WITHDRAWN Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 21.66; and by repealing Chapter 5.89, all relating to Medical Marijuana; declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)
Thank you. And hearing item one. Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and declare ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to medical marijuana. Read the first time and lead over for the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately citywide. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I have a motion by Councilwoman Price and a second by Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a quick question before we move forward tonight. So the way that this is structured, Mr. Mays, I just want to confirm with you the copy process for the delivery operations. They would have a process they'd have to go through. Once council takes up the issue of whether to allow storefronts, they would have to apply for a copy for the storefront. They don't automatically convert. Is that correct? Councilwoman Price Members of the City Council is partially correct. We have a process that relates to coops. If council did authorize the storefront dispensaries, they would be able to apply for a modification to their existing CFP that would permit that activity and the same types of conditions that would typically be imposed for a see a new cup would likely be imposed at that time. So it's it's part of the CPA process, but it definitely will have a public hearing appealable to the city council. Okay. Other protections. Because what I'm thinking about is that when they if for the for the companies that apply for the delivery only model our analysis would it be limited to the operation of a brick and mortar site for delivery? No onsite sales? Or would we be looking at the future, the possible impacts to the community, etc., for on site sales when we're making a decision as to the delivery operation? If I understood your quip, if I understood your question, the Council would have the opportunity if you wanted to go further with a brick and mortar retail outlet to look at everything you would be able to. You could, in theory, require a separate CFP. We would recommend modifying the original one, but usually that's left in the hands of staff to fashion conditions that would be appropriate to a retail outlet. And the ordinance that we did draft for your consideration already has built into it many of the types of things and requirements perform operational standards that you would expect for a bricks and mortar facility if it went in that direction. Okay. So just a I'm just to clarify, though, let's say we're okay with a delivery operation at a particular site, but that site wouldn't necessarily lend itself well to an on site on site sales, whether it's, you know, crime stats in the area, lighting, neighborhood, proximity to a particular problematic site, whatever the case may be, the analysis that we would take for a regular CFP application, it may be that that location is perfect for a delivery only facility, but not for an on site sales. That's correct. The matter would first go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would have to make a finding that the use at that location, the modification was appropriate. If findings couldn't be made, it would be conceivably denied at the Planning Commission level. The applicant would still be able to appeal that determination to the city council. Or they could find another location. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are we still are we at the start of the hearing here or did we have a staff reporter? No. Okay. So. Okay. So. Okay. Got it. Got it. So. Well, actually, just to make sure. I want to make sure we do. Know. I know this is a hearing. Did we do? There's no oath required in the hearing. Did Mr. Mason, do you want to say anything additional as far as before I go to the second of the motion? Well, I if if the counsel would like me to give a staff report, I certainly could. I will say an abbreviated form of the staff report is we did incorporate into the draft ordinance before you. All of the items that counsel did request on December eight. If you would like me to go through those in detail, I'd be more than happy to do that. But if not, that's fine too. Okay. Sounds like we're just moving forward because you have started the start of the process, so I know you all have that the material. The second part of the motion was Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Just a quick question. I think I believe I already had this answered, but the 6% business license tax, we can the maximum would be 10%. Is that correct? Right now we've set it at 6%. When the initiative was placed on the ballot and put before the voters, they voted for a range, starting initially at 6%. But we built into that ordinance that was voted for the ability of city council to raise that anywhere between six and 10%. But that's not part of what's on the agenda tonight. But at a future date. Yes, you could do that. Okay. And then I just want to confirm in here in your report, the sink, the sanctioned ratio versus versus unsanctioned. Are we still looking at 1 to 6? Is that. Correct? I remember seeing that in the last report. And I just want to make sure when we're looking at these costs, that if that's what we're facing, this. Off of. The Eriksson. Assistant Finance Director will answer for staff. So, Councilwoman Gonzalez, when we had the varying number of dispensaries, we realized that it's probably more a facet of the demand in the city of Long Beach is more than a ratio of 1 to 6. So if there's only four dispensaries, the ratio might go up. So for this round of analysis, we actually assumed roughly 50 dispensaries total in the city of Long Beach. That would be unsanctioned. Okay. Okay. Great. And I think that's it at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to just keep going down this list. Did you guys go to the public? Did you go to the public? Okay. So I'm going to just keep going, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's a couple questions and then another thought on this. Mm hmm. So I know that we went through months and months of, you know, task force meetings and a lot of resources spent on this and and an iteration of the ordinance. Now, my my first question is, what is the timeline from adoption of this ordinance to full implementation of open retail facilities? Seven. The full implementation. Councilmember Richardson. So we worked with the Department of Development Services and other departments to look at when we could actually reasonably do the process. And. We would start with the application process in March of 2016 that would be completed, the copy applications would be done in April and the CP process in November of 16. Planned process check would probably be completed of January of 17. And so January 17 would be the estimated date first delivery dispensary would actually open. Six months later we would have the report back to Council on Fiscal Impact and Safety Issues. That would be July of 2017. So if a city council chose to open onsite store fronts, we would end up having a copy modification process that that mine, which the earliest that could probably possibly be completed would probably be October 2017. And so that would be when we would have the first retail dispensary. Then six months after that April 2018, we City Council would look at considering three additional dispensaries. And because at that point, these would be new locations with a full copy process, the earliest those three additional dispensaries would possibly open is looking like to be March of 2019. Okay. So this ordinance, the timeline from today to full implementation puts us at March of 2019. Which we should be in our new civic center, I think, around that time. I think the original intent was to put forth sound public policy and actually take a step in that direction. And that's just not what this is not what's happening today. I think this is really insincere, is a waste of time and resources. My next question is my next question is, will this still have a fiscal impact on the city if we move forward with this? I mean, I know that was a major concern leveled by a number of council members. But I think this proposal, as I understand it, still costs resources that won't be fully recouped. Is that true? Councilmember Richardson. So, yes, we did look at both the the upfront cost, the one time cost and the ramp up cost related to implementing and administering this ordinance as well as the revenues that would be received once the the dispensaries are opening or opened. And the timeline that I had mentioned before and when we looked at that, there was a shortfall between revenues and expense in 16, 17 and 18, which we are recommending. If that was the case, we would be using one time resources to get through that period totaling about 2.4 million. And then once we get to seven dispensaries, we would be at a break even point where ongoing revenues would cover ongoing expenses. In order to do that, we did have to ask departments to to reduce some of their their administration costs. And this is all just rough estimates based on a set of assumptions. So the actual results could vary. So. So that said, here's here's what I'm thinking. This is not smart in terms of fiscal policy. It doesn't achieve any particular public policy goal. I know that. I mean, we've been through this. So there is not consensus on the council to do a more robust policy. So I don't think we should move forward. So I. And I know that. And I'll just want to say this. A lot of work's been done by a lot of council members. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I know this most recent motion is Council Member Suzy Price. And I would say that and I want to thank everybody for their hard work, but I think enough is enough. So I think we should. There are we know that there are a number of ballot initiatives happening across the state, potential rumors of local ballot initiatives. If we're not going to give it a good run at it, I think we should stop here. So I'm going to offer a substitute motion to receive a 5/2. Okay. There's a substitute motion to receive and file. Just to clarify, Mr. Mays, a receiving file would not move the ordinance forward in a nutshell, correct? That's correct. And the current ban that's in place would remain in place. Okay. Can I ask you a question? I know we have a couple of speakers, but there were some state mandates as far as dates. I just I just want to make sure that we understand what those are and we can get through the other speakers first. But I, I don't know that those have an impact to this discussion or not. A couple of weeks ago, they probably would, but today I don't think that they do. When the original Medical Marijuana Regulatory Act was passed back in October of 2015, there was a provision in one of those three laws that said that if city councils did not adopt a regulatory ordinance dealing specifically with cultivation by March 1st, 2016 , the state law in that regard would automatically be imposed. Since that time, the person who authored that portion of the bill realized that or at least put out a statement that that March 1st deadline was put in there in error. And recently he put forth an urgency measure that now as of today was passed by both of the state and. The Assembly and the Senate to do away with that March 1st criteria, because it had the unintended effect of cities adopting bans because they couldn't get up and running by March 1st. As we speak, I don't believe it has yet been signed by the governor, but the governor has given every indication he will sign that. So the March 1st date should go away. So I feel fairly confident that if the receiving file is passed, the ban would stay in place and the state law regulation in regard to cultivation would not be imposed on the city. That's my best estimate of what would happen. Okay. Councilmember, your anger. Okay. Point of clarification. In terms of if we receive a file, this report here and there you see a ban would be in place. Should there be an initiative on a ballot? In a ballot initiative pass? What is the status of the ban? Councilmember Urania if a obviously would depend on what the ballot initiative was, but if it was a ballot initiative that put forth a regulatory ordinance and it was passed by the people, and assuming the city did not put on like L.A. did a competing ballot initiative, the ban would dissolve. By virtue of that public vote. Okay. Thank you. Well, I have to agree with Councilman Richardson in the sense that there's been a lot of work that's been put into this. When I brought this forward with Councilmember Lowenthal, we were talking about creating the task force, and we created the task force wanted to review this. The task force took much longer than I would have wanted to, but it would it did its job. And I want to thank the members of the task force in coming forward and bringing in the report. I also want to thank all the the patients that came forward, who gave their personal stories in regards to what this would mean for them. And and I want to thank, of course, the city attorney. I mean, I think that the they saw one item going forward and got redirected to create another type of ordinance that was completely different from the one that was originally thought of. I wanted my intent at that time were to step out in front of this, to get to place the city of Long Beach in a position that would be at the forefront of legalizing medical marijuana, to put us at the forefront in in the state, to create an ordinance that would be a role of being a role model for everybody to follow. But that did not happen. So what we have here, I think, is very much watered down. I think it's one that is not enforceable. Obviously, when you are transporting a product from one location to another, there are so many different things that can happen within a one mile stretch. There's also no guarantees about the product that you're going to be ordering and or receiving. So there's there's a lot of there's a lot of questions on this. And there's also questions about in terms of timelines. We're looking at full implementation in two years, which by that time we already have probably have something else in place. And we're also looking at getting a a break even point in terms of revenue in two years. So for the first year and a half, you know, the city will be making quite an expenditure on this, an expenditure that we can't and should not be making. And the original ordinance that we had out there would have put us right in place with that right away. In the meantime, it's it's not something that that I can support. So I'll be supporting the substitute motion to receive on file. Vice President, Joe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Councilmember Richardson for putting forward a reasonable solution to what I believe is not a workable policy. I'd like to thank the city staff, actually, because I don't know how many opportunities I'll have to do this, but especially Charlie Parkin and his team, Mike Mays and your staff for the countless hours that you've put into this issue since I originally brought the item forward back in 2009, and then we brought it forward with current council members. So it's been almost seven years we've been trying to figure this out and opinions vary, but we may have had it right at one point. We may not have, but over seven years, constituencies and communities evolve. I do know that we've worn out many colleagues past and present, but I do thank them all for taking this journey with us. Some of them are not here at the dais today and some of you are. So this issue of medical marijuana will continue to shape and evolve and regress and evolve again and again. And that's the beauty of public policy. There is a back and forth and an ebb and flow, but our job is to actually know the pulse of our community. And what saddens me is that we had so many opportunities to do the job, to do a good job. We called on many people to participate in a task force, and then we really just let everyone down with a policy that's not a great one and not one that's workable for the city, not one that's definitely manageable . And what saddens me about that is, after all that time, we have pushed our community to take to the ballot and sometimes that's necessary. But I think having seven years to get it right and having a very thoughtful council behind the dias today would have allowed us the opportunity to come forward with meaningful public policy, having learned from all of the discussion and input over the last seven years. And so I think and I would like to urge my colleagues to consider supporting this. I think receiving and filing is the best thing to do, to take no action, to not have a new ordinance in place, revert back to what we had and really let the ballot process take place, which, for better or for worse, will be the will of the people we had an opportunity to do right, and we did not. And so many of you know that I'm very motivated by public policy and robust conversations, and I do enjoy the stamina that it takes to get things to the finish line. But I'm also very honest about what the outcome is. And I can honestly say, and I don't hide my frustration, but I can honestly say that what we are considering tonight is not the best we could have done. So I would rather have nothing than have a bad something. So, colleagues, I hope you support Councilmember Richardson. Substitute to receive and file. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. I, I actually. This is music to my ears. I've been asking for us to continue the band forever, like every other city that this has come to has done since AB 266. So the question I have Mr. Mays I have a couple questions. The first is this. There's been some talk of ballot initiatives. Can you explain to us very clearly what are the ballot? And then what does the ballot initiative process look like? One, if the city has a delivery only ordinance in place and then there is an initiative that allows for storefront dispensaries that would supersede the ordinance. Correct? It probably would supersede the ban. Yes, if it was a regulatory ordinance. So in a nutshell, what could happen is the council could put an initiative ordinance on for the public to vote on, just like the council put the medical marijuana tax. If the council did not desire to do that initially, members of the public could start an initiative petition, gather enough signatures to satisfy the city clerk. And there's a percentage of signatures that must be gathered in order to qualify for the ballot. That could go on the ballot. Council. Then, as I mentioned, this happened in L.A. The city of L.A. decided to put a their council, decided to put a competing measure on that could may or may not happen in this case, assuming it qualified for the ballot. I am guessing it's pretty close to too late to qualify for June. Most likely, if it local initiative, it would qualify for November and council could decide at that time whether they wanted to put a competing measure on. And then obviously whichever of the two measures, if there were two got the most votes would pass and then the city would be required to implement that new ordinance. And so whatever the new ordinance is, what what the city has, whether it's a ban or a delivery only model, the new ordinance that would be adopted by way of petition would then supersede it. If the new ordinance or the new initiative was inconsistent with the ban, the new ordinance would take its place and I assume it would be inconsistent with a ban. Right. Okay. And. In regards to the timing of initiatives, can you talk a little bit more about that? I hate to put the clerk on the spot, but the clerk might be in a better position to talk about that. Someone who did that to her last week. Okay. I'll tell you what. We could either we could bring back an off agenda item, if you would like, that could give you the timing about initiatives in general. We could describe what it would take to potentially get it on the June ballot or more likely what it would take to get on the November statewide ballot. That would be great. So if we could do that. Be happy to do that. I just want to make a final. Comment about fiscal impact. I'm really interested and pleasantly surprised that any other council member is mentioning fiscal impact in regards to medical marijuana because this is the first. Other than Councilwoman Mango, she has mentioned it, but this is the first time I've heard some of my colleagues talk about fiscal impact . So let's talk about fiscal impact for a minute there. Since Councilman Richardson refers to my efforts in this process to compromise as a waste of money and resources. So my understanding from the first fiscal impact report that staff wrote was that it was projected that the sales tax revenue from this industry with nine dispensaries would bring into the city $3 million. And the initial costs that were provided by multiple departments were $5 million to enforce the operations, including licensing, police and code enforcement. Then staff was asked to reevaluate the numbers and come back with a different enforcement model so that we could break even in this operation. And staff was able to do that. And what that meant was that rather than having a police based enforcement, we were going to have more of an administrative enforcement, which means for all of the unlicensed facilities that the police department using millions of dollars and hundreds of search warrants to try to shut down that process would go away. And instead, our code enforcement officers would be sending letters and asking people to politely and nicely shut down their operations. And that was going to be our new enforcement model for $3 million in order to break out into a break even situation. So let's not talk about fiscal impact as as a way to highlight the position, because I think it's pretty clear what the fiscal impact of this marijuana statute would be for the city of Long Beach. And by all accounts, any adoption of medical marijuana as an industry in the city of Long Beach is going to have a negative fiscal impact at a time when we need more police officers patrolling our streets and helping us deal with a rise in crime. And that is the reality. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, them going to go to public comment? That's okay, Mr. Mayor. I don't have to have the last word. Thank you. Okay, let me go ahead and do public comment. So if you have any comments, please come forward. Very good. I go back to what the governor said a year ago this past January. California already has enough potheads. Period. It's from the governor. And he pointed out that's that we are also at or near the bottom of the barrel. In every almost every paradigm of import in the country. Period. Frankly speaking, I don't know. I don't have a friend. I don't know anybody. That smokes marijuana. This marijuana medical marijuana is bogus. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can pick one up. As they say, it is as easy as getting a promise from a politician in election time period. Kids from the high school can tell you how to get it. Period. So you just hold the line? Absolutely no. If somebody wants to move out of the city and maybe develop a policy, if somebody wants it bad enough will pay for their moving out of the city, period. But the council in the third district was absolutely correct. We have enough problems. All right. The country itself, this this state itself is our nature directory. Within the next 30 years, to be this city of Long Beach, notwithstanding that which we get accomplished, which we'll see will be something like you'll find in Guatemala or Honduras, period. A fourth rate city. Below that. And if you don't think that you're clearly out of touch with what's going on, you may be fine. That I can tell you now. Your kids. Kids will be living in something a fourth world country as it is now. So what you need to do is hold the fort. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. I'm Lynn Figure and founder and CEO of Highway Distribution Group, a legally licensed distributor of medical cannabis and cannabis infused products. I'm here tonight to offer my support for the ordinance, which you have before you and urge you to pass it. I have been a California businessman for over 25 years. I have a background in real estate development in California and in Pennsylvania. I'm also a highly respected music publisher, and I recently sold my company in December of last year. I'm also a producer of concerts nationwide featuring the top touring artists of the last 40 years. For the sake of clarification, distribution as defined by the state of California means the procurement, sale and transport of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products between business entities licensed by the state as distributors. We have been given the responsibility to coordinate all legal cannabis activities in the state of California under our license. We engage in the business of purchasing medical cannabis from a licensed cultivator or medical cannabis products from licensed manufacture for the sale to a licensed dispensary. This is the first positive step in creating a legally accountable business for the sale of medical cannabis in the state of California. My primary objective is to distribute products for patients that is high quality, effectively effective, properly tested, labeled, and most of all has been produced in a facility that complies with the state and local health regulations . I am here tonight to respectfully encourage that you pass the ordinance before you and help us in establishing a reputable and trusted business. In addition, I would also like to respect the request that distributors of medical cannabis be incorporated into your ordinance. Our goal is to work cooperatively with the city. Officials, law enforcement and health officials and the community at large to understand and address the concerns that exist. We want to establish our operations in the city of Long Beach to create new jobs and taxable revenue that will benefit the local community and economy. We also want to earn the trust of the city and the community at large by giving back through programs focused on eradicating homelessness in the city of Long Beach. In closing, I urge you to pass the ordinance and to include a provision that includes the distribution of medical cannabis edibles and other derivative products in the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Mitch Klaus. I'm CEO and founder of Something Chocolate, a music inspired gourmet box chocolate that's cannabis infused. And I'm also here to encourage supportive of today's audience. I'm an entrepreneur started many businesses over the years in a variety of industries including tech magazine publishing, digital music distribution and gourmet food. And I worked with some of the biggest companies in the world in doing so. And I've created hundreds of jobs in the local, local communities in which we've in which we've operated. And I'm quite proud, quite proudly, even taking one of my companies public on Nasdaq in a Nasdaq IPO and became the largest digital independent digital music distributor in the world, controlling 25% of the content you see on iTunes. I began my company as a regular chocolate company. We have distribution at L.A.X. Airport. You'll even see it at Ralph's supermarkets and in places like the W Hotel, Hard Rock Hotel, Renaissance Hotel and others. I started the cannabis company for reasons that were pretty obvious that the industry needed responsibility and reliability. And my primary objective in producing a product for patients is that of high quality that are effective, taste great or properly labeled tested and most of all have been produced in a facility that complies with state and local health regulations by licensed food managers and food handlers. Safety to our customers and quality of our products is our primary concern. So with recent passage of Mersa, the American Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act recently set forth recent rules and regulations for at the state level. But at the local level, it continues to frustrate us. While the passage of Mersa was a good start to doing things, quote unquote, by the book, the reality is the book is still not completely written, and there's plenty of blank pages in it. And that's why I'm here tonight. You have an opportunity here to start filling in those blank pages, to do the responsible thing, to help guide the industry and do something hard for a change. Doing something new is very, very difficult. This is a teachable moment for you and for us. So we can work cooperatively with the city, with city leaders, with law enforcement, with the community at large to make sure we understand your concerns and can alleviate those concerns in a way that's responsible and benefits the community, that creates jobs and that provides products to the community that is that are safe and tested. I believe this kind of reciprocal cooperation will result in the creation of a template that will become the model for which all city governments in the state and, frankly, in the nation that their will and that they will envy and replicate. So I really urge you to pass this ordinance before you include a provision that allows for manufacturing of edibles and other derivative products in the city of Long Beach. Thank you for listening. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Bill Napier. Honorable City Council. I've decided, and I think Long Beach will back me up. We'll take two punch ups. And I also want to thank you very much for approving the Breakwater study. Surfing USA. And we'll take to pot shops. And, uh, so we don't have to go out of city further than were able to go by bus or most certainly can't bike it or walk it. And, uh. Two pork chops, please. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Mayor Council members. It is with great sadness that I had to pin this. But I must tell you of my bitter disappointment with this council and the charade that's been playing out now for seven years. My engagement in legalizing medical marijuana and the other civic affairs in Long Beach at this later stage in my life have has left me with this notion that there really is no adherence to constituents needs and wants by this council. A recent 74% approval by ballot and over 30 to 43000 signatures must mean nothing to this Council except neat soundbites and more lip service to patients for 1/2. Think patients needs, not stoners needs. This is medicine, period. Me I'm just a Woodstock generation kid and an all around believer in the idealism of a possibility of a better tomorrow. I kept my hopes alive throughout six decades. To see my country, who I love and I cherish, become more enlightened as I age. But it is now clear that it's not going to be seen in my lifetime. The cause of marijuana legalization that I took up officially 36 years ago is still being discussed in many circles with that decidedly racist intellectual dishonesty of the 1930s . In some California cities, they are rushing to ban the evil that marijuana may bring to their city. Sadly, we're calling it the ban a palooza. This rush to prohibition does nothing to take marijuana away from the cartels, gangs, teens, and the ever growing black market. Again, with the ban, the city loses all control and the tax money that would be generated. Every business report I read says Long Beach needs more money. Now, I might not mind so much, but I've told you this before. Our surgeon general, our would be surgeon general. Sanjay Gupta has connected the dots. Weed number three, CNN special available on demand. He stated For the world to hear that PTSD symptoms can potentially be mitigated by medical grade marijuana. For heaven's sake. Even the VA has recently acknowledged that this medicine should be allowed for vets in states that permit marijuana medical marijuana. However, we have seen the VA bureaucracy and I can imagine it'll take 3 to 4 more years before that gets implemented. But how many vets will commit suicide while Long Beach waits? Why insist that a vet in need must act in a criminal manner in order to receive the herbal medicine that works for him or her? Mind you, this is at the same time as the VA is now documenting the effectiveness of PTSD, PTSD mitigation. Additionally, it is now documented that marijuana can help vets and others to break the stranglehold of alcohol, cigarets and prescription drugs. Think about the devastating pain pills that lead to heroin. L.A. Times. So still, reports evolve as I speak to you that an average of 22 vets per day kill themselves. My adult sons went before Ray Gavlak and Tonya Urunga initially in August of 2009 to beg for med pot rules, begging for VA rules. And this is where we're at today. Just two more seconds, sir. These patients are your friends and your neighbors. Every occupation, every walk of life is in the medical marijuana community. Please stop conflating legitimate medical marijuana patients and perhaps your own beliefs. Thank you, sir. Only stoner teens will be the winners. Again, I say these editorials. Thank you, sir. We're going to wrap it up. Okay. These editorials came out over and over saying we next time we got to get it right. Thank you, sir. Times did we get it right? Thank you very much, sir. We'll see. Next speaker, please. Good evening. It's an honor to be here. My name is Kyle Turley. I'm a founding member of a group called the Gridiron Cannabis Coalition. I played ten years in the National Football League. One of my partners is Jeff Chase, was one of the original dispensary owners here in Long Beach just last year. A little over a year ago, I moved back to California from Nashville, Tennessee, to take part, particularly as I am from here. So that's another reason. But to take part particular in the medical marijuana program, playing football in the National Football League brought me a number of ailments, brought our community a number of ailments. My brothers have suffered greatly because of their commitment to this dream. If we want to continue to have our children fight for these dreams, to be soldiers, to be football players, and to accomplish these great goals, we need to think about what it is we are giving them to help them along their way. Unfortunately, because of some of these career choices, this leads to long addictions, to prescription medications. Myself personally, 20 year addiction, to prescription medications that went from pain killers to psych meds to anti-inflammatories, and then into psych medications for the last seven years. And dealing with this brain injury that we now are starting to understand, if it was not for cannabis, I would not be standing here today. I would likely be standing next to my friend Junior Sayer, who is not with us, because he was not allowed to understand what cannabis could do for his brain. We heard a lot of things tonight about why this needs to happen in Long Beach, why that needs to happen to Long Beach with climate control. Alzheimer's was a discussion. There is no current medication in western medicine that addresses Alzheimer's disease like cannabis. Cannabis has been shown to reduce and stop the progression of Alzheimer's disease in multiple studies. The fact that in California and I've come back from Tennessee that we're having this conversation, it's quite archaic to me, to be honest. But at the end of the day, I hear a lot of things leading to kicking the can down the road. This no longer needs to exist. There is an initiative on the ballot to move forward, to have something in place and something is better than nothing. I urge the Council to push forward on this ballot, to allow these dispensaries, the new initiative to move forward so that something can be established, much like has been talked wildly about our health care model and that it needs to be improved. But nobody wants to throw it out because it's helping people. Cannabis will save football and it will save many communities, Long Beach included. I appreciate your time. Thank you for your understanding. And your ear. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Jack Smith. I live at 240 Chestnut Avenue in the first district. I was on the Cannabis Task Port Task Force representing the second district, which is where I lived at the time last summer. Now living in the first district. I don't have a marijuana business. I don't intend to have a marijuana business. I thankfully don't need the medicine that cannabis provides. I don't intend to use it recreationally. My goal and intent in all the attention I've been paying to this effort has been to make sure that our neighborhoods were safe and that these businesses were not a nuisance in the neighborhood. That's why I've worked so hard to help create some regulations that I believe accomplish that while accommodating the needs of medical marijuana in Long Beach. One of the things that I think could be modified now. I usually don't talk if I know I'm going to lose. And I've already counted five votes for the ban. I don't call that a lose. That's always an option since day one to continue the ban. So anyway, the point is I usually don't talk that there's no point in talking, but today I'm going to offer a potential change to the proposed ordinance for you to consider. That might streamline it just a little bit. I was glad Councilmember Price asked the question about the process of changing between a delivery and into a storefront. I believe if you treated the SIU process and the vetting process, that is quite complicated and lengthy and expensive in creating storefront sites. Who could only do delivery. That are then reevaluated in the six month time period. And the only change that has to happen is that delivery is permitted. It wouldn't have to be a modification of the cup. It would just be at that point now. Now, I mean, now that you can have a storefront, you can open your doors. It would be the exact same rules and regulations as if it was a retail operation. But they can't open their doors. They can only. Deliver. And when they. Have behaved appropriately, come back. And very simply and quickly be able to open their doors for business, then the idea of eventually being able to have as many marijuana businesses as you specify. Right now you're saying seven. At that point, you might have evaluated something enough to know that a different number is appropriate. So I think that you have an ordinance in front of you now that can be slightly modified to clarify that process, process to make it a little more streamlined. Also, the businesses would not have to be a delivery business and in a totally different process for a retail business. The same business could continue in this city, having demonstrated that they're a good business for our city. I hate to see you punt. It is Super Bowl week, though, so punt, if you will. And I would encourage you to. Pass the ordinance that you. Have with some minor modifications. Thanks. Thank you, Jack. Next speaker for final speaker. When he was somebody left to phone or something up here present for the. Excuse me. I hope you've all read The Beachcomber. I hope you've all been reading The Beachcomber. I know Ms.. Price thinks Mr. Downing is very dangerous and has said so. I believe she's very dangerous as a prohibitionist. I believe we should recall our city attorney. For giving erroneous advice to this council and previous councils. By Mr. Shannon as well. He's followed the same line as with Mr. Shannon and the reason we've had 20 years. Of. No action, really. It's because of the prohibitionists inordinate influence over this council. And our local criminal justice membership. We need to do something about this, but it isn't what you're doing. You need to excuse yourselves from the discussion and. Follow state law only. I believe state law says that the dispensary, the the delivery service must be connected to a dispensary. So to have just delivery services doesn't work. It won't work. Fiscal responsibility. This Council and previous councils and our law enforcement. Agency, the Long Beach Police Department, have spent billions. Billions. To avoid dealing. With this issue. To keep a ban in place. That's the prohibitionist agenda. The prohibitionist agenda is corruption. Clearly it's corruption. Read The Beachcomber if you want to know what's going on in City Hall. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next beaker, please. My name is Nicholas Khemka. I live in the second district. Long Beach has recently developed a program for delivery of medical marijuana, and I applaud the city for that. For many years. There's been a lot of hand-waving by some people behind me, by some people in front of me about safe access. I believe delivery does provide safe access, safe access for patients, safe access for other people who are not users. But in reality, for a lot of people, it's not about safe access, it's about profit. Clearly, some of the people behind me profit from this. And if anybody in front of me profits from it, it conforms to the definition of the elements of malfeasance as defined by appellate courts. My second and last point is that the size of the Long Beach Police Department has decreased from about a thousand officers to 700, and that's 300 officers less to deal with documented cases of murders. Attempted murders, arson, illegal drug use and sales. Assaults, batteries and large numbers of property crimes. And note that this also lowers our property values and it interferes with other people's constitutional rights to live peacefully and safely. Allowing storefront storefront dispensaries to be reestablished. Might also meet some of the definitions of malfeasance. And this, in turn, opens up the city to lawsuits. And that's taxpayer money. I beg the city to adopt a delivery only model. For marijuana, medical marijuana. And that safe access for patients and it's safe for everybody else. Thank you. Thank you. Final speaker, please. Hi, my name's Stephanie Dawson. So I'm a resident district to my. Address is on file. I'm going to be very brief. The Rand Corporation recently came out with a very expansive study that surveyed both medical and recreational patients. I think going forward for both for regulation purposes and for whatever audience comes out of this this process, again, I would be in strict opposition to the current audits that that's being proposed for a myriad of reasons. One of which being, if you look at the particular at this survey that the RAND Corporation recently concluded, the particular section on concentrates and edible production within the city of Long Beach is not going to be serving the interest of patients. One of the things that they came out that one of the interesting things that came out of this because of the survey was a result showing that medical patients, one, spend more money on their own on their weekly amount of marijuana than admitted recreational users, and they are more likely to book to use vaporizers and edibles as a means of consumption, something in the range of 70% for both vaporizing and edibles versus 90% for smoking flower, which is mostly associated with recreational use. This means that without a clear manufacturing license or the ability availability of commercial kitchens under an ordinance, a license activity that under. So, by the way, we're going to be creating a negative environment that will more likely suit recreational users than actual legitimate qualified medical patients. That is the present ordinance as constructed. I urge you, please, to disregard it entirely and to start anew that you have a good day. Thank you. With that, I'm going to go back to the council. There is a motion and a second by Councilmember Richardson to receive and file, which would essentially not move forward with the ordinance. And a second by Vice Mayor Lowenthal, please, Councilwoman Price. Terms. If the city council adopted an ordinance that had buffer zones in place for brick and mortar operations and a subsequent ballot initiative was passed hypothetically with no buffer zones or less buffer zones. What would happen then? In that hypothetical, the buffer zones would disappear the in if if the ordinance that we had on the books was inconsistent with the one that was voted on, then the the voted on measure would take precedence. So regardless of what is in place prior to a ballot initiative. Early speak the. Because it would be inconsistent with the ordinance. Presumably that would be the reason for the ballot initiative, correct? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. And I appreciate Councilman Councilwoman Price's questions. I don't want there to be a supposition that the ballot measure would have taken place if this council had actually developed a good policy. A lot of the partners that are motivated behind the ballot measure were also working with this council very honestly and very sincerely to develop a policy, come up with the buffer zones, all of which had agreement and general agreement. So none of that. Was in place and therefore folks are going to the ballot measures. So I don't want us to be left with this impression that this ballot measure was going to happen anyway. So it's okay. Whatever policy we had, if we had a good policy, I assure you, no one would have gone to the ballot. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzalez. A quick question about the ballot information, Mr. Mays, you said you would be drafting some sort of information for us. When would that be likely to come back? Do we have to formally ask you at this time? But I hopefully would be able to prepare that by next week and send it to you on and off. And the item and it would basically just describe what the ballot initiative, the local ballot initiative process was. Okay. So that would. Be by next. Week or so. Thank you. A county councilman Richardson. Just want to be clear, the motion here that I or doesn't and my comments haven't said that I plan on or I haven't heard from the City Council that it plans on placing an item on the agenda. What I said was what I said was I you know, I have heard of initiatives happening both in the state and locally around this issue. To clarify my position. I don't think if if an idea was a good idea, it's okay to bear a fiscal impact if it is, you know, additional hours in the library, if it is expanding summer hours for be safe. Those things all have a fiscal impact. And I'm okay with that because those are good ideas that it sound public policy. What I'm saying here is if that's not if that there's not true consensus, if no one on the council is truly expressing something that's a true compromise motion, then we shouldn't proceed on this process. I'm not saying anything about a ballot measure in the future. If someone puts forth a ballot measure, I honestly believe that if we put forth sound public policy, we probably wouldn't be in a position where we hear from the community about ballot measures. So I just want to be clear. I'm not saying that we should stop this and then start a ballot initiative on behalf of the city council. Okay. So that is that they're going to go and go to a vote, which is Councilmember Richardson's motion to receive and file. How I was just alerted by the clerk that the rebooting the voting system, is that correct? It's still not rebooted. Okay. So I'm going to I'm going to have to take a hand vote. Just to be clear, Mayor, this would be the substitute motion, correct? This is a substitute motion to receive and file. And Mr. Mays, the city clerk, told me that the voting machine is not working. So which would do a hand vote or. A hand vote would be fine. Okay. So what we're going to do then is, is counsel. So if you are in favor of the motion, which is the substitute motion to receive and file. Oh, the voting is a backup. Okay, just kidding. So forget that. Sorry. Is the motion back? Is the motion loaded, Madam Clerk? Okay. Motion is loaded. Councilman Richardson's motion substitute members. Please go and cast your votes on the motion. Motion carries. Motion carries. Thank you. And with that, we're going to go ahead and go to the next item, Madam Clerk.