’ ”
Alameda resident Serena Chen filed the complaint with the commission in October 2018, saying the council’s agenda earlier that month was misleading because it described “delivery only” dispensaries that would be closed to the public.
The council, however, ended up approving storefront dispensaries that would be required to offer delivery service.
The commission upheld her complaint in November 2018 and told the council to reverse its actions and reconsider the issue at a future meeting.
Councilwoman Malia Vela joined Oddie in supporting Roush’s recommendation. Along with Ashcraft, Vice Mayor John Knox White voted against it.
White called the city’s cannabis regulations “a mess from a policy standpoint” in an e-mail.
White said he hoped revisiting the ordinances would have resulted in limiting the number of dispensaries permitted under the city’s rules to three instead of four.
While 68 percent of Alameda voters supported the state ballot initiative in November 2016 to allow recreational marijuana, White said he believed that many who supported legalization are concerned about where dispensaries are located and their impact on neighborhoods.
“If I thought there was a big compelling need for four dispensaries, I probably would have supported it, but talking to folks in the industry, I couldn’t come up with any and this seemed, to me, like a reasonable way to compromise, show that we hear people across the community,” White said.