WITHDRAWN Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 21.66; and by repealing Chapter 5.89, all relating to Medical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)
Communication from city attorney recommendation to receive supporting documentation and to the record conclude the hearing and declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code all relating to medical marijuana. Read the first time and lead over for the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City Wide. Mr. Mays. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, and members of the city council. As you remember, we were all here discussing medical marijuana on September 22nd of this year. At that time, the city council requested that the city attorney present a draft medical marijuana ordinance that would be consistent with the newly enacted state legislation, which is known as Mercer, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The ordinance that you requested also wanted provisions for up to nine dispensaries in the city located in all zones, except those zones zoned exclusively for residential use and subject to buffers of 1500 feet from a public or private high school. 1000 feet from a public or private kindergarten, elementary school, middle or junior school, junior high school, 1000 feet from a public park, 1000 feet from a state licensed child care facility. Only those located on commercial corridors 1000 feet from a location identified by the police department to be a human trafficking high cut crime corridor 1000 feet from a public library and 1000 feet from another medical marijuana business. The ordinance that you requested that we bring back also called for allowing cultivation in a city subject to a CFP. Although cultivation would not be a requirement as was required in the previous regulatory ordinance we had in place. The ordinance was to permit delivery services in the city, but only by those licensed medical marijuana dispensaries that also have a copy in the city, a requirement that for each dispensary that opens in the city they agree to have in place by the time they open a labor peace agreement. And the ordinance that we presented for your consideration today does have all of the items that you requested. And in addition to that, I won't go through all of them because I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions. The ordinance contains a number of operational requirements, such as hours of operation testing requirements, very detailed requirements regards in regards to record keeping to ensure that the city's tax interests are maintained. Requirements for the size of the various operations 2000 square feet maximum for a retail dispensary site, 5000 square feet for a cultivation site. And in order to attract the best possible operators, the ordinance has a feature that actually has been in there for quite some time where that we have called a priority point system. So when an application process is opened, it would give the Department of Development Services, together with their partner departments, the ability to go through the applications and on an objective basis, award points to the various applicants. The thought being that those applicants, with the higher number of points, which we believe would represent the best operators in the city, would move forward until the nine super slots are filled. And before I turn it over to Jeff Winkle, I I'd like to acknowledge Tina parmelee from our Tech Services Department, who did an amazing job putting together the maps that were provided to you late last week in which Jeff is going to talk about. It's much more difficult to put together those maps with all the buffers and trying to locate all of the various facilities that are within those buffers. And we had her do many, many iterations of those maps. I know that they are not necessarily perfect. Sometimes, for instance, with a charter school, we may not have it in our system. If this ordinance were to pass tonight, we would continually evaluate those maps to make sure we have all of the facilities that should be on those maps on them. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jeff Winkle pluck to walk you through the maps. Thank you, honorable mayor and City Council. As Mike indicated, the maps have been revised according to the council directions. All of the buffers have been maintained, including a 1500 foot buffer for high schools and 1000 foot foot buffers for elementary middle schools, parks, libraries and childcare operations on commercial corridors. Human trafficking corridors have also been buffer out. These areas were identified with the assistance of the police department based on crime data related to specific offenses. As directed, the maps had also been revised to include all industrial, commercial, institutional and planned development zones that are not solely residential as eligible areas for medical marijuana operations. The maps that were provided were provided at two levels. One was a citywide level, and that showed all of the all of the buffers. We also provided a. Maps at district levels would show the all of the eligible areas. So basically we took all the buffers. Took those off. And what we have left are only the eligible areas within each of the districts. Also, as Mike indicated, it was brought to our attention today that there were a couple of accredited non school district charter schools that were not included in the maps. These included 400 East Willow, Willow Street, 6596, Long Beach Boulevard, 608 Cherry Avenue, 508 East and 508 East Anaheim as well as a charter school in the 3900 block of Atlantic. All of those were included in the maps were revised and those revised maps were passed out to you prior to this meeting. So that is essentially it. With regards to the update on the maps, I will be happy to answer your questions. Otherwise, I will turn it back over to Mr. Mays to highlight any additional information. We also stand ready to answer any of your questions regarding the ordinance. Eight. Thank you. Five. Summary Law Enforcement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank staff for their presentation. I would like to go ahead and. Accept the recommendation as presented with a couple of amendments, and I'll preface my amendment with a recollection on the childcare facilities that we had a discussion about that and we asked staff to bring back maps which are included of what that buffer would look like along the commercial corridors. And but it was not my recollection that all child care facilities that that was accepted as an amendment. So with that. Bearing that in mind, I'd like to make a recommendation, a modified motion that one ensures that we have one dispensary per district. I know that according to the staff recommendation, it not the staff recommendation, the staff summary of the ordinance. It was mentioned that it's nine dispensaries in the city. There is confusion about whether this would include other uses. And I want to be clear that the council, the prevailing council intent was to ensure that there were nine dispensaries throughout the city and one per district. So I'd like to be sure that that's included in this motion. And also to remove licensed child care facilities on commercial corridors as a buffer due to the nature of operations being mostly interior and children accompanied by their parents. And so those are the two items I would like to add to the recommendation. And with that, I hope to have a second. Okay. There's a motion in a second and just from a process point of view. Mr. MAYS. So I know you have a you have an ordinance presented to the Council as the motion is made by Vice President or any other motion before us today, that would require a first reading of any of any ordinance at a future date. Is that correct? Correct. We'd have to revise it and bring it back as a first reading. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor and I don't see the second on the motion, but I heard someone say it and someone plug in. Okay. There's the motion and a second councilmember during. I do want to speak to your second. I agree with Councilmember Lawton in her analysis of the amendments that she has to the current resolution. Councilman Anderson. Yes, I also approve with that. But there are some, you know. Additional things that I would like to do. And possibly there's a friendly I. Would like to also ask. For in the pursuance of the task force approved recommendation number one, I think all. Medical marijuana businesses should be. Distributed equally throughout the city with. At least two medical marijuana businesses. Per district. I do not think that we could have the support on that council for the council for this. But I would like to make sure. That those districts that can accommodate more should be allowed to make that. Happen. I have one friendly amendment that I would like to make, and in addition, I think that the relationship matters. And pursuant to the task force approved recommendations, six and seven to a lot, 2.2 individuals who successfully completed the L.B. M.S. 5.87 lottery, and two additional points to individuals who continue to purchase their original medical marijuana and oppose the original medical marijuana business location or equivalent amount of points. And I would like to offer that as a friendly amendment. Councilman Andrews. Actually, let me ask the city attorney, what is the point system right now for those who were in that process? So the way the port system is set up now, if you were a successful winner of the 2010 lottery, you got one extra point. And as we caution the medical marijuana task force in the planning commission, if we get into a situation where we allocate too many points to the previous winners of the lottery, and it has the effect of basically excluding other entrants from participating because most of the applicants that apply should be able to meet. Hopefully all of the criteria of the 20 point system. Then we are surely inviting litigation by those that are not able to participate. You know. So it's a maximum of 20 points. And I think. Councilman. Andrews is looking for a total of two points. So that's one extra point. Yes. Okay. I'm open to considering that. I'd like to hear from other council colleagues. As long as we're talking about one extra point. So it's a total of two as opposed to the one that's written in the ordinance. Out of 20, correct. But there was another part, as I understood the second friendly amendment, it was to add two points. So concerning if they have the same business location or something. Yes. Original medical marijuana business located according to the Monroe Point. So I think that would be a. A significant barrier to entry and. But the one point. Okay. Would be okay. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I have a few questions for staff as well as our police chief. So, Chief Luna, if it's possible, I'd like to ask you a few questions as we go through. The evening. So I think all of us are in receipt of staff's fiscal impact report that was issued to us earlier this week, actually on Friday . And it's my understanding, based on the memorandum that was provided, that the analysis that was performed was based on the proposed ordinance that the city attorney's office has prepared for tonight, meaning nine dispensary storefront locations. Is that accurate? Yes, that's correct. And my understanding from reading it is that staff projects that the tax revenue that the city will receive at the 10% tax rate would yield a revenue of $3 million for the city of Long Beach. And our enforcement costs for these operations had previously been expected to be $5 million. And my accurate on that. Yes, we had previously estimated that departments when we asked them what would your needs be estimated that at approximately $5 million. The amount, I believe, of 3 million also includes sales tax and regulatory fees in addition to the 10% gross receipts tax. Okay. So just so I'm clear, our expectation as a city is that we would tax and charge fees and bring in $3 million. And our departments had indicated to us that it would cost $5 million to actually allow the operations. And then we went back and asked them to reduce their expected enforcement costs. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. And so they were able to bring their costs down to $3 million so that now it's a breakeven operation for the city. Yes. There would not be any permanent structural impact. If these estimates are correct. There would be a short term budget shortfall that would need to be covered with one time dollars, which we've identified a solution to. But then on an ongoing basis, there would not be a structural impact. We would manage the $3 million. And the one time funds that you're referring to, that's the $1.6 million, is that. Right? That's correct. There would be ramp up costs in FY16 that we estimated about $1.56 million. So instead of spending year on surplus, the 1.6 million that we expect would be year end surplus. And instead of spending that on infrastructure deferred maintenance for city buildings, we would be putting that towards startup costs for an industry that's going to yield us a break, even result and best case scenario. So yes, the funds would be identified from year end surplus in 15 and or in 16. I'm curious. Does that seem like a financially prudent decision to anyone? Okay. So in regards to that, how is it that the costs that the city estimated to be $5 million was reduced to $3 million? How did that happen? What did we change? So the city manager went through and took a look with the financial management department to see what the requests were. We took an approach to say, tell us what your what your needs would be. And then we essentially met with the departments and narrowed that list down to an approach. One of the ways that we achieved that approach was to change the regulatory approach that we will take, where in the past we had taken a very police centric model. That is, it requires a tremendous amount of police resources. This now is a model that is a team based model. It will be led by the city manager's office. There'll be a dedicated person in the city manager's office who then will assemble a team with development services and business license code enforcement. It'll have some police in order to in order to to allow for those inspections. But it essentially be a model where we pursue a business that is illegally operating and treat it as if it were a, you know, any business that does not have a business license or is allowed to operate. We would find we would aggressively go out and visit the business. But we're expecting that there would be a significant amount of times where we were not able to gain entry to the business, but then we would go through a lean process and find administrative citations in order to bring it into compliance. We do expect it will be a difficult procedure to do to do that enforcement, but it is definitely a cost savings over the model of a police focused model, which is also, you know, was was very impactful in terms of reduced services on available for other or really reduced officers available for other services. So in the memo, we identify that if we were to go through a different model, the council has the ability to do that. We can go back to a police model. There would be a cost of, I believe, $1.6 million to do so. And that would be basically money that we'd have to come up with out of our general fund because we wouldn't have tax revenue to cover that. That's correct. So in the past, when we had illegal businesses operating, we used more of a police centric approach to enforcement, is what I'm hearing you say. Yes. We also use those other those other departments. The city attorney was heavily involved in city prosecutor and business licensing code, and everyone had a role. But we did have a fairly large response from the police department as well. And whatever that level of response we had from the police department in the past was we are now proposing a reduced level of support from the police department to go after illegal operations in order to meet that $3 million break even point. That's correct. And so before when we had a robust police enforcement structure in place, how effective was that in getting the legal operations shut down? So for the specifics at at the turn of the police chief, but we we did have difficulty shutting down dispensaries in some cases that when when we're able to, you know, bring the full resources of the police department to bear, we would have some short term success. It would be pretty time intensive, but we would be able to serve search warrants and to go to the to the facility. Often it was the case we experienced that that same facility would open later. So it was challenging. You know, we have also had some success on the leans and citation side where we've been amassing those citations and in some cases that has led to compliance. In other cases, it did not lead to compliance because the value of the fines were lower than the, you know, the cost of doing business. So maybe if I could route my next question to Chief Luna. Chief Luna, do you believe that spending less money on police resources to enforce illegal operations is going to be more or less effective for the city of Long Beach? For clarification when we talk about illegal operations. Just to clarify your question, I'm talking about rogue locations, rogue dispensaries. And that's where primarily our. Challenge was last time with the rogue locations, which I can get into numbers on that. If we are as a police department to take enforcement action on rogue dispensaries, which I fully expect. To do that if this gets approved. The resources that we currently have. Are not enough. Can you tell tell us a little bit about what you mean by this term rogue dispensary. Basically rogue operations who run clandestine. Operations behind the city's back with our history. Unfortunately, the last time the council approved this, we had some dispensaries that were sanctioned. And then for every one dispensary that was sanctioned, we had approximately four or five that were unsanctioned or as I call rogue, which the police department had to apply an extensive amount of time, effort and resources to close down some of them multiple times. We estimate. That in each case. Of these rogue dispensaries, we spent at least approximately 40. Hours per. Rogue dispensary. And just to give you an idea. Between February of 2012 and November of 2014, the police department served 142 search warrants at rogue dispensaries. So if you start doing your math between approximately 40 hours and 142 search warrants, you're talking about 5680 hours that were diverted from our core mission in order to deal with these rogue dispensaries. And Chief Luna, when we talk about rogue dispensaries. Let's say we have a sanctioned medical marijuana dispensary with a mature. Responsible business partner. Will that prevent rogue dispensaries from establishing in the city of Long Beach just because. The sanctioned business is being run by a responsible operator. Do the two have any correlation whatsoever? Well, based on our own experience here in Long Beach and from our research in. The cities around us, what we're seeing is ratios of. About anywhere. Between 3 to 1, meaning three rogue dispensaries for every one that sanctioned up to seven rogue dispensaries for every one that sanctioned. I think that we're assuming, based on. Long Beach's. Experience, that we would experience a ratio of four rogue dispensaries for every one that this council approved. Chief Luna in terms of the police department's ability to perform its core function with the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Long Beach, impact the police department's ability to provide current services to the residents of the city. Yes, it would be. Absolutely. Guys, just real quick. Please. None of that. So we're having some council questions. So there's time for public comment after. Again, based on our experience. If we're talking of the example I gave you between that time period, 5600. Hours, over 56, eight, 50. 600 hours, work hours diverted from our core mission to deal with rogue dispensaries. And when we say our core mission, what kinds of crimes or investigations would that take away from. Our core mission? In the Long Beach Police Department is considered our patrol calls for service when we're responding to priority one, two and three calls for service. That also includes our investigative functions, both violent and property crime and quality of life issues. And it also includes homeland security or national security. Challenges that we face. And in recent times, I imagine that our police department has had to step up to. Reevaluate and enhance the security measures in terms of the services that it provides to the city with the resources that you have. And what I mean by that is, Chief Luna, you haven't received any extra amount of money in the last couple of months in order to better protect us in light of world events. Unfortunately, we have not. So when we seek the protection of our police department, we're doing that with the money that you've already been given from our budget, our existing budget. Yes. We do it with existing resources. I'm going to make a substitute. Well, actually, I'm going to make a substitute motion, but before I do. Chief, do you believe that in regards to the medical marijuana industry and the discussion we're having, what is the most problematic component of those operations in the mind of a police department executive? With the experience that our narcotics unit has had. I think everybody in this room understands the Compassionate Use Act and that we're trying to find a way to. Provide. Marijuana to people. Who may need it. But with our enforcement action that we've taken. Unfortunately, we see a lot of these businesses who are not being very honest up front, not only with the marijuana that they're selling, but the money that they're taking in. So it's it's been a challenge. And we challenge ourselves to make sure that we're thinking differently, that we're thinking compassionately. But when we come up with specific cases or videos of. People taking advantage of the system, it's it's pretty difficult to watch. Okay. I thank you very much, Chief. I. I. To share the concern for those who want access to the medication. I fear that creating storefront dispensaries at this time in the city of Long Beach is not a prudent move. I share that based on the data. The actual data that has been provided for anyone who's sitting in this room who is actually a resident of the city of Long Beach. It should cause us great concern that we are going to spend $1.6 million of one time surplus moneys that we could be using on infrastructure projects or deferred maintenance of our city buildings. Roofs that need to be replaced. Infrastructure projects that are. Desperately needing attention. To invest in an industry that is at the very best going to provide us a break even scenario with less effective enforcement of a business that we were not able to effectively enforce using more money in the past. To me, that makes no sense whatsoever. And I look out in the audience, I see lobbyists and I see a lot of business owners. And I just wonder if you are if this was your city, would you believe that that was a good financial decision to make? The thing that concerns me the most is the storefront locations and our police chief telling us that as a result of storefront locations, they are going to have less police resources to allocate to public safety issues that our residents are struggling with right now. We have property thefts, robberies, murders. West Long Beach has had so many gang related murders this past year. It's unbelievable. And we're going to take those resources and put them into a risk. And to me, that doesn't seem prudent. So what I'd like to do is offer a substitute motion that I think provides a compromise and really helps the people that it should help. And that's the patients. The patients. This is a substitute motion designed for patients, and I'll be curious to see who opposes it. Because I wonder if they're an actual patient or if they have a financial interest, which that's fine if you have a financial interest. But be honest about what your position is. The substitute motion allows for a phased in approach to medical marijuana. Under this motion, we will allow for businesses to establish with a home delivery service no onsite sales. Sales tax revenue will be collected from these four businesses that go through the process to get their license to operate in the city of Long Beach. This will allow patient access for those who need it most. Six months after the first business is operational, staff will report back with a comprehensive report to Council on the tax revenues collected. The fiscal impact to the city of Long Beach in terms of enforcement costs and any public safety issues during that time period. At that time, Council will consider whether or not we should add four storefront locations. To correspond to those for home delivery businesses at that time, we will have accurate data to be able to determine how many patients were servicing what the demand is and the number of storefront locations we think will be necessary to meet the demand . We will at that point consider adding up to three additional storefronts for a total of seven citywide. That's my emotion. Okay. Sorry. There is a motion. Councilman, if you can just plug in on the motion, please. The second think it was Councilman Austin. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Councilman Austin that you first want to speak to the second. Well, I think Councilmember Price was very eloquent in laying out the reasons why this substitute motion has come forth. I don't want to rehash this. No pun intended. I don't want to rehash this this issue because we have debated this and talked ad nauseam as a council. My positions, I think, were clearly articulated in the last the last time we. We met, I expressed concerns with the storefront model. In my opinion, the brick and mortar model was something that is almost something in the past anyway, since we know that many in most of people are probably getting access through home delivery anyway. And so I think this is is a huge compromise, particularly coming from our third District Council member who has come a long way in in our viewpoint here. And so I want to commend her in that regard. I do. And I did in the last time we we discussed this, the last time it was before the council. I did favor a phased in approach. I think it's most responsible and it also helps our enforcement measures. I think it prevents the and I'm going to use another term here and coin another term. It prevents the pot squatting or rogue facilities from from opening up at the rate that they did before. And hopefully they don't do it at all because that actually undermines policy, that undermines progress on this issue. And so I favor the the phase in model a report back after six months a responsible approach to implementing policy that would allow us to monitor this and build on it as necessary and as needed. I think it also puts us in line and establishes us for for for the for the future. And we know that this is a ever evolving issue. There's there's movement on this every day. I did have a question regarding cultivation because I was recently at a conference with a number of city officials, and the issue of cultivation came up. And as I understand, Mr. City Attorney, do we have to take action on this? Is this a time specific issue? We have to take action on cultivation before a certain date. Can you explain that? That's actually a very good question. Under the new state law, there is a provision in there that we have heard talk may be repealed but has not yet been repealed. That indicates if a city does not take some regulatory action on cultivation prior to March 1st of 2016, then the state law on cultivation would take over and you would lose local control on that issue. And from the research that we've done, if you left a ban in place on cultivation, that would be regulation. And under the scenario that was presented by Councilwoman Price, we would not come back with a report until well after that March 1st date. So. We could either leave the ban in place or you could give us specific direction on what you would want for cultivation if it did come in the city so that we could be prepared for the new state regulations in March. The current ordinance has certain provisions relating to cultivation. It limits the size of a cultivation facility to 5000 square feet. It includes all of the buffer zones that have been discussed previously tonight. So you could leave that in place and we could write it so that if a dispensary is considered after that six month period that was mentioned by Councilwoman Price, that those regulations would kick in and, you know, you'd have the 5000 square foot limitation and the buffers and. You know, a requirement for. So so under the current substitute motion that, as I understand it, restricts storefronts but okays businesses for up to four businesses for home delivery with the cultivation component that is already being proposed. Change. Much in terms of that dynamic? Well, we'd have to make modifications to the ordinance because as it stands now, cultivation would be permitted under that ordinance. So we would have to recraft the ordinance if that was the direction of council to indicate that the regulations would only become applicable if Council takes further action to allow cultivation in the city at some future date . But we would lock in place those regulations at this point in time so that if in six months after that first dispensed or first delivery site opened up and a report came back and said, we can accommodate cultivation. Those regulations would then kick in. So I think it's extremely important for us to maintain local control on this matter as much as possible. Do we have any idea what a state cultivation ordinance or law would look like today, and how would that be different than what we have proposed? The state has a fairly extensive regulations, but most of them have to do with licensing. If I remember correctly or if you know Monica. But I believe the state has. Maybe 17 different types of cultivation licenses, depending on the size of the operation. There's a requirement to get a separate cultivation license from the state. I do not believe they get into the kind of detail or ordinance does as far as the size and so forth, although some of the licenses are tailored to the size of the operation. So you could have some fairly extensive operation operations if the state regulations. Became applicable. So I guess I'm looking for some some sort of direction or assistance from from the city attorney to to support the substitute motion, but also maintain local control that we would like to have as a city for cultivation, for when that is. So my suggestion would be as part of that motion would be also to direct, because we're going to have to bring back a new ordinance, direct the city attorney to prepare as part of the new ordinance that would be presented, regulations for medical marijuana cultivation that could be implemented only after the city or the city council determines that a bricks and mortar facility is appropriate in the city. And we would incorporate regulations much like what we have now requirement for a cup, buffers and so forth. And we would bring that back to you. So, Councilmember Price, we're open to such a friendly. Yes. Thank you so much. I think that's it for questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I'm really glad to see how the conversation there's been a lot of movement since the last time we've seen this. And so I want to I want to, you know, applaud Councilmember Price for making that movement in her position. Councilmember Alston as well. Just have a few questions and comments about the ordinance and and some of the proposals on the table. So in terms of I'm going to start with because this is the most immediate recommendation. It was the home delivery proposal and. We heard a lot tonight about about homelessness. And I know personally that a lot of homeless folks utilize, you know, RV hotels, sometimes public spaces. And so how will we is that with the plan B to deliver allow home delivery to a hotel or to a public space? Just thinking out loud how this would work. That's a question for whoever will want to take a crack at it. So I'd have to find the precise provision. But we do have in the draft ordinance in front of you fairly extensive regulations in regard to home delivery that requires you to have insurance, you know, proof that you're delivering to someone over the age of 21 and that that person has a recommendation from a physician. There are restrictions that would prohibit them from delivering to a federal facility to a publicly owned facility. You could not deliver to a hotel or motel as it is currently structured. And there were a couple other. Restrictions. I just can't remember off the top of my head. So in theory, how would someone who perhaps lives in their car acquired. Well, under the under the ordinance, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be under the current draft of the audience. It wouldn't be permitted at all to deliver it to a car. You would have to deliver it to a fixed location, some sort of a residence. We could if this is the direction council wants to go, we'd have to get creative and figure out a way to provide that type of delivery service. But I don't really know what it would be because based on the discussion of homelessness we had. Earlier this evening. I mean. The problem is all over the city, different types of venues. So I don't know what a single point would be where you could provide that kind of service effectively. I get it. And I wouldn't encourage anyone to have to deliver, you know, something to a car or an RV. But I do like the idea of exploring home delivery. I have a few more questions. So back to the ordinance that was presented. I appreciate the point system, but it seems just a bit simple. Even if there's a point here for, you know, someone who's been in the city before or been a part of the passed process, it just seems a bit simple when you have, for example, a question about you add one point for people who had, you know , submitted a business. Well. It's a zero point or one point, and it leaves no room for quality or judgment on how quality a proposal might be. And so I would I would ask what how would we approach it if we said instead of a 0 to 1 point, we just allowed some some some bit of flexibility in judgment by saying like 0 to 5 points. So you can see if someone submits a business plan to the city that is, you know, high quality page really thoro stands up to, you know, and, you know, an audit versus someone who who draws it with crayons and both of them submit a plan. I don't think both of them should still receive the point. So how we approach it if we you know just expand it to point system kept same categories that allowed a little bit for. For a little bit of evaluation on quality. So I should talk a little bit about the reason we structured it the way that we did. We tried to structure it in such a way. I mean, the goal of the whole point system is to encourage best practices, best operators that we could possibly get for the facilities that would be licensed. And we did keep it rather simple as far as a one point system for most of the items. And the reason for that was to try and take out the discretionary aspect of it, because if we vest discretion in our staff or the city attorney's office or anyone to make determinations who gets a, you know, on a floating scale of 0 to 5, we're likely to generate litigation as a result of that because someone who was scored very low is undoubtedly not going to. Be happy with that. So we just tried to keep it simple, straightforward. We tried to structure the categories so that they would capture all the things that we would want in a good operator. We could easily end up with a system. If everybody does what they're supposed to do and submits a very thorough application, we might end up because it defaults to a lottery if there's ties. And that's actually not a bad thing because then will ensure that whoever gets selected will hopefully be employing their best practices. When they open. Next question would be along the same lines. How do we evaluate? Well, both background checks. So if they operate, you know, dispensaries in other cities, how do we check to make sure those cities aren't having issues with this operator? How is that evaluated in this selection process? So the only thing that is as far as an evaluation, they are required to disclose whether or not they've ever had a permit or keep something like that revoked or suspended in another city. But we don't really have as part of the point system a detract for that, but we would take it into consideration. Is there a way to do some level of a background check on, say, the highest scoring applications that are submitted? Everyone's require everyone that submits an application is required to go through life scan, but that's basically to determine whether or not they have an inappropriate criminal background. We could, as part of the process, do a due diligence. We could add a category. We could add a point for never having had a license or permit revoked in another city. And then as part of that, we'd make them a test to that, certify that that was true, and then staff could do their due diligence and make sure that it was true by doing the best we could to make sure that they hadn't had a problem someplace else. So that would only make sense if they actually have an establishment in another city. So I wouldn't want to I mean, obviously if someone has never opened the establishment, I don't want them getting a point for never having gotten their license revoked. So we would set it up as a minus one. It wouldn't if you had an open anywhere else, you wouldn't get any points at all. But if you had had a revocation at some other location of and it would relate directly to a medical marijuana facility, we would detract one point. Okay. So you're a net neutral if you haven't done anything, if you've got some experience and it was a positive experience, you get a plus one. If it was a negative experience, you get a minus one. That's how that works. Well, what you were suggesting would just be a subtract one. Yes. Subtract one. Mm hmm. I like that. Next. So I appreciate the the budget and the economic analysis, and I especially appreciate the team based enforcement model so that you get different perspectives. And the last thing I would you know, given how fluid this regulatory environment would be, last thing I would like to do is hire a bunch of sworn officers and two years from now, something changes in terms of, you know, the the the regulatory environment, we won't have have the means to support those officers. So using a mix from different departments and spreading it out, I think it's smart. The question on the revenue generation, so I know it was I know there was a breakdown as to what types, you know, this was a maximum we assumed maximum tax generation from what what was the breakdown of the type. So if we were to change, for example, and say only dispensaries or nine dispensaries, how would that change if we're not doing, say, cultivation or something like that? How would that affect the the analysis? So Councilmember, I'll give an overview and then Leo can provide more detail if needed. Essentially, we did do a pretty complex analysis to try to estimate how many were allowed in the ordinance, and then we look at how much would come from if we had cultivation sites. I believe we had two cultivation sites in our model. We looked at, you know, if the nine were operating in a low in a low revenue environment or a medium or high and then made some estimates along those lines, there's also an estimate for our sales tax because we would collect sales tax on this as well. And then those that's really on the tax side and then there's the regulatory fee. So if you had nine dispensaries and you have a certain amount of cost that gets spread to the permitted or the allowable dispensaries that can only be used to recoup enforcement costs for for those expense for those dispensaries. It couldn't go for any of the for the illegal dispensaries. So if we do have a lower amount of facilities, we would have to recalculate and bring that back to you what the what the revenue impact would be and then also what the cost impact would be. So in terms of staffing, do we have a scalable staffing model that we can consider? If, you know, there are, you know, more, we can have one level or based on overtime. And if it's less, we have less in part. Yes, in part it's it's important to remember that this isn't linear. So if you if you go from X amount of dispensaries and cut that in half, it's the costs don't necessarily get cut in half. We really look at two different costs. One is to permit the license dispensaries, which we're hoping are all going to be very good operators. And really, we're just checking and making sure that they're doing what they need to be doing. Then there is the expectation and this has been our experience in Long Beach as well in other cities, that when you open up legal dispensaries, you are also going to be seeing activity from illegal dispensaries. And so that we would still have to have costs associated with appropriately responding to those illegal dispensaries. And those two aren't necessarily connected. I get. And I just think that some of the calls were represented. As, you know, these are all of these calls are, you know, on day one, we need to have these calls. But in reality, given the timeline, it's going to be a while until we're actually open and ready for business. So, you know, we wouldn't necessarily in this next, you know, have to make a mid-year budget adjustment to have this full cost. We can sort of scale or phase it in. Correct? Some are phased and some are not. So we would definitely if you give us direction on a different model, we would cast that out and look at those phases. What would need to come on immediately? What could wait until until this model would be implemented? Okay. So can you walk me through the timeline? So by timeline, I expect you are asking for if this were to pass for implementation. So as what we've outlined in our memo is if the council takes action, we would immediately start the process. We would upon adoption of the two audit of the audiences and the second reading, we would essentially bring on the staff that we need right away in order to create the application process. By February, we expect that we could have the design of the application process to be complete. We then this goes through a couple process is how the ordinance is structured. We would then in March have applications would be due. There is a process that you have to go through not just for this process, but for any business that goes through a CPA. And it is a lengthy process. So we expect that that up process would essentially be completed in October. We then would go through the planning check process with those various dispensaries. And so the plant check process would be completed in December. So if you take action tonight, we do expect and there's also construction that has to happen in these dispensaries. So we expect that will start immediately. You know, we wouldn't be delaying anything. It would be immediately getting started, but it would take approximately a year before the first dispensary would be opened. Okay. So and my final question and my final question would be if we were to so there were there are two proposals on the table already. One is to set a threshold for nine at one for district one. The other is to is predominantly, as I understand it, a delivery based model that phases in four and then four more later, you know, three more after that. How would your timeline change if you have how would your timeline change if you were to adjust opening dates? Would you if you were to have different phasing dates with all the all the regulatory stuff and ramp up, would all that be a be affected as well? Well, as we understand the proposal, you would still be creating four facilities. They wouldn't be available for walk up traffic, but they would still be for facilities. So and unless a different regulatory scheme was used, you would still go through this process in the setup process. So we expect it to be similar. Okay. So here's what I'm going to try to do. I'm going to try to merge the motions. And if people are sincere about compromise, let's see what happens. So the delivery options obviously have issues that need to be vetted out as well, but I'm willing to allow staff to try that out. So I want I move that. We include the, you know, delivery options on day one and that we I have an issue with opening up just delivery and no walk up space. I think that's not fair to a certain demographic and I don't think that's anyone's intention here. So but it seems like there's interest on the council at jumping way ahead at at, you know, nine or some larger number might be too high. So here's I like I also like the elements that Councilwoman Lowenthal mentioned about a per district cap. And I believe there was something about the after we looked at the there was some misunderstanding about whether we included child care as a as an example to look at or to be written into the ordinance. And that the original intent was to to take a look at it. Well, if if the interest is to remove that, I'm okay with that as well. So to be clear, I move the ordinance as presented include remove child care centers. A cap at one per district to be phased in beginning with five. After six months of evaluation. The other four. And delivery on day one. And my hope is that that includes a phase in from the substitute motion and the main elements from the main motion. And so that's my motion. Thank you. Mr. Mays, would you repeat the motion just because I want to make sure it's clear? Husband Richardson was talking about for me. Sorry, but it. I'm going to have to ask him to repeat it. Sorry. So what I'm trying to do here is get the elements from the main motion of you. Repeat to me the elements of the main motion. I'll tell you that I'm going to include those. When you say the main motion, do you mean the motion made by Councilwoman Lowenthal? Yes. So that would be to adopt the ordinance as presented. There would be nine dispensaries in the city, one per district, and remove licensed child care facilities from the buffers that were presented in the district in the ordinance. Yes, that's the motion and the caveat the change would be to add a phase in. So we would start with five and six months later adding four. So just to be clear, just to be clear, you would start with five. And could those be anywhere in the city in any of those five district or we're still going to risk more than one. No more than one per district. Okay. No more than one per district. Five total. Mm hmm. And then after six months of the first being in operation, would we incorporate. The provision that would require a report back to the city council as to how things were going at that point in time. And then you would consider adding an additional four to bring you up to a total of nine. Yes, I'm fine with that. So just and just so I'm clear, essentially, the motion is, is Vice Mayor Lowenthal was motion with one change, which is instead of opening up the process directly to two nine dispensaries up to nine I'm sorry, citywide, you would first open it up to five and at six months then you would open it for an additional four . You would report back to consider adding an additional four. Well, that's okay. That's different. So I want make sure I'm clear. So is it is it five? Because quite frankly, the council on any Tuesday can add four at five to, you know, change things. And so is the motion to go five. And then after six months you go into four or is a motion only five and then the count the council debates and discusses again and can choose them to go to for up to four more. Councilman, what I envision is, you know. If a district if districts. So let me simplify. Nine is the motion is one for district and I want to begin with five to allow some for some evaluation. So that could come back to the council in the form of a two from for a study session. If any council council member based on the data would like to take actions and not implement those other four, then they have that opportunity. But my hope is the hope is to allow some sort of a I want to sort of see if there's middle ground here. I like the idea of a phase in. Okay. So just. Like the other ideas as. Well. So just to be clear, your motion is, is the Vice Mayor Lowenthal original motion. The difference is that instead of going directly up to nine, you're going directly up to five, and at six months you begin the process for the next four. However, there is an update to the council at six months, and if at that point a council member wants to change the ordinance, then they have a right to as they would have a right to any other week. Absolutely. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor. Mayor, I need further clarification. In the six month period we're talking about is six months after the first dispensary actually opens. Yeah. So. So how about this? We're going to have six months. We're going to have six month updates every six months. During this, I want to say every six months I update every six months until everything gets open. And that and the five the four additional dispensaries will be opened up after six months after. Well, cannot open until six months after the the original five have been open for business. Okay. And one further clarification, because you said you want to allow delivery. So I seem I assumed by that the model would be that if we have five eligible for a cup, each of those five as part of their original cup could also ask to do delivery. So let me ask you the question. I mean, are there considerations we have? It sounds fine to me if someone would prefer to have home delivery as an add on to their service. I don't have a particular issue. And that's the way the current ordinance tonight is structured. So if you apply for a CFP, you can indicate on your application that in addition to bricks and mortar retail sales. I don't have to. You could do. Delivery. Yeah. Yes, thank you. I think there's one piece of clarification to that so I can repeat the motion. Is the is the is the additional up to four? Does that timetable is that because does that clock begin when all five applications have been processed and or an open or does that start when the first one open? So you're saying after the first five are open, is that. I think that's what you're saying. So I mean, yeah, but let me just restate. Um, can you tell me when the first ones would be open? Based on today's. Timeline. Mr. Modica indicated the likely scenario is that approximately one year. So if we were to start their process delayed from today, six months, we would would we be able to, let's say the first five, it was a complete disaster. Will we be able to stop someone in their process if it takes a year to get opened? Let's say they'll be six months down the process and we delay it six months, not six months from when they open, but six months by the time they actually get open, we will have six months of data, correct? No, you wouldn't, because it's going to take a year for us to open the first ones. And I think the the premise of your motion, if I understood it, is to get an idea of whether or not the ones that you are authorizing the first five would be operating successfully, not causing a nuisance in the neighborhood. So you really would want to make the trigger point at some point after at least one, if not all five of them open so that you could see if they were operating appropriately or not. You weren't getting complaints from neighbors or so. So what my hope is then will be to create some sort of a a overlap so that, you know, there can be sort of caucus one or cohort one that's in the process that takes a year. Six months into their process, you can start the process on. You can stagger and start the second process. If the first by the time the first process is up and running and you have some data, if it's a complete disaster, would we have the ability to stop the process on the others and return any money from the city? We have the ability to just stop that in the process before they get open. It would be very once you start down that it's very expensive, number one, for the applicant to go through that process. So if we started them down that road and got halfway through it and then said, Sorry, you can't do it again, we would generate, I guarantee you, litigation from everybody that's in that process, even if we gave them back the money, because usually by that period of time they have had to identify a physical location where they could go. They have to get capital together, they have to put together business plans. There's a whole lot of work that they would have to do, so it really wouldn't be fair to them to get them in the pipeline, only to revoke that at some point in time that the other the initial five didn't work out. It would be better to get some statistical data after you have one or more, 1 to 5 actually operating so that you can see that now we have a good model we can use and you have a database from which to draw to know whether or not you really fight for more. So so hearing that, I mean, that fundamentally changes my intent of what I wanted to do. I mean, my hope was to try to get some sort of a phase in that was more reasonable. But if you have a phase in that, you know, it takes a year to get one up and going in six months and then another year after that. That's two and a half years. That's two that's a pretty long well. Presumably they they would be moving through the process in parallel. So I don't anticipate one would take a year and then another one would take another year. You'd have all five of them presumably going through the process roughly at the same time. So if everything worked out well, people submitted their applications on time, they were properly vetted. All five of them could be into well into the CFP process by this time next year. And so the additional four would not be able to begin their process until we have data back on the on the originals. That would be another year after six months of being open. It would take a process. Two and a half years. So you're saying. Yeah, you're correct. So that fundamentally changes what I was hoping to do here. I mean, that said, if there's no realistic way to have a phase in that structurally changes my thought on the substitute motion as well, because we would be subject to the same timeline on the subject to motion as well, correct? I mean, if the substitute motion were to open up, you know, in six months from the time that six months from the time that delivery is opened, we begin storefront sales, that would take we we evaluate then begin storefront sales that would take us how long would it take to get delivery up and running a year. It would be about a year or. So, a year for delivery. Then six months of evaluation and then another year to get the storefronts open. So two and a half years before we getting the storefronts open. If the substance of the motion is. Well, yes, that's correct. So so I'm withdrawing my motion and I can't support the substitute motion either. I'm just going to support the main motion for the simple fact that. Yeah. The timeline doesn't make sense to phase it based on what you said, to have a sincere effort at this. So I don't I don't really see any way around it either. We're going to do this because we support it or we won't. So there it is. Okay. Thank you. Moving on, I still have a list of members and the public. We're nearing 210, so I just want to make sure that we are moving as expeditiously as possible. Count summary ranga. I guess that's a veiled hint, to be sure. To. Be direct. Well. Well, before I begin, I want to thank Councilmember Lawrence out for bringing this forward. I know she and and former council member Oranga Tony have brought this forward many years ago. And now here we are. We're almost we're almost there. We're almost there. And I want to also compliment Councilmember Price for coming around a little bit. I mean, it's still complex and it's not an easy topic. It's not easy to grapple with it. And of course, I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for. Coming around full circle to where we first started with the original motion that I seconded. So having said all that, I'm not going to ask any further questions. I'm going to just support the original motion. Councilmember Gonzales or Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask and perhaps I might be interpreting it a little bit differently. But just first, in terms of staffing and costs, how did we formulate these costs and did we look at this? I know in some cases we looked at the city of Los Angeles. How did we come up with, you know, $3 million and get a baseline for all that? So, Councilmember, what we did is we did look back at prior experience. We have had experience in the past of doing some regulation and doing enforcement. So we know what those what those costs are. We also did a kind of a zero based we asked each department. So given the ordinance that the council is considering. So the council passes the current ordinance. Please estimate your cost to do those. And so we asked them to split it into what would it cost to do the regulatory and to approve if there were nine approved, what were the costs that could be associated with those nine and only associated with those nine? And then what is the cost associated with stopping some of the illegal ones that we expect would come? We had to make some assumptions in the analysis we assumed, and this is based on our past practice as well as other cities, that for every one that is opened and allowed, we expect up to six potentially could be here within, you know, while we're doing this process within that year, those are going to start fairly soon is what our expectation would be. So being able to have sufficient resources to address those departments came up with that that amount of about $5 million. And then we essentially estimated what we believe the revenue would be from from the nine from the tax side and also from the regulatory side. And then we managed to that budget. So we did make some reductions. We created a model that we believe the council, if you want to move forward with this, we were hearing that it would be paid for by by the amount of funds available. So we managed to that budget and that's how we came up with the 3 million. Okay, great. Thank you. And I understand will be using existing employees should this be rolled out. But are there any new will we be looking at new hires or is this because this is such a large undertaking? It wouldn't be. You know, it's it's certainly existing within the roles of the city employees. But would we have it would we have any new hires for for this? So it would be a combination of both. We would be expecting on a go forward basis that we would be hiring new staff. This is a very time intensive process to do the enforcement. And so we will need new staff and we are budgeting for that in that 3 million, although we do expect that those illegal establishments could open very soon and we would need to respond to those using existing staff. And so we split it between how many existing staff we're going to have to pull and that there would be diversion from, you know, other business that those staff normally do. And we would have we would have some diversion so we would be mining back to you on what that diversion would be. For example, for on the police side, we're estimating two and a half police officers. It takes about two and a half years to fully train a police officer through the academy, through the field training program . And so in that interim time, we would have to pull from existing resources in order to, you know, on overtime and others to have those police officers available even at the two and a half additional that we added. Okay. Thank you. And now that we're on the subject of police officers, Chief Luna, how many police officers currently are we down at the moment? I want to say we're down about approximately 20 or 25. Okay. 20 or 25. Okay. Thank you. And as far as our approach to enforcement, I know it could be a longer process. Is this due to the fact that we're now taking more of a team approach if we are to implement this? Is that the reason why it's going to be called the Collective Health Department, city prosecutor, everybody kind of pulling together. So under this model, we would shift away from a police model where we're serving search warrants and showing up with large groups of officers and doing all the work that goes into the search warrants. On the criminal side, we would instead switch to a lean type model where we are assessing fines and trying to, you know, assess as many of those fines as possible if there is an illegal establishment. So that requires time to create those. And there's a there's you have to serve them and you have to inspect and you have to get access to the facility. So, yes, it would be a different model and one based more on financial penalties than one on criminal enforcement. Okay. Thank you. And as far as enforcement as well, I know in here at least I didn't see where we had issues in the past with property. So for for the most part, for the unsanctioned for facilities or properties, the property owner was often a large part, a large piece of this, this issue. And so how do we or what more of power do we have as a city to to enforce in those instances? So the draft ordinance that is that we presented to you does have provisions in there that makes it illegal for a landlord to rent a property to someone. For medical marijuana purposes unless that person actually has a copy from the city. So there would be the potential for criminal prosecution and there would be the administrative fines, as Tom mentioned. So essentially, we would be going after both. We would go after the the establishment, the business. But at the same time, we we are going to be leaning you know, the fines and fees were going to be leaned on the property, which is in many times not the same person as the the business that's operating. We did that before. Correct. So there's nothing different that we would do this time around. It's going to be basically the same process that we have had used before. Correct. Where we would look at additional tools that we could use as well. And we would look for safety violations that we could red tag the building we would look for, be more aggressive with liens. If we had dedicated staff and dedicated city attorney help, we could actually move to a sale of the property potentially, which which we hadn't done in the past. So there are some of those tools. But those you know, and just to set expectations, those take a long time. There are there are legal hurdles that you go over to over. You have to have due process. And so those those do take time in order to fully effectuate. And then lastly, I know it's important that I, I believe it's really important that we gather a lot of data if, you know, whatever takes place tonight. You know, I think data is certainly very important, as Councilman Price said, is as Councilmember Richardson said. And so I'm wondering if at all possible, since we are taking this team approach with the health department in looking at patients that we're we're I'm really looking at is as far as if this is to be implemented, is there data we can get perhaps from the health department that would say where we can work with these property owners or work with these establishments or these home delivery business owners and say, uh, you know, get some data as to what these ailments are from these patients. I mean, is that I don't know if there's any legal issue there with that or how we would. So the state law is actually fairly broad in regards to who can qualify for medical marijuana. And it's really up to the discretion of the physician that issues the prescription. So. It's very broad and we couldn't limit what the state law does. We could probably get data, but it would only it would probably be very difficult to get, quite frankly. Right. Well, I guess I'm asking the question in the sense of we'd like to know as a city what type of ailments that are more prevalent here in our city and as a health department or, you know, is that without giving, you know, all of the information out, without giving, you know, names and all that, is there , you know, does this person have HIV AIDS? Is this person have cancer? And what types of cancer and what types of ailments we have out there? We we track in the city. We have. Data from hospitals around that what different diseases. Are. We wouldn't be. Able to do is identify that is is what the prescriptions are being written for as those data wouldn't be collected. And that's not something that we currently have ability to track. Okay. Yeah. But otherwise, within the city, we do understand what the cancer rates look like in those sorts of things that different age groups and different communities . Okay. Um. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Because those are all my questions. I appreciate it. Thank you. We have to close at the council portion here, Vice Chair Lowenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank my council colleagues for the discussion. And Mr. Mayes, just. Can you restate the original motion or shall I restated? So the motion, as I understood it, would be to accept the ordinance as presently drafted, with the exceptions that we make clear that there would be nine per city but no more than one per council district, and that when we brought back a new ordinance, we would also removed licensed child care facilities from the buffer zones. Okay. And I knew that I had accepted a friendly amendment from Councilmember Andrews. And in all this time that we had deliberated, I had reflected back on your advisement that that might create a barrier or most likely create a barrier. So I'd like to remove that friendly amendment for that extra point and leave it as the ordinance reads. Councilman Andrews, is that acceptable? Thank you. So the only change is the removal of the buffer. In the specification of one per district only. Correct. Thank you. And with that council members, I hope you can support that motion, I think. I think in the seven years that we've attempted to have some reasonable policy in place, we have come to a place where we can take a measured approach. And that measured approach is really a number as small as nine. I don't have any data to support what a city our size would really require if we were to meet all the needs of people that were in need, medical need of of medical marijuana. But I don't think we're here to really determine that because none of us is an expert on that. I think what we're here to do is look at land use and look at our. Approach to public policy, this one particularly to try and balance land use issues with public policy that would enable our residents to participate in something that they are legally able to participate in and ensure that they're able to do that in a city that they live in, as opposed to traveling great distances and lengths to acquire something that they are legally able to do. And in doing so, looking at the buffer zones and the various conversations we've had about the different attributes that we would like to assign to the buffer zones, I do think we've taken on the land use issues quite thoroughly, and I'm satisfied with it. And and I have to say that I'm pretty confident that we're moving in the right direction, not because we've spent seven years at it and not because any one of us knows more than the other, but because we truly have vetted this to the extent possible and balanced our public safety interests and needs. With this conversation, I don't know that there is anything that we have not considered. It doesn't mean we'll get it right. But that's the beauty of public policy. It's not a one shot deal. You do have an opportunity to correct as you go. And I think this measured approach of taking nine at this time and it will sort of be phased in because not nine would be ready to move forward at the same time. So I think we would organically see a phasing in of these nine individual sites. And so with that, I request council support and look forward to hearing comments from the public. Yeah. And what I'm going to do is before I go into the onto the public, I just want to make sure we have two motions on the floor. We have a substitute motion by Councilwoman Pryce, and then the the initial motion by Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilman, prices for brief. Repeat your motion that we're the ones on the floor and then vice mayor, repeat hers. We're going to go to public comment and then come back for the vote. Councilman. Thank you. And I would ask my colleagues to support my motion, which is to allow for businesses to establish with a home delivery service, no onsite sales. This will allow patient access for those who need it most. Six months after the first business is operational, staff will report back on the tax revenues collected, the fiscal impact to the city in terms of enforcement costs and any public safety issues in that time period. At that time, Council will consider adding four storefront locations to be aligned with the home delivery business. Same operator. Six months after the first storefront operation is operational, we will consider adding up to three additional storefronts for a total of seven. So that is my motion. Thank you. Thank you. And then we have the original motion on the floor. Vice-Chair Lowenthal. So the original motion on the floor is adoption of the recommendation, the staff recommendation for support of the ordinance as written with one change, and that is to remove the child care buffers. From the ordinance. Is that correct, Mr. Mason? I articulate that correctly. I think you also you you made a change on the on clarifying the language as far as one per district. Correct? One per district? Correct. So the number is the same as nine, but one per district and removing the childcare buffers. And if I can also add that I appreciate the interest in moving towards starting with just deliveries, but I think if we. Asked honestly to our public safety officers, or at least our police chief, there are many, many, many home deliveries that are taking place in the city today that are not being stopped today. And I don't know how we would end up being able to quantify. The price of that, what the value of that is, and in the interest of being sure that we're not moving toward a beneficiary pays type model of public safety, we don't put other businesses through that kind of rigor. We have a tremendous amount of calls for service to the Wal-Mart in downtown. And I'm not just singling out Wal-Mart, but that's the one that comes to mind. I used to live right across the street. We don't put them through those rigors. We also don't put other businesses through the same rigors. And so I do appreciate the conversation, but I I'm fully aware of the various businesses that we do not put through the same rigors in terms of beneficiary pays. So with that, council members, I hope you will be able to support the original motion. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to go to the public public comment before we go to public comment. I just want to remind everybody that I. I know that we've got two motions we're going to vote on. Please just know that I think everyone's anxious to move forward, whatever that ends up being. And so please come forward. Make your comments. Please try not to repeat the information we've heard. I think most folks have heard these comments many times, which I've argued this and debated many times. And so just ask if we can please refrain from from too many comments, that would be great so that we can actually get back to deliberation. And please begin and say your name for the record, please. My name is Mike Bartley. I live at 40 409 Charlemagne Avenue, Lakewood Village, Long Beach. And I'm just curious. I want to know if the city. Council is aware of The Beachcombers. September 18th. This year, article by Stephen Downing. And it says here it says, the criminal organizations operating these systems salaries are alleged to have. Been making regular payments, a mere one in money. The cash ranging between 10,000 and $15,000 weekly. To members of the Long Beach Police Drug Squad. Now, what is going on here? We can't control the rogue operations, obviously. So why are we voting on this tonight as it is? I think that the priorities of this council is mixed up. We need to stop the rogue operations first before we can proceed with legal marijuana for medical reasons. And I don't see this happening. This is a it's a cancer. Really aware of this article here. This is very important. It is there. Are you laughing about it? No. Okay. Well, it's right here. And I assume that the editor, the writer of it is. He didn't specify who was by, but I assume is by the FBI. So and you read it further in her article here on the back page, you'll see that more details about the police who were paid off and assumed that they were paid off by the these the dispensaries. So. And another thing to Chief Luna says we don't have enough resources. To to come back the rogue dispensary. So if it which evidently will come up, according to Charles Parkin and assistant manager. So what are we doing here with this stuff if it's this dangerous and and in light, too, of of 911 and what happened recently at San Bernardino. Where is this money going to this cash flow from? These dispensaries are not accountable. We need to come up with a accountable plan before we can proceed. And there isn't any way I mean, if the cash where's this cash going anyway? And I don't have enough time. But Mr. West, the city manager, came up with this plan here about the tax payments are expected to be made entirely in cash. So where's accountability in this? Banking accountability. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Mark Greenberg. I live in the eighth district. Mr. Austin. And I was your vice chairman of the Marijuana Task Force. I'm a former federal prosecutor, prosecuted organized crime for ten years, then left and been in private practice. I've seen both sides of this issue and saw certainly a great deal of discussion about it over the course of 60 hours of the meetings of the task force. I as much as I've seen the law enforcement side of it and have prosecuted organized crime drug trafficking groups, I went to a funeral for a friend on Sunday who died of cancer. So I know both sides of this issue. And if what you're talking about is access and that's what you're here to do, there's two issues that really permeate this whole situation. There's money. There's money for votes. There's money that people want to make a profit. There's all the cash involved. This is a big money business. But there's also an access issue for some people. As a councilman, Gonzalez asked for the data. There is data and the data is that about 94% of the people that go into these establishments do not have serious illnesses . They do not have cancer. About 5% do for that 5%. You should have access for people battling cancer. There should be access to this to ameliorate that doesn't cure cancer. In fact, under Prop 65. Smokable marijuana is covered under Prop 65. So for every sale in the state, in the state, it must be warned that you are causing cancer. This causes cancer. It doesn't fix cancer. It does ameliorate have since there's benefits, home delivery serves that need of access. If what we're really talking about is access for these people that need it, that truly have a need. The home delivery model works. It's been working for quite some time. Quite honestly, there's 30 companies right now that will deliver it to your home that I could have it delivered right here. It's not an issue. And so there is plenty of access if you want to have the revenue from that home delivery and allow it within the city, have it controlled from the city. But I live in the eighth District and in the eighth District we had what's been called a rogue dispensary on Atlantic Boulevard. I would walk by. Every shop is on the way to synagogue and there was a guy there with a gun here and a gun here out in front. Five things could happen, four of them bad. This guy was a nightmare. That dispensary was a nightmare. The police would raid it, close it down. It opened up the next day. There is no team approach that's going to really resolve that problem. They tried. They worked at it. They could not get it closed down. I talked to Chief McDonnell over and over again about my concerns with them. But home delivery resolves these issues. It addresses the access without all the problems. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. We want to just thank Mr. Mayes for all the time he gave to our task force and Kendra Carney for what I think was unpaid time. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. Next speaker, please. Honorable Mayor and city council Bill Napier here. If this was about home. Delivery, I would not be here. All of these many, many times. And even before the new council. This is not about home delivery because I don't trust none of that. And that's what we've been here for the stores. But here's the deal. We asked for a potshot and we got Governor Jerry Brown and instead. Now we're here begging again. The governor could have stayed out of it. The appeals court already had this one. But I guess he just couldn't let it be. So here we are. Begging you again for a punch up, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I was going to add that. Uh oh. I wish they were all California. I wish they were all California girls. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Okay. Let's try to get through this next speaker, please. Yeah. Hi, I'm Larry Parks. I was a managing director. Of a medical marijuana facility here in Long Beach. A lot of winter. Lotto winner. Also with a collective and a cultivation. I am. Have adequate. Proof here. These are very hard to find. Probably the only one that has one as somebody else could produce one. This is a medical marijuana collective permit that was that was presented by the city of Long Beach to us after we followed everything. I went through all the recommendations, spent $100,000 on a facility. Facility that was also handicapped facility. Very safe facility and sand in the walls in case anybody tried to come in and shoot anything. We never we had a very sophisticated. Alarm system, a very sophisticated camera system that even several times at the recommendation or the request of the Long Beach Police Department to help on robbery down the street at a facility, a liquor store facility, and another one at a small market facility. They used our cameras. So we tried to comply as best we could. We were raided ten times. Each time that cross was $15,000. So I would suggest that and certainly that mayor that I think last year you said give us a litigation free ordinance. And I would suggest and certainly recommend that you look at the people that won a lottery, that paid their $14,732, spent probably 100,000 plus in a facility. But they should be given the first opportunity. I would hope that you would get it right. So litigation doesn't get it right. And want to hear the economics of one. Councilwoman, if you were to take the budget, which I don't think is accurate, but it could be $5 million. But if you were to have to. Our district gets 18. Look at the income you'll have there. And the budget's not going to grow up that much more. So there's your facility offsets your cost. You'll bring in about $3 million more if you had. To. For district. So again, I urge you to consider the people that won the lotto. That we're here that opened. They should be given the first opportunity. And if not, then I think litigation will be. We don't want we're trying to stay away from litigation. Thank you very much, Mayor and city council. Thank you, sir. Before we have the next speaker, I'm going to close the speakers list. So the gentleman in the back with the hat will be the last speaker speak. There's more people. Okay. Stand. Go ahead, Jack. Hi. Good evening. My name is Jack Smith. I live at 240 Chestnut Avenue in Long Beach. That's in the first District. I was a representative for the second district because I lived in the second district at the time of the task force, a representative on the task force from the second District. This ordinance has a number of inconsistencies that I think need to be cleared up. First of all, I'm very glad that Vice Mayor Lowenthal has, as clarified and specified the maximum of one per district among the. Ninth district for a maximum of nine in the city. If that's. The number, remember, the number. Is very arbitrary. That you choose one per district is what you've chosen. As long as it's evenly distributed across the city. I think the most important phrase in this new proposed ordinance was at the very beginning, where it says protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the city. Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount. That is very, very key to remember. With regard to the cups, I'm a bit confused as the ordinance is written right now as to how those cups operate. It specifies in here that the cups are for each individual property. That's how I see you normally operate. The previous ordinances had had a scope for two, potentially two properties of a business. So how is that working? If if we have nine cups in the city? If a business happens to have a farm and a store, does that mean C to you cups limiting it to a maximum of four businesses in the city? Something to be clarified. I also was confused a little bit about the issue of food. Several times, a couple of times in the ordinance it says edible products shall not be considered food. And then it goes on to in another section to say that that in order for edibles to be produced, it must be in a retail food establishment and a certified food handlers with a kitchen. So is it food or is it not a food? Some of those things need to be cleared up. So do what else do I have here? Oh, advertisements. This is the one I get the most grief over, I guess. Print advertising. I was a recommendation in the task force that advertising not be permitted. I think that needs to be in the ordinance. Right now it is specifically permitted. There are a number of print media already available to minors, and that's the problem. And we have the press telegram. We have the single Tribune, The Beachcomber, The Gazette, L.A. Weekly, Aussie Weekly. And we've seen the ads in the U.S. Weekly. So we knew what we were likely to be getting. So I think print advertising should not be permitted. So the question of how do you do a copy for a delivery service? How do the cups work with the businesses and yes, to the maximum of one per district? Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. I've been your name for the record, please. John Donahue is the name live in East Long Beach. I've been here since 1952. Now, I consider myself an expert on this subject, and I'm going to give you some of the benefit of my expertize. It seems like you need some. I've been here many times and listened to this, going on and on and on and it just doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. For one thing, I started smoking marijuana in 1946. I just got back from World War Two and I found it very pleasant and I went on using it. I didn't get really into using it till I got out here to California. And the Sixties. Remember the good old sixties? And I started using it daily. And I never had any problem acquiring it. And now one thing we have to know about marijuana is if it actually should be calling it cannabis, because marijuana is a phony name that they gave the because the Mexicans were using it when they first criminalized it way back was four years ago. But now we have this problem. But one thing I understand that marijuana is not a crime. There are of course, there are laws against it, as there have been laws against tea and coffee and alcohol. But marijuana per say is not a crime. A small amount of marijuana is no criminal. I'd like mispriced or explained to me where the where is the crime? If I'm sitting at home with some marijuana and I got a bottle of scotch and I got Cigarets and I don't have a letter, why is that a crime? Anyway. It is not a crime. Another thing that I found amusing that we're now concerned about whether the homeless are going to be able to get the marijuana. Well, there's something else. How will they be able to pay for it? Because it's outrageously overpriced. It's about two or three, $400 an ounce. If a homeless person had that much money, he wouldn't be homeless. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Let's try to stick to, if possible, to the motions on the floor. I think we've heard the obviously the arguments about medical marijuana for many meetings. So we have a couple of motions on the floor if possible. Next Speaker Thank. You. Hi. My name is Nick Morrow, a resident property owner in the fourth District as a member of the Medical Cannabis Task Force. And I'm a former law enforcement. Law enforcement is not a for profit enterprise. So when we talk about the budget considerations, making money on medical marijuana is probably not the way you want to start the argument. The phased approach is is flawed because you have a fixed number of patients who aren't going to phase in their need. So you open the door a little bit. You're going to have problems with smaller and fewer locations. So keeping with the minimum of 914 district I support holly. Long Beach PD was very, very effective, very aggressive in closing down not only the rogue operators, but the operators that were doing their best to abide by the state state standards. With all that closed down, we don't have any operating medical marijuana locations in the city of Long Beach. The question I would have, has crime gone down as a result of that? Of all those closures, probably not with the the number of delivery services operating right now in the city of Long Beach, but checked it on my phone. There's at least 40 that will deliver to the city of Long Beach right now. None of them are actually located in the city of Long Beach. Those tax revenues are going elsewhere. Phasing in the delivery set up in Long Beach. You have to know where the medicine is coming from. If you just allow people to do delivery services without a location to verify quality and and strain and all those other issues that are important to patients, maybe not to the to the council per se, because we're looking more for the money than we are for quality of medicine for the patients. But the access is first and foremost. You got to open the door and you got to open it. Smart opening up nine locations and starting that process. Right now, patients in the city of Long Beach have got to go elsewhere. And so they're going to have to go elsewhere for at least another year. And so we need to open this door up. Take the chance. Open it up. It's working other places. We talked about getting information about patients, actual medical issues. City of Pasadena has a requirement on a research collective there that they collect that very information. When they when they put a patient into the system, they get that voluntary information which gets around HIPA laws if you volunteer it. So that's always a possibility. So we could make that part of the CFP process that there is a data collection process with the health department. Just a couple of suggestions. We said it was it was a pleasure to serve on the Medical Cannabis Task Force. And I hope that I hope that we get this push forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And the last person in line. Raise your hand. That gentleman is the last speaker. Speaker, this is closed. That's it. Yes, sir. We have about a 50 minutes of public comment. If everyone uses 30 minutes still. Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Miguel Skee. I'm a resident. And voter in Long Beach living in the Wrigley area. And I would like. To read a letter that the Wrigley Association sent to our Honorable Mary. Garcia, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Durango. The Wrigley Association has voted to oppose the proposed ordinance pertaining to the lifting of the present ban on medical. Marijuana sales in Long Beach. Because the proposed. Language specifies allowing nine dispensaries citywide. And as such would allow all dispensaries to be established in a single council district. Or a single geographic area within the city. It is our desire. That this. Element in the language of the code be amended to specify no more than. One dispensary per council. District. Respectfully submitted the Wrigley Association. Thank you for your kind attention. Thank you, sir. And just that was and that was changed in the original motion. So what you just said is, is there in the original motion? Next speaker. Good evening. Council members and Mayor Robert Garcia, it's it is great to. See you all again. My name is Joe Sanchez. And I say all this with great pride. I love Long Beach. I live here all my life. I'm a senior Wilson High School, and I carry you chair for your leadership, Long Beach. I stand here today against but not completely against medical marijuana dispensaries. By telling you. By a little bit about myself. By informing you and the public about my experience as a high school student, and how I have seen how medical marijuana experiences have affected our schools and our youth. I'm friends with about half of the people in Long Beach, causing me to know many people of many different backgrounds and personalities. With this and some of the people I have came to socialize with, such as friends and acquaintances. Have told me about their use of marijuana. Led them to skip school or come late to school. Because they want to smoke. Just this past Friday, I was getting ready to come to city hall for a class they would leadership on bitch causing me to have an excuse absence at school. Well I was getting ready. I looked out the window and I see three students. One of them who I mean, when you skipped school because they decided to go smoke marijuana. Since my freshman year, I came to learn from all the U.S. students on how most of the students at our schools come to acquire most of the marijuana and marijuana products, most of which the product name were related to Bob Marley or for 20. And I came to know that most of the providers I've heard of were owners, workers and people that have means of acquiring marijuana for medical marijuana dispensaries such as medical marijuana dispensaries. However, I agree with Councilwoman Susie Price with how delivery with delivery systems for these. For those who truly need this medication, although this has affected our you in the past, the present, and will affect our future. For our youth as our our future. So please take in. Consideration when making your decision. Thank you for your time. And have a lovely night. Thank you. I thank you for doing Youth Leadership Long Beach. It's a great program. Next speaker. My name is Brett Johnson, born and raised in the Fort District. Thank you, councilman or councilman and mayor. I just have a couple quick questions to address. The original proposal and the second, how can you calculate an accurate revenue number and city police expenses based on only for delivery services? How can you calculate accurate sales numbers that provide city tax revenue from a mobile delivery operation? How can policing be applied with adequate supervision to the safety of delivery service drivers and its patients at home without a brick and mortar location? Where would these delivery service store drones and distributors based on a delivery service and how would they be safe without a storefront? How would you award these delivery service licenses on a fair basis without established brick and mortar locations? How would city police? Rogue operations differentiate than they do currently. How many rogue operations have been identified and closed since the last numbers released in 2014? What examples of working brick and mortar locations in other cities are you basing tax revenue number estimates with the estimated year lead time? What consideration is there from the city to potential dispensary operators paying rent or fees towards locations without an approval from the city? Given location requirement for acquiring a license. How is this structure cost efficient and pro-business to any potential operators? How are these? How are these current proposal changes cost efficient to the city in regards to previously spent funds developing the current program? I feel an extensive amount of time and effort and city funds have been put forth towards the current plan. The best way for the city to streamline in receiving tax revenue is to implement the current developed plan. And just to kind of give you a relative number based on 2013, 2014. In Denver, they've actually had a 6.9% reduced rate in nonviolent crimes since they've approved their recreational facilities and medical marijuana dispensaries. And there are only 100,000 more than we are roughly here in Long Beach. So just some things to think about. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name's Stephanie Morris. And so I'm a attorney and former city employee. I'm going to go and discuss specifically section of page 41, section Q of this ordinance, it's the. Extract ban. There is a host of reasons why this is a particularly bad one, so I'm going to go as. Fast as possible on them. The first is the economic argument. By not providing any. Regulations, just banning extracts per say, you are at best forcing these businesses. The meeting that the other cities are going to be getting. Revenue from it. We are all aware of that. And at worst we're going. To be encouraging more black market concentrate making, which resulted in a rather large house fire in Belmont Shores recently. Today, however, today we. Know that we have licensed both nonvolatile and volatile solvents at the. State level. We have chemists and we have professionals who are now. Making these making these these. Essential oils and every other type of extract you could possibly imagine. Secondly, the public health argument. The black market. Extractors are not going to have any reasons to abide by OSHA standards. Unlike the newly sued the newly created to. State licenses. By excluding these these particular. Manufacturers from the market. Entirely under your ban, again, you're going to be forcing this sort of production either to other cities, meaning more. Revenue to them or to the black market. Banning extract encourages unsafe consumption. Methods as well. The safest way to consume medical. Cannabis is either in an edible format or three vaporized. Particular vaporized oil. I have an example of one right here that I that that I use. This is not something you can. Easily get high off of. I have tried. This is something akin to a morphine. To a morphine pump, if you want to think about it, providing a small dose titrated amount. To two patients who are experiencing severe pain but at the same time do not want to be intoxicated and incapable of performing their jobs. Additionally, you would be banning topicals entirely non psychoactive substances that would be applied to the skin and help people in extreme pain. Alice Huffman of the NAACP. Is is helping aid is support it and uses a product very similar to this. For her for her particular ailments. So then we get to a. Product liability issue by again, not providing the subject. The proper regulation. For this particular subject. One of the most popular substances on in this market you're going to be making. You're going to be guaranteeing that any customers for it, if they suffer from a product liability issue related to the concentrates, are not going to have any means for recovery at the tort level. You're going to be here again putting people in danger. Lastly, this is also an issue of discrimination. People who choose. To medicate in this particular way are usually from. Protected classes. These are people who are already suffering ailments or would be classified. Under the Americans, the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying them their medicine of choice. You're going to be forcing them on to. Pharmaceuticals, which again, debilitate them and deprive them of their ability to live. This is inviting litigation at the civil level. They can have a good day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council. My name is Lauren Mendelsohn. I am a resident of the third district. I am also a law student right now. And I have just a few assorted thoughts. First of all, I am a medical marijuana patient. I moved across the country from New Jersey to come to California so that I could legally medicate because I do not feel that I'm a criminal and I wanted to do it legally. I also am on a full ride to law school and I was able to achieve that while smoking cannabis every single day. So just in response to people who say it makes you lazy and don't go to school, that is completely false. Some people have motivation to do things. Some people don't. And whether or not you smoke marijuana will not change that. If anything, it's motivated me to go to law school. Ed In regards to Councilwoman Price's alternate motion. A few thoughts that would, you know, allow fewer operators, only seven total as opposed to nine. So you're limiting the amount of people who have opportunity. Also, just in general, there's all this talk of rogue dispensaries and how we have to tackle that problem before we have to go forward with legal dispensaries. I don't I don't think that's true. I mean, I think rogue dispensaries are always going to be a problem whether or not you have legal facilities. And I don't think that you should hold off on allowing potentially good operators to function in a legal environment just because there were bad actors in the past. And, you know, I also in regards to the comments warning earlier about a lot of people getting delivery. That's not always the case. As a patient, I can tell you I prefer to go to a storefront when you order delivery, you don't know what you're getting. It could be some stuff that you don't see the quality testing versus going to a store. You can have the opportunity. You shouldn't force these customers to do something that no other customer wants to do. Buyer of any other product can go to a store and choose what they want. You shouldn't make these customers treat them any differently. And I also just wanted to caution against the statements someone earlier made about cannabis causing cancer. The science there is really unclear as to whether it causes or whether it doesn't cause it. Studies have actually shown tumor reduction with cannabis treatment. So just don't just, you know, don't don't take that at its face, do your own research and do the science of these things. And I hope that Long Beach can serve as a model for other cities in the area and that we can move forward with progressive ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Jeff Abrams, one Love Beach Club. Thank you so very much for pushing the ball forward. All of you. I really have to congratulate you. It is hard work, but the fact of the matter is that we have someone very close to us, county of Los Angeles, to just look to what's happening there. And I just don't read daily all the problems that seem to be in our minds here. I don't see anything happening in Colorado that's significant. And page one, I don't see anything happening in Lost in Los Angeles, page one. But I do have a couple of comments, if I may. Mayor, particularly in this talk about the delivery services that are available right now. If we're talking about codifying for and putting those as the legal, what do we do about the other 36 or more that we don't even know about? How do we collect taxes from them? Isn't that somewhat discriminatory? But also, I think, Councilman Richardson, you might have talked last time that I heard about Wal-Mart, hesitation about dispensaries being. I just don't think you understand the numbers involved in in Long Beach. It's way more than you think, way more. And I can tell you that with a certain amount of certainty. But if you would, let me just ask you that. When you have a harborside, you all know that name Harborside, 110,000 patients or more in Oakland, California, 110,000 single location. You are creating a self-fulfilling police centric policy because you will have lines out the store. Therefore, public nuisance. Therefore, police call there for enforcement efforts. And we've kind of gone backwards. So please, if you would, let's think about that Wal-Mart position. The rogue operations will cease immediately if Chief Luna assigns one patrolmen to stand outside of a rogue dispensary. How much does that cost? I estimated the cost. The city about 30,000 bucks a year, not 5.9 million, and all these millions of dollars. One cop in front of us, in front of a storefront will prohibit anybody from coming in there. Guaranteed. So I keep hearing comments at the behind the dais here, about a 10% tax. I was under the impression it was a 6% medical marijuana tax. Am I wrong? 6%, not 10%, because I heard 10% a couple of times being talked about. And lastly, I believe as I read through the ordinance, it does speak about banking. And as you know, please review that language in the proposed ordinance because it conflicts with the actual federal banking regulations. Right now, we cannot write you a check. We would like to write you a check, but we can't even bank at a significant bank. What I have proposed earlier is that we bank with your bank, city of Long Beach Bank. That way it can be very well identified. Cash in, cash out. Once again, I thank you so very much for pushing the ball forward. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is Libra. And the Park Estates Homeowner's Association representative and also the East Anaheim Street Business Alliance president. We have 500 businesses in our neighborhood. We have 600 residents. And there's a lot of statistics that I could give you. There's a lot of statistics that have been given. The fact of the matter is, I'm not against pot and people are using it. What I am against is people and dispensaries going to dispensaries. First of all, I'm really nervous being up here no matter how much I'm in charge of you guys are used to it. But if the biggest issue is that it's against the law and federal and federal law and that being the case. There's a lot of cash involved. There's a lot of cash that can't be used correctly. And that creates danger. And the danger, no matter what the statistics are, there is a fact of 6.9% nonviolent crime. What if one person is killed because somebody breaks into a pot place and it's been done with messengers. It's been done in other places. Colorado might not have an issue with it. Washington might not have an issue with it. But if it was your sister or brother. Or your cousin. It doesn't matter what the statistics are. One person killed is too much and the federal law prohibits it. I don't as long term, I don't know why this is being pushed. To go forward when there's so many problems that it can cut, then it can cause. And I don't bear anybody, any ill will to promote this. But it's dangerous and it can cause a problem. It can cause one problem for many people or many problems for for many other people. Thanks for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Sam Sams. As our first of all, the war on drugs is racist, and anybody advocating for a prohibition policies, especially from a prosecutorial position, is advocating for a racist war on drugs. The war on drugs has decimated many communities. Those communities. That have been. Destroyed, those families lives that have been destroyed, they know that the war on drugs does to them. They know what prosecuting and promulgating war on drugs does to the individual. And that's far more dangerous than the cannabis plant. Now, you guys have done a very good job trying to get us to this point. And I want to encourage you to look at another permitting mechanism or to like laboratory testing, for example. We'd love to help bring in laboratory testing facilities to ensure the quality of cannabis meets the standards for respect best practices, best manufacture, manufacturing practices, agricultural practices and laboratory tests in the city. You guys could offer permits for and get some more revenues for if you're looking for revenues from permitting the permitting process. From that same position, if you're looking for increasing revenues, offer us a manufacturing permit. We can't offer patients concentrates in any form and topical and non smokable and sublingual and all of the various forms of non smokable, including non psychoactive cannabis. None of that can be offered by our own facilities, with our own strains that we would grow if we don't have a manufacturing license, that we can show that we're following the best manufacturing practices, good manufacturing practices. So I'd like to encourage you to expand and zoom out from your approach, what you're trying to do so that we can find a solution at keeping drugs out of the hands of people who should not have them, and keeping lifesaving medicine in the hands of people who need it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hey. Thank you, Sean Donohoe. I have some questions as well regarding the revenue calculations and the consultant that was hired, 800 active accounts. And I'm not quite sure what sort of a consultant is out there that has access to all of these accounts. And in any event, it would seem that the tax revenue calculations that are based for sort of the pan pay out don't take into account new newly available licenses to be issued that were not available prior to the passage of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act at the state level. I know the state level really well. I worked for the California Cannabis Industry Association, presently local advisor to the California Growers Association, also assisting Ms.. Hoffman of California, Hawaii and ACP on many of the the task force issues that they're appearing over. I absolutely also agree with the on the problem with banning concentrates. One of the most used cannabinoid therapies is for children with epilepsy, intractable epilepsy. I don't think anybody is advocating causing those parents to put a joint in those kids mouths. But in effect, that's what you're doing here in furthering the the idea of creating manufacturing as well as distributor as well as other licenses. I see within the draft ordinance that it calls for a state permit to be held. Those state permits will not exist for two years. You need a local permit to acquire the state permit. So there's a catch 22 that's been created. I think I also commend moving forward on the dispensary, on the retail front. What we're doing in the city of Oakland, where I'm sort of appointed by the council president on our Cannabis Regulatory Commission, we've summed up frankly all that which is retail belongs in one ordinance. Anything that that is non-retail in nature up the supply chain, the distributor, the cultivator, the manufacturer, the accredited testing laboratory. It doesn't seem that that has the same. Sort of deleterious impact that that I've witnessed over the last two years being discussed much of what's been discussed, be they child care facilities, K-12. Um, and obviously the, the, the human trafficking corridors, those all seem to be a matter relating to public visiting these facilities. But if a medical marijuana. Facility, medical marijuana business is a facility that's not visited by the public at large, I'm not sure why all those sensitive use distance requirements are necessary. Again, the state requirement is only 600 feet from a K-12. I think a simple amendment would be would be possible if you made. That nine only only apply to retail locations. Frankly, that seems. To be after observing for the last two years where most of the concern has been about having a retail location. In your in your district, etc.. So I would simply recommend deleting in all due course the ban on concentrate as well as applying the the restriction of nine sirups only to medical marijuana businesses engaged in retail. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Please. Shirley B'stard I address you as senior consultant, pastor for Swarm Group and Associates. I may be representing a host of other pastors who have failed to show up tonight, even though they showed up to light that Christmas tree and menorah Hanukkah candles last night. They failed to realize that the war that they were fighting was tonight. The Scriptures say the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. My father was 51 when I was born, and when I started being disciplined, the first law he laid down is I am the law of the House. I entered my adult life that way so that when the God of Israel asked me to work for work for the homeless, it was not what I want to do. It is God, what do you want me to do? And I'm following suit to that with that tonight at 55 age of 55. So Mr. Price, you said something regarding financial prudence and I commend you on your your got one to call it a dissertation but I had to make a note and say, what about spirit of prudence? Now I understand that not everybody has the same faith. I understand that. But to those of us who celebrate in December 25th, we have an obligation tonight. What are we standing for here? What are we still? What? One of the one of the movies I used to teach is New Jack City Rent, that it's time to pull it back out. And then you might want to get a point of no return. You might want to look at those two movies. And if the police can't handle your rogue operations, you've got a serious problem going on. Why am I here tonight? Because I heard that the pipe, the sewer pipe leaks started, the gas line lid started to blow off. Right. Then I said, Oh, it started when God gets ready to judge a city, when he gets ready to judge a nation, when he gets ready to judge a town or a person. He has to give them due, due process of warning. And he will give you a warning when you're overstepping a line that you should not overstep. I don't know who's voting. How you're voting tonight. I called Mr. Austin the office. I called Mr. Price's office, and I wanted to know. And I called someone else's office, and I wanted to know why they voted the way they voted. I believe that you should not move so fast just for financial consideration here. This city is not starving for money. And at the point you start making money off of marijuana and you put alcohol then and I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying at some point God is going to say enough and this stuff is going to start happening and you won't be able to explain why it's happening. I can. I serve this as a warning. Yes, I am. Thank you. We must obey God's laws. Thank you. Next speaker, please. These are our last speakers. And we're going back to the council. City Council. Thanks for having me. My name is Chuck Brewer. I'm from the ninth District, and I've been here almost my entire adult life. Hmm. Interesting. You've had a couple of issues. Airport, El Nino, and all deals with quality of life and preparedness. I have to compliment Councilman Price. I think you've come up with a very good. Amendment. The current bill that was they came out with 45 pages of nuisances alone, says there's a problem. When I hear that. We could be so far away from a school district or from a resort 1500 feet away from a high school. But a thousand feet for a junior high. What does that mean? The junior hires don't have to walk so far. I mean, come on. Why do we have all these nuisances? Why do we have these issues? I am a firm believer in the strength of medical marijuana. Under the tone of medical marijuana. Why are we eliminating this nuisance to be away from? Child cares. I don't understand that. Does it make sense to me? I'm going to say child care. Little ones should be exposed to it. But the high school kids only 1500 feet away. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Sort of. My councilwoman, I would say. Stacey, please go ahead. Support this amendment. Under the basis that it is serving those who have medical needs. Tell us about Orson. I'm going to leave you with just a small story. I am a realtor. I travel this entire city and more cities. Lakewood. Does not have this. They've banned it. I think they're pretty smart about it. But in your council, I had a piece of property that I was representing. And in it, it was a commercial piece that was prime for the for a dispensary. I received three phone calls as the agent regarding could we. And use this as a dispensary. We will pay extra for it. They they saw dollars. And in the runners, it wasn't for medical needs. It was for recreation. Because I said, well, I'll tell you what, I'll take it to the owner. He's an ex-cop, retired cop. You know what I heard at the end of the line? Click. They have no desire to do anything but look towards us as a recreational piece. I don't think we need that in our city. I think we need to take care of those who need it for medical purposes. I'm a firm believer the delivery plate is good. So here's my final thought. We have four police stations. Let's put it next to each one of those stations and for those people who do not want it in their district. Put it put your vote to your district to the next election. Do you want it in our district? And if District nine says no, Stacey, you know how to vote. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Scott Montgomery from District five. Real short. I think mispriced your proposal is wonderful. It's not exactly what I want. I'm going the other way. But I think it's a it's the right step to start. Let's follow through to do the due diligence, check the money, check the flow, check the records, do all of that. Stacey, please support it. Thank you. Final speaker. Good evening, honorable mayors, city council and various city departments. We appreciate the City Council's thoughtful deliberation on the topic of medical cannabis and the opportunity to collaborate with the city to create a fair and balanced regulation. Since the ban went into effect in August of 2012, we have organized on behalf of the qualified patients, stakeholders and voters to advocate for safe access. After three years of study sessions and debate. We are thankful that the idea of finalizing an ordinance is finally here, being reviewed and hopefully approved tonight. This is a win for patients and the community as a whole as we look back in the rearview mirror in a few years from today. The ordinance in front of the city council has a fundamental flaw and direction, and I don't believe it's from the study sessions conducted or the long debates, but only from the ideology and stigma that is associated with marijuana. Not in my backyard. We need to protect the children. We need to protect the community from marijuana. The stigma and ideology is exactly what is keeping a good, balanced policy to be established, which will actually protect the community and the youth. Trying to keep this issue in the closet or turning a blind eye to best practices is wrong. We have patients and veterans demanding access to cannabis. We have hundreds of good paying jobs at risk. Tax revenues that have been understated. A black market, which is the true public safety issue at hand. Minority groups being jailed and kept from basic rights like applying for a job. Lastly, thousands of voters that are tired of the failed war on marijuana spending, millions of much needed tax dollars on enforcement and courts. The state legislation has implemented a robust system to regulate. Let's do the same here in Long Beach. In regards to Councilmember Price's motion, completely appreciate the tolerance regarding. Um. You know, deliveries. But in all the reality, it will not be able to captured. The. Market because it's happening every single day here with these deliveries. And it's not being regulated and it's not being tax rights, and it won't even begin to capture the legal markets. With that being said, Please supports the main motion in Vice Mayor Leo Anthony's motion and hopefully review that nine will be in place. And if it does turn out that it's a nuisance because the supply does not meet the demand. Please be swift in reviewing you guys as policy. Thank you very much, guys. Thank you. And I want to thank everyone that spoke on this issue from all sides. Important issue that the council's been discussing. Take this back to the council where we have a substitute motion on the floor which will take a vote on first. Which Councilwoman Price. This is Councilman Price's motion, which he described right before public comment. And so that is that is the motion that's on the floor. And so there's no other comment, which I don't see. We're going to go and take a vote on that motion and. Make it a point of clarification. Yes, sir. On that, we have the cultivation component in that piece already. Channing is that it was your amendment that we adopt the cultivation regulations so that if we adopt regulation in the future, those regulations would carry the day in terms of those businesses. Great. Okay. So we're going to go ahead. You have a question, please, Councilman. Just quickly. What are the zoning requirements on this motion? Where could those four? Where can they be located? Councilmember the four. The four in the motion. Where would they be located? Is there still a per district cap? Well, there's only four. I don't want four to land in the ninth district. Yeah. So is there still for the per district? Yeah. No more than one per district. Just clarify. Just clarify. Okay. There's a there's a motion and an a second on this motion. Members, please go and cast your votes on Councilman Price's motion. Motion carries. Okay. Motion carries. So that's. That's a councilman price motion. Motion carries. Thank you all for for coming out. And again, just just as a reminder, what's going to happen here is this this creates a ordinance that will come back to the council as soon as the city attorney is able to put the ordinance together for discussion and approval at that point, correct. Mr.. Mr.. Mays. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go and going to write right to the next item. Madam Clerk.