Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 16-084 <br />The Rules Committee recommended that the selection process for the second dispensary <br />permit be limited to the two remaining teams from the list of three business teams outlined <br />above (i.e. Blum/San Leandro Community Collective and Davis Street Wellness Center). <br />Since the original applications from the first permit selection process are now greater than one <br />year old, the Committee also recommended that the business teams be provided an <br />opportunity to submit updated application materials, including updated pro forma financial <br />projections, proof of capitalization documentation, and new community benefits proposals. <br />The teams would also be required to submit an affidavit confirming that none of the applicant <br />team members have been arrested or convicted of any of the crimes enumerated in the <br />adopted ordinance since submittal of the original application materials last year. <br />In addition, the Rules Committee recommended that a staff person from the San Leandro <br />Police Department be added to the inter-departmental stakeholder group to assist in vetting <br />the updated application materials. Lastly, the Rules Committee recommended that the <br />scoring criteria be modified to add more weight to the scoring of the community benefits <br />program as well as the security plan. <br />Following a review and scoring of the updated application materials by the City Manager’s <br />inter-departmental stakeholder group (with the assistance of its consultant), each of the teams <br />would be invited to interview with the inter-departmental stakeholder group. The stakeholder <br />group would also conduct site visits, reference checks, and related due diligence that would <br />be used to inform a recommendation to the City Council from the City Manager. <br />The City Manager’s recommendation would then be scheduled for consideration by the City <br />Council at a regular meeting; with the approval of a process tonight, staff believes that <br />consideration could occur in Spring 2016. The application materials from each of the teams <br />would be attached to the Council agenda packets so that the City Council will have the <br />opportunity to review both teams’ proposals (after being redacted to exclude any information <br />exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act such as security plans, social <br />security numbers, etc.). Prior to the City Council taking action on the City Manager’s <br />recommendation, the two applicant teams would be given the opportunity to provide a 10 <br />minute presentation before the Council in order to highlight the merits of their proposals, to be <br />followed by a question and answer session with the City Council. The City Council would then <br />render its decision and award the permit to whichever team provided the optimal combination <br />of knowledge, expertise, experience, and alignment with the Council-adopted criteria. <br />The underlying rationale for the above recommendations is multi-fold. First, by limiting the <br />process to only the other two highest rated teams that qualified for site visits, it would <br />streamline the administrative review of the applications because both teams were previously <br />vetted, screened, interviewed, and visited as part of the selection process for the first <br />dispensary permit. Additionally, by requiring the teams to submit affidavits, it would avoid the <br />need for new background investigations through the State Department of Justice, which took <br />greater than five months for the state to process. <br />Fiscal Impact <br />The applicant teams would be required submit a non-refundable $3,000 application fee in <br />order to compete for the second permit, which is designed to offset the costs of processing <br />their applications. The team that is awarded the dispensary permit would also be required to <br />Page 3 City of San Leandro Printed on 2/10/2016