Recommendation to request City Attorney to work with the Development Services Department to amend location requirements in the Long Beach Municipal Code 5.92.420 - Location requirements.
Me thinking that I will do a final item. Just 24. Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to request city attorney to work with development services to amend location requirements and the municipal code for retail adult use cannabis. Thank you. I think that council member Janine Pearce is going to recuse herself. Yes, I'm going to recuse myself from this item from my previous work with from the Earth Cannabis. Thanks so much. Thank you. Councilman's in Dallas. Thank you. Yes. First and foremost, I just wanted to say that I'm really excited to just see this business coming into our paying street, especially now. I know that there is going to be. A lot of stress on rebuilding the economy right now. And so I know that I was working on this item before, you know, COVID 19 hit us. But now that COVID 19 has hit us, it's even more desirable to bring businesses in and help them survive, especially in the downtown area. With that being said, one of the things that we're trying to to establish here is a small change in the ordinance, the location of where cannabis can be distributed or sold. Retail wise. But before I go on, I would like to ask city staff if they could clarify some things for me. I feel like there's been a little miscommunication or I just feel like maybe by me asking this, you know, it'll help me and everybody else who's listening, you know, add some clarification to this item. First of all, the business that is applying at 240, 3433 Pine Avenue, and where are they in the process to getting their medical cannabis license? Councilwoman Zendejas. And this is Jay Callery from the city manager's office. We we do have a business that has applied for a change of location to Pine Avenue. The address that you're referring to, and my understanding is the business that has applied for that location has submitted a business license or a change of location application to the city. They've been approved at that location for a medical dispensary business license. They've submitted architectural drawings to the city, and they're midway through that process to receive permits and initiate construction. Thank you, Angie. And I know we've talked about this before, but I also wanted it to be clear to everyone as well. Another question that I had is, well, how? Do you see that there might be any obstacles from them actually getting the license, the medical license to do business there at this hospital? Not from the city's end. Once a business is approved for a location, it's really at their discretion how quickly they move through the process, how quickly they can submit plans to the city that are up to code. If they initiate construction, how long it takes them to build the facility and complete inspections and obtain a license. So from from the city's end, there is no reason why a business would be held up in the process. Okay. And another another question, AJ, is when they're going through the check, hindsight, you know, for lack of a better term, what is it that a medical marijuana licensing business is inquiring as far as like smell for, you know, a cannabis business? During the application process. Cannabis businesses are aware that if your question is about odor, that ultimately when they receive a license, they're prohibited from having any odor detected from outside of of the facility. But our our building bureau staff have told us on multiple occasions that that is something that's very difficult to inspect for during the planning check process. And so that the odor control issue is one that we deal with after a license has been issued and the business is operating. And if we receive a complaint about odor, that's something that we enforce through our health department. Okay. And one of the things that I know and maybe Councilwoman Price, you can you can chime in on this, but I know that we have a business like this business that's coming into to Pine Street. I know that. Have you gotten a lot of complaints as far as having a you know, it's in such close proximity to other businesses. I know that they share well walls with other businesses. I don't know. Councilmember Price, might you be able to answer that? Sure. So this particular business that's the subject of the agenda item tonight happens to be the owner and operator of the business that it's in my district on Second Street. I have I have a couple in my district, but this one particularly is on a business corridor that has close proximity to residences. I will say that he has perhaps presented an operating model that might not be realistic, because I'm not sure that most owners and operators would be as responsible as he is. So, you know, the biggest concerns I have is what happens when he's not the owner operator. But in regards to what's happened on Seventh Street is we've worked very closely with the owner operator, which is the same one as this agenda item in regards to any odors or practices that we've received complaints about. Honestly, I think I can count on one hand the number of complaints we've received regarding the specific business of this specific operation. What's the subject matter of the business and the general anxiety along with the business type? We've had a lot of those, but they're not unique to this particular business. We've had very, very little concerns from the public about it. And to the extent that there have been concerns, the business owner has worked with us very closely to make sure that. Things such as odor or you know, I always like to use the example of the security guards outside and how they're dressed. You know, I always like the security guards at all of our marijuana dispensaries in the third district to look more like greeters than police officers. And he's done a really good job of doing that. So they blend very well into the street and into the culture of that particular neighborhood. So I don't know if that answers your question, but the owner of this specific owner operator has been very responsible in regards to those issues. Thank you, Councilmember, for that. Yes. And then just answer my question. How long have they been there? That's one of the things they don't know. You know. Wow. That's a good question. I would say two years, that may not be exactly on point, but I would say about two years. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I guess that's one of the things that I just wanted to clarify and for others that this this medical medical business, medical cannabis business is coming to Pine Street. Now, one of the things that we're trying to do with this ordinance is be able for them to have adult use and to be able to sell adult use cannabis as well. And that was the whole meaning of this motion and trying to see if we could do something like that. So I kind of wanted to hear from my colleagues and I'm hoping that they'll be supportive of this item. I know there's some miscommunications and stuff like that, so I wanted to kind of air it out and be able to come out with it, you know, with something good going forward because we really need it. One of the things that excites me about this business, this one, it would be the first one in our downtown Long Beach to to to be, you know, in the mix of downtown would be amazing for me to see that in our district, in the area, it would be bring foot traffic to a much, much needed corridor, business corridor right there, especially right now and then need a businesses flourishing. We really need that help right there. And, you know, I just want to make sure that we are open to helping businesses succeed. And just not too long ago, I had a business that was really, really trying to make something really spectacular in my district but was not able to stay. And we had to what I had to painfully watch them leave and and not become a business that would really would have changed my district for the positive. And so I can foresee that I have a vision for this business, you know, in the First District. And I want to see, you know, I want to see it come and enhance our our business corridor right there. Yes. This owner is very responsible. He is very, very willing to work with the community and has reached out, you know. And so I think that that if this was a huge, huge problem, I think I'd have a lot of residents that would be opposed to this. But I'm not getting a lot of that. So and that's probably because we've been, you know, trying to reach out and stuff and, you know, we want to make sure that we're moving forward together on this item. And I do understand that this would be a city wide change, and I do understand that. But I also understand that it's mostly affected in the first and second District by and the reason I say that is that it's here we have the most mixed use buildings with resident and commercial, and it seems that that's going to be the trend going forward. So just, you know, that's those are my thoughts and I'm looking forward to hearing from my colleagues. Thank you. That's why Richardson. No, thank you. I'm supportive of the motion I think they will make. That is the consideration that councilwoman they have mentioned about seeing if the ordinance can be amended for the downtown planning district, PD 29 or whatever it was. That way, you know, that that obviously the downtown is different than everywhere else in the city and it allows for the planning commission and the planners and city staff to sort of treat the downtown Pine Avenue experience differently than you might treat, let's say, Atlantic Avenue in Bixby Knolls or some other corridor, you know, across the city . So I would say I think that makes sense and I'm supportive of it. Thanks. Mayor, Councilmember Richardson, that you the item that you just discussed is not reflective of what the agenda item says is that as an amendment to the motion by. Uh, councilmembers. I'm sorry. I thought it was an amendment. Was not. So I think I think what what what the city attorney is asking is, is that was not Mary's motion. And so is is Mary accepting that change that we were asking Charlie? Yes. I'm not sure on that motion. On on what if I understood Councilmember Richardson correctly? You talked about possibly limiting this to PD 30, I believe is the area it's in. And that is not what this motion asks us to do. I'm listening. But I thought. I thought that she closed her comments. Oh, no. Maybe I was too misunderstood. Think I was saying a lot, but. But that's something that I can and that I will consider. But I really would like to hear from all of our colleagues on this matter first. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. City Councilman Price. Yes. My and the seconder on the motion. No shall. No. No. Okay. Sorry. You're just calling on me because I cued up. Yes. I think that Councilman Richardson just added the amendment that I was going to ask about. So I so can I just get some clarification on that? Is that part of the motion that Councilwoman Zendejas is bringing? Because because I would feel much more comfortable with this if there was that amendment. That's something I'm highly considering. Okay. It just. Just for the record. I like. That. Well, if it makes it easier, I. I would like to accept that amendment. Okay. I'm. Yes. Okay. So the amendment is is limited to PD 30. Is that what the amendment is? Yes. Okay. So I think I was about to say that your initial motion didn't have a second yet. So I think with this change, it does have a second. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Let me go back. Councilman Pryce, do you have anything else? You work very much. And thank you, Councilwoman Cindy Hess. Yes, thank you. Councilman Mongo. Yes. Are there any limits to the number of these that could pop up in PD 30? In the agenda item. Um, there, there are a location requirements for dispensaries. Dispensaries cannot locate within 1000 feet of one another. So that would, in theory, limit the number of dispensaries. Unfortunately, I don't know how many that would be. It really depends on the number of of areas in PD 30 where they can locate where various other buffers are, and how far apart the different dispensaries could locate. So all comment. This particular business owner also owns a business in my district and he's been great to work with. Not all dispensary owners are great to work with and not all dispensaries treat the community well. And so I have bigger concerns that one this could be. Taking over areas. I mean, a thousand feet is not very much. It's literally across the street. People in our district thought that a thousand feet was much more significant than it was. They voted yes on an item before them on the ballot and then just the community uproar. But they were across the street from a school, literally across the street just caused massive panic and pandemonium because people don't realize. Across the major street is is it? And so the kids were crossing the street right there, and it was just not great. So councilman's in the house, I would consider. I would urge you to consider that we've had extensive years, years of council discussion about dispensaries, and we're very fortunate to have Elliott as a business owner in this community. But as we've seen in the last hundred and 20 days, things can change dramatically. And Elliott might not be the owner of this business 60 days from now. And so I would strongly encourage a see you process. I know CEO fees are not required currently in our ordinance, but residential uses of these in residential districts are also not allowed. We require copies for restaurants and liquor stores and other high traffic. Huh? Businesses that you are going to want to protect yourself and future councilmembers from other potential owners that. Honey undocumented aliens we. Come from other things that could pop up. So I would request a friendly amendment to require a city to allow this business. Councilwoman Sun has. And I would like to wait in here for the other council members to chime in, please. Okay. Right on. There's no other accounts numbers cued up, but I do have some comments and maybe some questions as well. So I've shared I've shared some of my my thoughts also with Councilman Zendejas previously, I wanted to ask staff that they think that Councilman Price and Councilmember Mongo are correct, that the that the operator has is actually actually running some really good operations as they relate to cannabis in the city. So that that's, I think, a really good sign there. Is there a requirement as far as the ability of. Of the operator to switch out to a different operator at any time. Yes. Mayor Garcia, like all cannabis license holders, can sell their business. We have a transfer of ownership process. It's a matter of filling out a form and submitting that form to the city with signatures. And we will accept that and transfer allow for the transfer to take place. Okay. So I have a I have a different perspective than in the motion. It's currently in print. So this is I wanted to share for the record some of my concerns. I have actually no comment or issues with the cannabis dispensary as it relates to the original motion that Councilman is putting forward. But I looking more broadly now that this motion has changed, which is not what I was expecting or, you know, initially to go to PD 30 only my assumption would be when we had this discussion in the past, Mr.. MODICA Correct me if I'm wrong, but doing PD 30 only would actually bring a large number of the same type of business to PD 30 because of how much PD 30 is is actually this designation, is that correct or am I wrong? So I'm going to I'm going to have a J take a crack at that. As I understand it, you know, most of your mixed views are going to be within PD 30, but it's hard to predict how many would come or not come because you also are going to be buffering each other out. So it's hard to say that would equal six or seven or one. It really depends on the location. So AJ, can you talk to that? I mean, and the only reason why I ask is because not that, it's not that it's actually a good or bad thing to have one. Q Or more. I think the issue is that when we've done these kind of speed specific maps in the past, it's taken us many months to actually analyze the data as to how many a certain type of business. Right. And this is and I'm going back this is really not a cannabis issue. This is a it's a me planning issue. When we put together the downtown plan, how we are very carefully mapped out where and how, what type of it is this would go where. And so I just want to make sure AJ as we move forward because I, I can, I have no issue with that with, with this business. I want to make sure from a planning perspective that we're not just quickly making a planning mistake here and not thinking about what the consequence of it is. That's my main question. And this and this is just coming up since this is a change of motion is happening. There, this is linear. So AJ can get the response from city staff. This is Linda Tatum Development Services. And I just wanted to weigh in on a couple of the the comments that have been made regarding this from a land use perspective. And Mayor, thank you for your perspective. I I've heard several comments about mixed use and it being limited to the down to downtown or into the PD 30 area. But that's actually not at all true. I think if you drive down any quarter in the city, you will see a number of properties that had a residential use on top with a ground floor business, and that while most of the newer mixed use projects that I think everybody thinks about when we think about mixed use are located in the downtown area. There is mixed use throughout the city. And the one comment about the PD 30 is that everybody mentioned or several people mentioned the 1000 foot radius between cannabis dispensaries, but there are other criteria for the location and those include being 1000 feet away from a school, one 1000 feet away from a public beach, 600 feet away from a. Park, a library. Or daycare center. So consideration of all of those buffering criteria would go into any location where they're located, including PD 30. And just the final comment about it from the land use perspective. I think while this may sound. Like a simple change of wording to allow these a mixed use building and and put a couple on it, I think given the extensive research in the thought to the mayor's point about how much went into creating the maps and all of the criteria, changing that wording would require some assessment of the compatibility issues. And it's not a simple matter of just saying, yes, let's look at it in PD 30, but if you consider the city wide staff would just like to make sure we have. Ample opportunity. To assess those compatibility concerns, odors, potential nuisance, potential noise, the security and all of those kinds of considerations, and come back with a reasonable recommendation inclusive of whether it should be a conditional use permit or something that can address all all of those potential compatibility issues on a on a project by project basis. So again, we're just that's my feedback. And I just hope that. If this motion passes. We have ample time because we are we do have some short staffing issues right now. So I would hope that we have ample time to to do a full assessment of this proposal and bring something back to council in line with the direction that I'm that I'm, I'm assuming will come out of this discussion tonight. Thank you. I appreciate that, Lynda. And I would agree with with all your points, I think that that any time we make a a project specific grade, a specific zone change, that is a huge, huge decision. And so I just want to make sure that if this, as the motion is is being read it contravenes and they have said Councilman Sun has would consider really a review with the planning department that's that's very thorough as it relates to PD 30 with recommendations. And I only say that because the the creation of the PD 30 map I know is very complicated. And so I just want to make sure that that's part of the discussion. But I appreciate all the conversation with I just wanted to raise those issues with with staff. So those are my. Comments. Councilman's in Dallas. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Linda Tatum. One of the questions I have is, is there a way to put a cap on how many businesses like that could come to. To downtown Long Beach. Like, I know we have a cap in the city already and I think we're. That's another question. Are we already asked the cap or dispensaries throughout the city? Council members in dales is Charlie Morgan. There is the ordinance was established by a vote of the people. So to change the cap, you would need a vote of the people. Okay to change the cap only in the downtown area. In the. To change the cap at all on dispensaries. Okay. And what is the cap right now on on dispensaries? And are we close to that or have we reached that cap already? And the there's a cap of 32 dispensaries citywide at this time, I believe we've issued 21 licenses to dispensaries. However, we have 11 more in the pipeline. And so we will eventually have 32 licensed dispensaries out. Okay. So we don't have to worry too much about it. Okay. Sounds good. I think that. This is. A. I'm on the. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think and talk at the same time. One of the things I think that the best thing would be to do right now is. You know, one one of the things, though, wouldn't we be able to kind of fast track some of the thought that's going into the cannabis because we already are giving this business a medical license and they're already going to be a business there. So it wouldn't be too much to ask because they're already going to be addressing. Right, the odor issues, security issue. One of the things that I wanted, you know, that I've been discussing with the business owner is the fact that we I would like to see something, like I said before, that's going to come into this neighborhood, into this business improvement district and really enhance it and give back to the community and and not stand out in a way that that's going to attract people that, you know, that might. Not be the kind of people we want to have on Pine Street. So. That's why I'm having you. Because I have my own vision for this for this business. And what am I correct in saying that, that, you know, they are already going to be having to adhere to your control? One of the things that I that I think is very good in this business is that all of the product that's coming into the business is now is has to be prepackaged. So they don't have anything there that's really going to be, you know, letting out extra orders. So that's one of the things that was very important to me when when learning about the business is that everything that's coming in is already prepackaged. And I know that, you know, they're working on, you know, the way they're building it out is that they are putting in different different things that will prevent odor from going outside of the building. And the you know, it brings me great comfort to know that this is a business owner that has been doing this for a while and not a business owner, that this is taking the first shot at trying to bring a business to this. So I think that that's also very important. So I just wanted to ask that before I make a decision. Thank you, Councilwoman Zendejas, for that question. This is Lynda Tatum. Again, let me speak to that from the perspective that the review process for the medical cannabis is, the question that you're asking is that whether or not it could be fast tracked for the medical, that may be a possibility. However, the broader question and the item that that you have on the agenda tonight is speaking to changing the code to accommodate this in any building. And that's really the question. So it's not really tailored to this particular business because the reality is that this particular business could go into PD 30 right now, today at a different location that was not in a mixed use building. That opportunity exists today. It will exist tomorrow and in the future. What you're raising is the bigger issue of mixed use. The ground floor or the commercial component of a mixed use building, not just in this area, but citywide. And that's the area because when the ordinance was initially constructed, it did not contemplate allowing these uses in mixed use buildings. And because it didn't contemplate that. The challenge for us right now is staff has to go back in to fully assess that use in a mixed use building and look at those compatibility. And that's what I was referring to earlier, is that we would be looking that on at staff at council's direction, whether it's citywide or whether it's in PD 30. But those are the kinds of things we would be looking at. And I don't know that those actual requirements would be substantially different. But what I would suggest that the the comment about a C, p is a very likely outcome. Should we move forward with that? And that would allow us to look at the businesses on a project by project basis to determine the appropriate building improvements to address odors, security improvements to address security of those operations, and any other potential impacts that might come out of having a cannabis use in the same building with a a residential occupancy. I hope that answered your question. It was kind of roundabout, but I just wanted to be clear. Yeah, it's a bigger issue than just this particular business. It's looking at this type of business and any mixed use building in the city or MPD 30. And I just got a note also from, from just, just from staff perspective and I agree. I just want to remind us also that, you know, we can't be really talking about specific addresses because really this is a land use question. And so we're not really supposed to be talking about a location. So we really should be talking about land use, right? And so we is really the better. And that's why I think the PD 30 question is really important because if we're saying we're going to make a change to PD 30, then what we're saying is that any regardless of this specific location, but any location, PD 30, that fits within the regulatory scheme that we have created, it would be considered, right, not just this location, really any location. And so I just want to make sure that that. Mr. MODICA Is that is that correct? Because I'm just trying to remember all of our planning conversations about PD 30. This is a it's a broader has there been any analysis done on PD 30 as it relates to cannabis in this and in mixed use? So this is Tom. I'll let Linda talk about that actual last question. But for the first part, yes, that when the when the council and the city deals with land use, you really should be talking about the uses within that category and really not specific to a specific business. So you're setting the rules and the framework for all businesses that would have the ability to to locate there under certain guidelines. And so that really, you know, when you start picking an individual business and you do things like a cap of one or whatever, the meaning of that is that that is really where we get into trouble from like a spot zoning perspective. So I'll let Linda talk a little bit more, but really we would like the council, if you're going to go this direction to talk about some overarching framework of how and where you'd want to allow these. And then we would come back with what the rules are. Thank you. Linda goes because at least my recommendation would be that would make me comfortable is. If we're going to move forward tonight, that it's really a conversation and that there's some type of analysis on what a PD 30 only layover would mean to our planning documents. That that's just my thought. I'll leave it there. But. Ms.. Tatum. Mayor. I don't have a whole lot to. Add other than just to elaborate, to say that you're absolutely right that we would be looking really carefully at PD 30. And I think an option if councilwoman desire in Sunday House is open to it is that we can certainly look at it citywide, but we could also look at it within PD 30 with a very specific lens, because you're absolutely right. Our PD 30 has a very unique characteristic because of the specific densities and the intensity of land uses and the mix of land uses that we allow. And downtown, it has a very unique function and role in the development of the entire city. So we would certainly want. To look at that carefully with. The objective to ensure that. This new. Use, if it were to go. Forward, would make sure that we're protecting the integrity of the PD 30 use, as well as addressing any of the compatibility issues that would be associated with allowing these businesses in. PD 30. MM Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Thank you, Mayor. As as we all know, today is very different from tomorrow. And so with that being said, you know, we we have so much on our hands right now with COVID 19 and trying to get businesses back into reopening Long Beach and trying to find ways to help businesses not only reopen their doors, but actually thrive and most importantly, survive. With that being said, I just I think I also feel more comfortable with amending my my motion to to asking staff to come back with a report on options on how we could do go about making these changes and being able to have. Businesses go into mixed use and I'm sorry, businesses. Conduct their business, cannabis business and makes use of properties or buildings which include residential and commercial. I think that is fun. If I can get a second on that, that would be great. And I would. And I know that that we you know, I would prefer it the quicker the better. And and but I know that they need some time. And so I would recommend that we come. I was hoping in 30 days that we could do something like that, but 30 days may not be feasible. So I would like to see what we can do in 60 days and then move from there. May I weigh in, Councilwoman Cindy Haas? I think staff can certainly do that, but I would ask that you clarify that the intent of your motion is regarding cannabis adult use cannabis dispensaries, because opening up the to mixed use for the other types of cannabis uses I think would be more impractical. And I'm thinking of uses like manufacturing, research and testing. So if if it is adult use cannabis dispensaries, that certainly helps clarify it. And the other point I would make is that right now you've you've mentioned about the COVID. We are stretched really thin on our staff that would need to do this analysis and this assessment. And we have other really critical time sensitive projects on our plate right now. So I would ask for a consideration of 3 to 6 months. I'd say we would need a minimum of three months, but ideally at least six months given some of the other the shortages of staff dealing with the COVID issue as well as other projects that have a more time sensitive priority. So that would be staff's request of. The regarding this consideration. Yes, I can. I can do that. First, yes, let's make clear that it's for dispensaries, adult use and dispensaries. And thank you for that, Linda. Also, let's let's do that. Three months, 90 days. That would be good if we get close and we don't you know, we don't see how, Chris, maybe we can talk about it then again. But I think this I feel more comfortable doing that. And I feel like there's still a lot of. Of uncertainty out there, not only on this item, but just in the economy as a whole. And I think said, you know, this might be the best thing to do moving forward. Like You can't remember this. We'll do our best to do the. The three months. Yes. Thank you. I wasn't actually say the same thing. I want to think councilman's in there. First of all, there's a there's a second to that motion by Councilman Mongo. So thank you, Councilmember. I just want to add. Thank you, Councilwoman. I think that's a good one. Just to clarify, Tom. In no way does this slow down the current operators opportunity to continue moving forward in that space with the current license they have. And that's correct, right? That's correct. For medical, they can still move ahead. Okay, great. And then and then secondly, I would I would agree just to support customers. And they have said that the sooner we can get this clarified, I think, you know, obviously, we should be looking at not just what that what the mixed use piece is, but if you were only you know, if we come back to this council and it ends up being a change that only happens in PD 30, what that would look like as well, because there might be interest for that, you know, depending where this council lands. So I think looking at both of those quick, you know, as fast as possible, I think would be great to have for for for the councilwoman and for the business. I do support that. And so just want to think the flexibility of everyone on that issue as well. Let me just go through really quick cuz Councilmember your are you still on this list or is an old one. So no, I was in Mexico City. Councilman Mongo. Do you have any additional comments? Sorry about that. No, I appreciate Councilman Van de Hoss taking a step to consider all the the potential ramifications. I think it's really important for us to know how many are possible in downtown. He talks about O.J., talks about 11 in the pipeline, but those 11 could easily choose other locations that are more profitable. And so I think that it's important. I've talked to another councilmember who talked about another downtown that had them speckled around and it was great. But I've also been to places that it's taken over corridors and that's not great. So I think it's prudent for her to look out for the interest of her district. And the COP option is what really gives the councilmember the opportunity to look on a case by case basis. So I look forward to hearing staff's recommendations when they come back. I think in council, I think they have everyone. I think that's everyone. Any final comments? Anyone else from Zendaya's? Yes. One final comment. Just refer to to clarify. I did want to include a separate option with ACP in there, as well as other options which don't include ACP, just to make sure that that's in that motion that I made. Mr. Monica, did you get that? Yes. Staff received that. And that is we can certainly do that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's a motion and a second. Madam Curtis, read the rule. District one. District two. District three. May I? District four. By. District five. I think District six. I'm one of District seven. I picked eight. District nine. District nine. I was muted, I. Motion carries.