Recommendation to receive and file the Medical Cannabis Task Force recommendations regarding the establishment of a medical cannabis regulatory ordinance.  (Citywide)
Thank you. Is Mr. Cromwell here? No. And I think I called for Jim Meyer, which I didn't see. So we're going to go to it now to item 20, which is the Medical Cannabis Task Force recommendations item. And then we will go on with the rest of the agenda. Madam Cook Adam, I am 20 report from City Clerk. Recommendation to receive and file the Medical Cannabis Task Force recommendations regarding the establishment of a medical cannabis regulatory ordinance citywide. Thank you. I'm going to turn this now over to staff. Might need a minute just to get ready. Here are you guys. I'll give you guys a minute here. You guys ready to go? Almost. Can you guys just begin when you're ready, please? Mayor and members of the city council. As you know, a number of months ago, the city council passed a resolution that established a medical marijuana task force. That task force has been meeting from basically April through August, almost on a weekly or bi weekly basis to come up with various recommendations to the city council. And I will say the city attorney's office, the city clerk's office staffed almost virtually all of those meetings. We did staff all of those meetings, and the task force worked very, very diligently. They have diverse interests. Clearly, on the task force, they tackled a very, very difficult issue. They absorbed a lot of information before they came up with the recommendations. The recommendations are included in the in the staff report that was prepared by the city clerk's office for consideration. There are approximately 30 recommendations that the task force has made for your consideration. They concluded their work on August 19th. If you have any questions about the various recommendations that were made by the task force, we'd be glad to try and answer them. I believe there are members of the task force here tonight that could address some of the issues or the questions, I'm sure, if they speak. And that concludes our staff report. Okay. And I think everyone has had a chance probably to review the recommendations and taken a look at those. So I have some comments and then I'm going to turn this over to the Council on the Public for for comments as well. There's been, I think, two pretty significant developments that have happened in the conversation about medicinal marijuana and just marijuana and cannabis legislation in general over the course of the last of last few months, in particular, since even our last conversation here at the council and I just wanted to highlight those one was a pretty public conversation and a continuing conversation that has happened because of a statewide report that was led by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, as well as a variety of medical leaders across the state about the use and implications of of future recreational use, medicinal marijuana, as well as kind of a guideline for for cities and for for the state to adopt regulations at the same time that that that came out in that report, which I think is pretty significant. I would encourage for those who haven't had a chance to read it, I've had a chance to to read it. The legislature has been pretty active in passing a set of bills or a package of bills that really speaks to medical marijuana. And I think the council received an update from our government affairs director, Diana Tang, which I think most of you probably have. But I wanted to highlight a few things. I was in Sacramento yesterday, and I've also been having some conversations with some of our legislators, and it's important for us to review where we're at right now. Assembly Bill 266 is currently in the Legislature and has incredible momentum as we speak. Currently, right now, Assembly Bill 266, which is gaining both bipartisan support, as well as support from the governor's office, essentially is looking at creating a statewide framework for medical marijuana and a statewide look at how cities could provide regulations. The framework currently has been amended significantly, but the Appropriations Committee has moved forward as a placeholder bill, which essentially means that the governor's office is currently working with the legislators and on the Senate and Assembly side to put together a bill that could then pass the legislature, and that he would sign. All indications to our lobbyists in Sacramento and our government affairs team here on the ground is that the legislature is highly likely to pass a statewide bill by the end of their legislative session, which essentially is September the 11th. So any bill before the legislature has to pass by this September 11th. That's the first thing I wanted to note. We also indicated for the governor has until October of I believe is the 11th of to actually sign any bills. But he has he normally indicates pretty quickly whether he's going to sign a bill. In fact, it's it's more often than not that the legislature passes a bill and he'll sign it the next day or the following day. Dependent so the legislature could pass this bill any time between now and the 11th. But after the 11th, there's absolutely no chance for a bill in this session, just to be very to be very clear. So we could end up with is a statewide regulatory framework by September the 11th. Now, also, to be clear, the where the bill stands now and what is likely to happen is this bill is going to provide cities essentially two options. Option one is to adopt the statewide regulations and then to approve local zoning laws that essentially a council could adopt, change a make their own or be to have a ban on medical marijuana, which is essentially what the city of Long Beach currently has, but is obviously contemplating on changing. So the state law does allow for cities to have flexibility. Just just to be clear. The other thing that's I think as important is if the state law passes, it would be actually in direct conflict with a lot of the proposed ordinance that the Planning Commission even adopted. And I think that's a really important point because there are some there are issues, whether it's a seed to sale conversation or whether it's the security piece or the testing piece that are all being addressed right now by the state legislation. And so I see that because the the quote unquote, draft ordinance that's been kind of in front of the council would. Would not be legal, essentially, in the case of of the current body. And so it's it's incredibly important that we get some some clarification. So I what I'm hoping and where I hope that this conversation leads us tonight is is one I think it's very important that we first see the legislative framework that we're going to essentially get between now and September the 11th. That legislative framework will give us an answer, a variety of questions that the council has had for many years on types of licenses, on testing, on actually where and when, where you can grow. As one example, I think this council in the past has tried to limit growing to within the city. The statewide legislation would not allow that that it would allow open an open state market. And so my suggestion to the to the council is going to be whatever we're crafting, make sure that we are we are adhering first and foremost to what the governor is likely to sign by within the next couple of weeks. At that point, the council still has land, land use decisions to make if it chooses to move forward and obviously always has the option of not moving forward. And that's a decision the council will will be able to make. But I do encourage while I'm as as frustrated on the timeline as everybody else, I think these two weeks are going to be very decisive weeks in the conversation about medicinal cannabis in the entire state of California. And I think we should cautiously listen, see what comes out of the state. And then if the council chooses, adopt an ordinance by essentially answering a handful of zoning questions, which will be which the city attorney will be able to to present. So I wanted to put that on the table. I think everyone has a memo on it. I think the time is is of the essence as we move this forward. And certainly, I hope that this council can come to a decision fairly quickly on on on how and if we move forward. And so I wanted to kind of set the stage as this conversation develops. And so with that, I'm going to turn this over to the council, and I know we're going to have some public comment as well. So let me begin with Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Well. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your framing the issue for us, especially given the recent visit you had in Sacramento. And I appreciate your following. The state legislature legislative process, along with what the governor has indicated. I think you and I are very much aligned in what our hope is for our city's process going forward. I've spoken on this just as you have for many years and have served on this council, hoping to come forward with a reasonable policy for the city of Long Beach. And I wanted to thank our task force members for their involvement and contribution. It is not easy to spend that kind of time when you have your full time work, full time lives to manage, and you've committed of yourself to the city's work on this issue. And I want to thank you for that. In particular, I'd like to thank our second District representatives, Jack and Adam, for your attendance and thoughtful input. Also wanted to thank our staff for your diligence. Throughout this entire process, the city attorney and his staff are doing their best to guide us through what's really felt like quite a maze or quite a labyrinth. But it has been a process, and it reminds us that public policy isn't easy, especially when we have diverging opinions and we have conflicting approaches from neighboring cities. It's not easy, but I do know that our city staff has been doing their best and has been doing it in earnest for what is in the best interest of all interested parties and also in keeping with what is legal in our state. I believe that the recommendations that the task force has come forward with, they do reflect the complexity of the issue and the realities really of implementing a new policy initiative with so much legal and legislative history. And it's not easy as a citizen task force to take this on. Some may have had familiarity with the subject matter from an academic standpoint or a professional standpoint, but nonetheless, it's not easy. There is very little regulatory history to follow, and that made your task even harder. So I do believe that these recommendations and the bulk of our city attorney and Planning Commission draft ordinance. While it's true that the mayor indicated that if the state's measure does pass it, it does put a lot of that in conflict. And I actually appreciate that kind of statewide guidance. It's very difficult to take things on as a city, especially issues of such magnitude. We did that with the plastic bag ordinance and we were a leader in doing that, and it was at a time when the state was not able to come forward. And and here I I'm very hopeful with the indication that the state might come forward with a framework. Nonetheless, we have many groups that have worked on this. We have ideas that have been presented. And hopefully in short order, we will have guidance from a statewide measure, whether it is from the legislature or directly from the governor's office. So hearing the recent legislative conversations between the governor, legislators in Sacramento, our mayor, other mayors, they're providing another layer of complexity to this issue. I think it might be a welcome layer. I'm hopeful for that. I've seen pieces of what's being proposed and it does give me hope. So I am hopeful that whatever does come forward out of their discussions, it's a pathway for cities such as Long Beach who wish to help our residents obtain medical marijuana in a safe, reliable and regulated manner. But there are always going to be outstanding questions. We have local obligations. Land use is something that we always have local control over. And so that's something that I would look to our city attorney to guide us through that. And, Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to do, if it's timely, is make an offer, a motion. Sure. So I'd like to move. That we receive and file the Medical Cannabis Cannabis Task Force recommendations regarding the establishment of a medical cannabis regulatory ordinance and direct the city attorney in conjunction with Development Services Department to report back to the City Council by September 2nd. 22nd. Sorry. Or tomorrow. The implications of Assembly Bill 266 on the city's own ability to adopt a medical marijuana regulatory ordinance and provide a list of outstanding areas of regulation at the local level that Council must address in order to put forward a comprehensive ordinance. Additionally, I'd like to ask that our City Attorney help counsel understand where the Medical Medical Cannabis Task Force recommendations differ or share common ground with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission regarding a medical marijuana regulatory ordinance. And there's a. Carlton convulses at a second. Okay, so there's emotion on a second. And just to add to get to the emotion, essentially, I think, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you're asking for the issue to come back by the 22nd, which is the third Tuesday in September. And by the 22nd at that time, the city attorney would come back with the state regulatory framework, as well as the items that are the the the the items that are not considered in that legislation, which would be which would be a handful of zoning questions for the council. Exactly. And the September 22nd date is really giving regard to our budget adoption date or our charter mandated date that we must adopt our budget by. So that would be the next available. To September 15th? Yeah. Yes. Okay. So that is the motion on the floor. Let me go through the speakers list. Our Councilwoman Gonzales, did you have any comments? Yes. They just wanted to. Also agree and support the. Motion in front of us. And I want to thank as well the task force members for their time. I know personally my two appointees were very diligent in reporting back all of the items that they had been advocating for, not just for our district, but for the city. And I also want to thank them, and I'm just grateful for their support in making sure that they've advocated for a fair and just system that includes all of Long Beach, not just certain parts of Long Beach. And I believe that this motion is measured. It takes into account the statewide regulation of coming, while also seeing how our Task Force and Planning Commission align in meeting the best, safest and most accessible, accessible opportunities for our whole city. So thank you, everyone. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to take a moment to just thank all the task force members who participated in this process. I know that you took time away from family, from work to make sure that the city of Long Beach gets it right. And for that. I just want to say thank you. And I know that it hasn't been easy to work with a large group and try to come to consensus. But you work together, and I've reviewed every single one of the recommendations. And I got to say, the ones that have, for the most part, the unanimous support, I thought they were well-considered, well aligned with the direction the council. The council has given in the past. And, and and I'm a bit surprised that we actually were actually able to bring something back to that process. So so thank you for that. And I wanted to also say that, quite frankly, I'm glad that the state has stepped up to provide some framework. You know, I I was starting to believe that this process had a little bit too many cooks in the kitchen. And this is a cleaner process. So I'm in complete support of the motion, and I look forward to the conversation on the 22nd. Thank you, Councilmember Durango. Thank you, Mayor. Just for clarification, for me personally to understand the motion much, much better. We're talking about having the city attorney. Review the task force recommendations and compare that with what's what's being put forward from the governor's office and coming up with a potential ordinance that we can adopt. Yes. Vice mayor. Okay. Well, and I want to acknowledge also the members of the task force for their diligence and work in coming here. Could you stand up and just be recognized? Those of you who are here for the task force. Don't be shy. It's okay, you know. All right. And the reason I wanted to acknowledge you, obviously, is because it was a I understand it was a very difficult process. There was a lot of give and take. There were a lot of issues that you had to address. And it might not have been the most smooth process in getting to where we're at right now with this recommendation that we're receiving here today. And and I'm not going to go ahead and point that out. I think that we've had we've had enough discussion about that. But I do want to recognize you for your diligence, for your patience, and for your willingness to step up and address the very important issue, which is for us, Long Beach is going to be, I think, historic, and I think it's going to be something that's going to be good for the city. When I first made the motion a couple of months ago to do to establish the task force, which was actually a piggyback on what Councilmember Suja had a few years back, which went nowhere. And I think that we got somewhere at this point. I think we're we're almost there. We're at the end, the turn at the Preakness, and we're ready to go home. So I'm hoping that when we when it's all said and done, that we will have an ordinance that is going to be workable, that is going to be very positive, and it's going to produce some very positive results for the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you. I, too, want to thank the members of the task for a task force. I know that you worked very diligently. I met regularly with the members of the third district who were representing the city on the task force and received regular updates. My understanding from the process is that it wasn't necessarily smooth all the time, but that everyone had the opportunity to share their concerns and that the recommendations and the diversity in terms of the recommendations reflect the various opinions of folks who were on the task force. So thank you for your service. I appreciate it. And I know my colleagues do. I just want to ask in terms of clarification, because the. The motion has been phrased a few different ways. I just want to make sure that we all understand the process and that the Planning Commission has prepared a draft ordinance, that that ordinance went to the task force, but that the city has not made any sort of policy decision in regards to whether or not we are going to have an ordinance. Certainly the option of continuing a ban still remains because I've heard some different things in terms of the comments. Councilwoman Price, members of the City Council, as the Mayor indicated, the current draft 1866 does leave open the possibilities for cities to keep bans in place if they have them or adopt bans. So yes, that would be a possibility. And as we understood the motion, as it was framed, what we would basically be bringing back on the 22nd of September is and then, of course, the result of AB 266 to let you know whether or not it passed, number one. Number two, an analysis of AB 266. So we can let the council know what framework the state actually has adopted and what they've left to the city to enact in the form of land use controls as. Council member Vice Mayor Lowenthal mentioned. So we will not be bringing back an ordinance for your consideration on the 22nd, although we certainly would consider or be able to take recommendations from the Council as to what we would bring back at a later date for an ordinance which would presumably incorporate some of the recommendations made by the Medical Marijuana Task Force. In addition to the recommendations or some of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission after their 18 months of studying the issue. And do you envision that the report that you would come back with on the 22nd would also include perhaps some legal conclusions in regards to what a state regulation or even a state ballot initiative, what impact that might have on a municipality in terms of its ability to regulate and and embrace an industry such as this? Yes. In fact, there's as I understand it, they're still working on AB 266. And the bill that we've analyzed may not actually be the total bill that is actually passed if it is passed. So it will bring back their framework, let you know what they are leaving to us to do and also bring back, as the mayor said, a competitor. Vice mayor, Vice Mayor Lowenthal said a comparison between the recommendations made by the Planning Commission on the key issues as opposed to the recommendations made by the task force on the same key issues where they differ, where they're the same, so that the Council will have a better understanding of what we can do on a local level and also a better understanding of the recommendations made by your two bodies that you've had. Look at this issue. One of the things that I have heard but, you know, we've we've heard by various members, whether of the public or of this body, that, you know, there's a sense of urgency to move this forward. And one of the questions that I've asked is, you know, what is that urgency? And some have said, well, if we implement our own regulations here in the city of Long Beach, then we'll be ahead of of of the game when there are some statewide regulations and statewide ballot initiatives. From a legal standpoint, wouldn't statewide regulations dictate in large part what we as a city do, regardless of what we have in place at the time that statewide initiatives are initiated? It really depends on the format of the statewide initiatives if they're subject to the November 2016 election. We don't know yet what those initiatives will be. Some of those initiatives may very well, like AB 266, reserved certain powers to the local government. So HB 266, for example, clearly preempts the city from regulating certain areas if they do have a regulatory ordinance in its present form, for example, primarily in the area of public health testing of the product and that sort of thing. But in its current format, it does allow cities to adopt zoning regulations, locations, buffer zones, those sorts of things. So we will bring back that information and what we can actually do if HB 266 passes and we can make comments on what we think may happen if a statewide ballot initiative makes it in November of 2016. I agree with Councilman Richardson. And in regards to the the desire to have regulation and statewide oversight and guidance on this issue, I. Think that's important in terms of the land use options that they might leave available to a city. Do you envision those, including things such as buffer zones and restrictions on hours of sale and that kind of thing? AB 266, as it's currently drafted, definitely does leave those types of decisions to the local public entity. Hours of operation, location and number of facilities. Advertising. Those types of issues buffers. And do you envision, based on your tracking of the legislation thus far, clearly you can't anticipate what is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. But based on your reading of the legislation thus far, do you anticipate that the final product, if, in fact, there's there's a decision reached in terms of the legislation, will still allow cities after careful analysis in terms of the potential impacts of this industry to the city, including public safety, regulatory, etc., determines that the the risks outweigh the benefits. Let's say that a ban would still be an option for cities in the state of California. Excuse me, as 80 to 66 is currently written, it clearly allows cities to maintain a ban if they currently have one, and it also allows cities to enact a ban if they choose to do so. And in terms of that proposed legislation, I know that you mentioned that statewide testing as being a component of that. I think that's a necessary and excellent regulatory element. Do you have any idea of who would bear the cost of such statewide regulatory elements in a statute? It's not clear precisely from 266, at least it wasn't clear to me when I read it. But a lot of those duties will be assigned, for instance, to various state agencies that currently exist, like the State Department of Public Health, the state attorney general's office, and several other agencies. I think there were six or seven agencies involved. I assume that they will be issued under two 8266. They also will be issuing licenses or permits to operate. So I'm assuming that there will be a permit fee attached to that that maybe would fund the state agencies, or maybe they will devise a situation where when product is sent to them for testing, there will be a fee for the test itself. It just isn't quite clear yet. It leaves it up to the state agencies that are involved to develop regulations to implement AB 266. So as that unfolds, we'll know more who would be paying for it. Well, I envision that your report when you come back on the 22nd will be comprehensive and will encompass a lot of these concerns. And I imagine that that discussion will take a long time in terms of our agenda for that night, because I think there's certainly a lot of legal implications. And the question doesn't start and end with. Some of the limited framework that we've heard from either proponents or opponents. It's it's a much more expansive analysis, I think so. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Before I go to the next comment, I kind of have to add something, Mr. Mays, because I think I want to make sure that council understands one piece of this, which is it's kind of confusing the way the legislative process works in Sacramento. But what's interesting about this, like other bills, you know, we're talking about 266, but the way this really works is there's a bill called to 66. It's passed by the Senate appropriations. But what they did is it gutted the bill before it passes. So even though to 66 and what we're all talking about is the framework that will likely be used. What there is essentially is a clean bill without any detail. And the reason why they do that is because the governor has indicated that he want would like to see something passed. So now the governor's office will essentially craft a new version of to 66 that will come. So what Mike is referring to, while I think is generally accurate, I don't want anyone to, you know, kind of harp on him when we know exactly what comes back in is could be very different than what Mike is describing. And so while we think we know what the general rules are going to be, what's going to come out in the next, you know, any and this could happen any time. But in the next ten days, we will have this new bill, which could be most of what of what the city attorney discussed, but could also be some new things that we that we don't know yet. So I just want to make sure that we we know that as we as we move forward in the next you know, next next two weeks here, Councilwoman Mango. Yes. I want to start out by thanking the members of the task force who so diligently spent lots and lots of time in meetings working through many details. I also have some questions for the city attorney and or Mr. West. One of the things that I think is really helpful in explaining the options to the community is the zone maps. And so I know that one of the challenges that I've had in recent discussions in the community is that we don't have any updated zone maps that reflect any of the either unanimous recommendations or majority recommendations or general recommendations from the task force. And so I recognize that the zoning maps would hopefully be updated with the information from 80 to 66. I know that we have business corridor partners here, business owners. We have childcare operators and some of our neighborhood leaders, along with some of our local realtors. And I think it's really important to them to know what areas we're talking about. Do you think that we would be able to have those comprehensive maps in advance of the September 22nd meeting so that we can reach out to our community and ensure that they're aware of the locations that are being considered? Because I think that that is a big component of whether or not the community wants to maintain a ban or not maintain a ban. Councilwoman Mungo, as the task force moved through this process, we had extensive presentations by the Department of Development Services and their staff, and many of those presentations did include zoning maps that did show accurate representations of what would happen, for instance, if we included libraries within the mix of buffers or licensed childcare facilities or high schools, those sorts of things. So those maps are available. They were part of the task force, and I'm I don't know that we could I mean, they're available. We could bring them. It takes a while to go through each of those maps because there's one for each council district and they're citywide. But those maps do exist currently. I think what we're looking for, though, is one that they're overlaid. So there are a lot of websites now and with the gas technology where you can look at a map and then you can click citywide or fifth District or for the fourth district or third, and then it zooms in and then you can click on a layer and say, if we adopt all of the things that the Planning Commission thinks click and then those overlays show up, then you click another button. Then it can be the ones from the task force. I know that those are comprehensive, but could we at least get one map that has everything on it? Because I think that. Each of those decisions is a serious consideration. So the director of Development Services, Amy Bowditch, has indicated to me that we can handle those maps that the task force considered. But 82, 66, as it's currently framed, doesn't address those types of issues at all. The only buffer that's mentioned in HB 266 is a minimum buffer of 600 feet from a high school. And what the council has been looking at, the planning commission and the medical marijuana task force are more extensive buffers that include a thousand feet from, for instance, high school schools in general and 1000 feet from licensed daycare facilities. What else can you. Like libraries. And we do have those maps. And buffers between medical marijuana facilities. So in in kind of linking back to what the mayor said, that's what the bill says today. And so neighbors that have concerns can reach out to their Assemblymember whether it's Patrick O'Donnell or whichever district that they live in and they can voice their concerns and or opinions on the the the zoning as it is or that they want to maintain local control and that we would be able to look at those. And maybe Christine can meet with my chief of staff, can meet with Amy's office and see what we can do to consolidate because providing 20 maps and while we appreciate the diligence of the task force for going through each and every one of those, we really got to get it down to a sound bite because we're asking the constituents of of Long Beach to weigh in on budget decisions, take the budget challenge e comment all the different things they're involved in. So we want to make sure that we're providing them a good, quick view of what the options are so that they can make up an opinion yes, no, or make an adjustment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, everybody. I want to thank the task force for their service. I want to specifically call out the chair, Charlene Bender, and for for for serving at my request and to continue it into who are a district appointees. I want to just say that I'm encouraged. You know, we've had this conversation. It's been going on for for quite some time, even before I joined the council. Regarding medical marijuana here in the city. And consistently, I think I've been consistent that I'd like to see direction from the state. And it is encouraging that the governor has taken it up and the legislature seems to be serious about getting a bill done within the next couple of weeks or within the next week. And it makes it ensures that Long Beach isn't on the island by itself and dealing with this very fluid issue. It's encouraging to know that there is some semblance of local control in this that is being discussed in 266 as well, which I, I appreciate. And I and I want to I want to just point out that we're reviewing the task force recommendations. You know, I applaud many of them. They they they address many of the tough questions that we're facing. The council one thing is consistent is that. There. There was there was not necessarily great consensus on on a lot of these tough issues. And I think that's that's a challenge that our legislature is going to probably face, but it's a challenge that we as a city council will face as well. So consensus on this issue is very difficult to generate because of deep feelings on both sides of the issue all around as a matter of process. Madam Vice Mayor, I think it is important to note that the last date for a bill in this legislative session to be chapter two is actually October the 11th. Right. And so I'm curious to know how we got to that September 22nd date as as the the date to come back before the council. It's September 22nd. Yeah. I mean, because when I say the last date for Bill to be in the legislature, if there is a bill signed, for example, next week, the last day for that to happen or not signed but agreed upon by the legislature. It would be September 11th, I believe. Right. And so typically, as most of you know, who work the legislative process. That doesn't necessarily mean that the governor is going to sign it right away, even though his office may have had some a lot to do with crafting it. He could wait the entire time up until October 14th or 11th, October 11th, or he could not sign it and just allow it to be Chapter ten to the law that way as well. So my question is why the September 22nd date and what's the importance of that, that date? And why not. October 15th where some insurance as it stood for knowing when this bill knowing exactly when if there is going to be a bill signed or not. I can partly answer that, but I can give some. If I can. Of course. But my understanding also, having worked many years in that process, is that the governor has 12 days to sign the bill and 30 days to chapter. So that notwithstanding, bringing this back at the earliest date possible, I think is. Not problematic given when the signing would be or the chapter would be. We have had a process going on for quite some time and to have the city attorney bring back to us what the differences might be so that we can start considering it, I think is actually a good next step. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Just to add, Councilman, I mean, you actually bring up some you both know the legislative process very well. Just to bring up some additional points, it's our understanding, actually, that this is likely going to be done before the 11th. So as as for our outlook, the 11th is the last final date, September. So September 11th is the final date. The legislature usually never meets on September the 11th because it's obviously a day of remembrance of the last days. Really, the September is September 10th. And then it's just knowing what they're with, they're dealing with this. This might get wrapped up likely in five or six days. And it's our understanding that we're going to get an indication in immediately after of of of the governor's blessing on this or not. And, listen, he could change his mind and veto it. But I'm just you know, that's that's I think the timeline we feel is going to be pretty expedited. My point was just in terms of process and form, if we if for some reason on September 22nd, we don't have clarity, what are we going to do? I think the item still comes back and the city attorney lets us know that and we can receive and file. But at least it is an active item on our docket. Think if for some weird reason. On the 22nd, we don't know. It becomes a receiving file. And clearly we want to wait. We would we would wait. I would assume, if we still need an additional week or what have you come to an interest group? Real quickly. Thank you, Mayor. I'd just like to thank the task force and the individuals who be at least a compassion to the situation with our, you know, our youth, our churches in our hospitals. And I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but I think it's really I will support advise me as that, you know, motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember super. Now. My questions have been answered, so I'll just thank the task force for all your work over the last few months. And thank you for being here tonight over for over 4 hours as I see it. And also, thank you to our city attorney, assistant city attorney Mike Mace. I think you attended all the meetings, too. And our Clark staff, too. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Arango. Thank you, Mayor. Just for clarification, the process the the task force has made its recommendations. We have received following those recommendations. We are directing the city attorney to look at those recommendations in addition to the ordinance that was drafted or was put forward to the planning commission. Is that right? Okay. Well, there's also a draft ordinance in as part of the task force recommendations. Can I also have that included as part of that review? In reviewing it? That's pretty. Good. Vice Mayor. I can see where the interest is coming from, but I think. If we take their recommendations and look at the planning commission, their final red line version, look at the measure that is presented by the legislature, that that would provide a sufficient guideline. Ultimately, if the legislature does pass something that may that would end up superseding a lot of what's already been drafted at our level. And so I think just having the city attorney look at the task force recommendations, which there seems to be agreement over the Planning Commission item that they ended up with, and then the legislative measure would be a good start for us. Well, that's what I meant by process, is that there is an ordinance as part of the. Well, but that ordinance was not voted on. And so I don't think it would be correct for us to take a look at that. The list of recommendations was. I thought it was Rhode Island and it was a. No, it was not. Correct. Let me let me let's get that question answered by staff. So, Mr. Mays, do you have an answer to that? The staff are sorry the task force did not delve into that ordnance at all, at least on a formal level. It was presented to them and it was agreed that it would be attached. But there was never a discussion or never a vote on any of the content of that ordnance. And honestly, if we had to take that ordnance and add it to the other material, there's no way that we could prepare an adequate report for you by the 22nd. It will take a tremendous amount of effort in a very short period of time to pull together a report that analyzes A.B. to 66. If it passes and draws comparisons between the Planning Commission and the Medical Marijuana Task Force recommendations. So for us to do that by the 22nd, it would be virtually impossible and do a good job. Thank you. Your anger. Like I said, I wanted some clarification on the process and I see that this was added in there. I missed the fact that it was not voted upon, but I will be supported. Okay. Thank you. Back to Councilman Mongo. I'm in alignment with Councilmember Austin. If I could see a show of hands of who's here to speak on or weigh in on the marijuana item tonight. So my bigger concern is that I know that I had dozens and dozens of calls even as late as today where people wanted to know where we were in terms of there were rumors that this was going to be a received file because of AB 22, 66. And so only starting at 1:00 when we knew the details of A.B. 266 and what options we had, did we start letting neighbors know there'll be a future date that they could come back? And we sent out a notice to neighbors. And so what I want to do is I want to value the time that people have in coming down to council. It's really important that neighbors have that opportunity and that they have the information they need in advance. So if the item is not ready. By the 18th if we could notify the community by pulling the item so it wouldn't remain on the agenda where people would come on the 22nd and then bump it to the next active council meeting, which is October 6th. That would at least give us an alternative if under the circumstance that Council Member Austin mentioned, that there is not clarity at the state yet. If it hasn't been signed and or if the city attorney's office does not have posted online to the agenda the information for the community to review. Because while it's great to show up and have a verbal report from the city attorney giving the community the opportunity to review it 72 hours in advance of the meeting, I feel is critical in getting good community input. And so I would hope that the friendly would be accepted that if the city attorney's office has not prepared and posted by noon on Friday of the week of. The 18th, which would be posted for the council meeting on the 22nd, that we would be able to put out a notification to the community and move it. One council meeting so that they have that kind of opportunity because I want throw an educated feedback. Generally speaking, Mr. City Attorney, wouldn't the material be ready by the 72 hour deadline? We will make every effort to have it back in a timely manner so that it could be heard on the 22nd. If that's the way the motion is going to go, we will definitely do that. The more time we have, obviously, the more thorough we can be. But we will bring something back by the 22nd, even if it's to let you know that the you know, the status of HB 266, if for some reason isn't signed by that date. I think that's sufficient. Now I appreciate where you're coming from, Councilmember Mongo, but there are many items that this council takes that are of equal or even greater priority that we have not given that kind of consideration. I know and I trust that the staff does its best to make those documents available within the 72 hour framework . And I trust that they will, or at least a majority of it, and I'm comfortable with them coming back that evening and not postponing it any further. Than I'd like to make a substitute motion that if it is not prepared and attached by the Friday before that it would be bumped to the following meeting. And while I appreciate that there are many other items that are as important as this, I think that only recently have the neighbors and I started having the discussions about the single sheet that's attached within the city clerk's office when staff have not provided a report in advance or when they're planning to provide a verbal report. And the neighbors don't feel that that's adequate. And we've specifically had a couple of public records requests from newspapers who want to know why it's not there. And we let them know that we do our best to get it in advance. And sometimes it's a verbal report, but a decision or weighing in from neighbors of this magnitude, I feel, is very, very critical. And so while I'm open to having the discussion on September 22nd, I do see that that's only five days for the city attorney to get documentation prepared if they have that kind of human capital available and the overtime resources that they think is appropriate to spend, that's at their discretion. They're an elected department which has a budget, but if they're not and they don't have the documentation attached by noon on the Friday before I have serious concerns, I would be willing to give some flexibility to the city clerk's office that if they get it to you by noon and it's not posted till four, I mean, there's some flexibility. I'm not trying to put down an iron fist, but what I do want to do is make sure that neighbors have the proper information to come to council and weigh in and have educated public comment. Okay. So was that a substitution? To be clear? Yes. So just so I understand, the substitute motion is to. Aim for the 22nd. But if the information is not posted by noon of the 18th. That the city clerk's deadline is noon of the Friday, before. Then, it would automatically be kicked off to one meeting, which would be October the sixth. I think that's the motion, right? Yes. Okay. There is a second on the motion by Councilman Price. So that's a substitute motion on the floor. Let me go to Councilwoman Pryce. I think that is a very reasonable request and I share. Councilman Austin and Councilwoman Mango's concerns. You know, in February, when we voted to have a task force, we also voted on a timeline that, in my opinion, was very unrealistic, which was to come back for a vote in April. I don't even know that the task force began meeting that quickly. It just that just things don't happen in that timely of a fashion. And the last time this issue came to us, we had a debate internally whether or not we were willing to extend it two weeks so that a council, all council members could be present . And and so while I understand the urgency and I know several members of the task force are very interested in the outcome of this, and some may even have a financial interest. I think that it's important to understand that we're talking about a week. Here or. Two weeks or three weeks and. Assuming that we even voted on this tonight, let's just assume for a moment that we voted on this tonight. Our city staff has asked us in the form of a memorandum and basically told us as council members that they would not be ready to implement anything and that they would need some time in order to prepare to bring on this industry. So it's not as though if we get to this two weeks later or even a month later, that people are going to lose out on on some big opportunity because it's going to take some time to put this into motion anyway. If we're going to follow the advice of. City staff, which clearly we can ignore that and just mandate them to begin immediate implementation. But I would assume that we're going to be somewhat prudent in how we go about this. So I think that's a very reasonable request. And I would just ask folks to just step back for a moment and and ask, you know, what all Councilmember Mongeau is saying is she'd like the public to have adequate notice. I think that's reasonable. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to go to Vice Mayor Lowenthal and then hopefully we can go to the public and then we'll we can come back for a vote. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just briefly, I I do appreciate the opportunity for members to come and speak. I think what we will find is oftentimes and maybe there will be a few new members who have never spoken on this issue that will come forward when this item comes back for but in large part. I think we can assure ourselves that folks have been engaged longer than any one of us, probably, and and they have had opportunities and they can have that opportunity to come back. And so I ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion. Okay. Thank you. So just as we have the as we have the commenters, please come forward for the public comment. And just as a reminder, kind of where we are and stand up of the motion so that we're all on the same page. There's a substitute by Councilman Mongo, which is. Is it additional to the original motion which basically asks if the information is not posted by the 18th? It would go to the first reading on October. The original motion is that it comes back on September the 22nd regardless whether regardless of the status of the state bill and if for whatever reason, the state bill is not. Well, actually, I just leave it there. It comes back regardless on the 22nd for an update from staff. So let me go to public comment. Yes, sir. First off, my name is Stephen Edwards. Ho! Hey, that means my words speak true. I am a pain patient. I am a medical marijuana patient. The city council has kept me a prisoner. Of the pharmaceutical companies for the last three years by refusing to allow a medication that has very. Few side effects. That works for pain. Not one of you sitting up there could walk in my shoes for 30 minutes. You would be begging for a gun and a bullet. I live in a level 8 to 9 pain every day. My daily functions are controlled by an electronic device so I can walk, go home and buy a nine volt battery. Put it to your tongue. Leave it there for an hour. Multiply that by ten. That's what I have through my body. 24. Seven. Stacy's. Susie. Three weeks ago, we had a meeting. You told me flat out the city of Long Beach did not have finances to investigate into how to regulate cannabis. A week and a half later. The city council awarded. The Long Beach Police Department $50,000 to better relations with businesses that serve alcohol. Wow. You care more about people who drink? Yeah, I'm looking right. At you, Stacy. Right at. You. I know you enjoy your wine. You're just as. Bad as everybody else. So let's. Let's sort of. Let's get to the point. I have a minute. 28 seconds. Do not violate the Brown Act. All right. I'm not violating the branch. You are by telling me. Go ahead, sir. You are keeping us prisoners. You are violating our Eighth Amendment rights by not allowing you have treated us like criminals. By not allowing a medication, a viable medication. With very few side effects. Very few. If any of you have ever taken pain medication. Try taking OxyContin, try taking Norco. Percocet, Soma. Lorazepam, flexor, kill all at the same time. And one day see what color your urine comes out. Then deal with that. I'm now taking one to. Oh, thank you, Ms.. Mr. Garcia, I'm sure this is very important. You have another conversation? I have. There's a medication out there that helps with pain. It's been proven by the University of California Medical Department. Came out with a study. The American Journal of Medicine has articles upon articles upon it. Where did this 50,000 come from when you don't have the money to investigate into the people who put you where you are now? If this doesn't pass favorably. I could pretty much guarantee. A lot of you won't be here next term. Have a great day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christine Pettit. I live in the sixth district and I'm here tonight in my capacity as chair of the city's Board of Health and Human Services. The board has been discussing medical cannabis for several months. The perspectives of board members ranged on this topic. But one thing we are unified on is that health impacts should be considered in this discussion. Conversations related to medical cannabis, both at the City Council and Task Force, have focused primarily on location and zoning considerations, emergency services and financial issues. However, there has been no active consideration around health and related social impacts for the city. Neither the Health Department or the Board of Health and Human Services have been asked to weigh in on this issue. Health Department director Kelli Collopy recently provided city department heads with a memo detailing her research and perspectives on the Health and Human Services considerations related to medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Long Beach. The Board of Health urges you to weigh in on these considerations and your deliberations. At our August meeting, board members discuss the trend toward the liberalization of marijuana regardless of its medical medicinal use, including the upcoming ballot measure that will most likely come up in 2016. In general, we think it's important that the city evaluate its capacity to address substance abuse issues that may arise from increased access access to marijuana. Long Beach is currently under-resourced when it comes to dealing with substance abuse, and there is little to no resources for youth specifically. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Diana LA genes. I'm also the chair of the original Long Beach Medical Marijuana Task Force that formed before that when you had. I do appreciate the last speaker. She talked about the health department. And I think it's very, very important that we assign this to the health department rather than the PD. This is a health issue. So I think that's something that does need to be included. I would I would appreciate that, too, if some there was some mention of the health department and assign it to them. Also, the which should be considered is the MPAA and the CAA, which is the are the two governing state legislations now that govern patients already. So we don't need to put a whole lot of regulations in regarding the patients at this time. So what I'm asking is, is that that be removed. It's one thing to govern the dispensaries and regulate them. That's a good thing. But the patients are already governed by it. And there's many things in the draft ordinance it's overreaching. So that should be corrected. The same. And Oh, and I wanted to address Mispriced. You had mentioned about time and you know, gee, we need more time. I do want to remind this council, please, including you, Ms.. Mingo, that, uh, that this whole thing started in fall 2013. We've been two years. People. People are suffering out there. People are. Are being harmed by the prohibitionist attitude. So I'm saying I support this motion, but I'm very concerned that it'll just keep being postponed and postponed. People are being harmed. They need this medicine. They shouldn't have to go to Los Angeles or Santa Ana if we can handle it. The PD can handle 900 alcohol licenses in Long Beach. They can certainly handle 27 dispensaries. We're coming from a very different point of view. When we we were operating before, there were all these dispensaries that weren't regulated. Now we're starting from square one. It's a different situation. I do believe the Long Beach Police Department is mature enough. They can handle 27 or 30 dispensaries. So I do support the motion, but there are a number of considerations we we need to address. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name's Stephanie Dawson. So I'm a resident of the second district. I would actually like to thank the council and the task force for considering the liberalization of medical cannabis and the current rules that are that abortion, that are governing the city. The present ban that we have right now, unfortunately, the only the only two groups that are helping out are scofflaws and gangsters. Every day that this that this that the current ban is kept in place means that the sales of marijuana, which are continuing, despite the ban and despite the efforts of the police department, the gross receipts that are going to there, instead of going into the into the general fund, instead of going into prop age to fix our fix our roads, instead of going into it, be used to be able to make sure that they have enough teachers to be able to provide for our children. They're going to the hands of people who are not paying taxes. They're going to the hands of people who do not have the community at heart. The industry that you have that is that is developing and within that to make it to provide safe access for cannabis throughout the state are begging for regulations. This is the only time that you will ever see a business come in to the halls of a government and say, please make sure that our product does not end up in the hands of children. Please make sure that our that our product is taxed and can benefit the community. Please make sure that clear, bright line rules are established so that we do not inadvertently screw up these licenses that we have worked so hard to maintain. The this ban that has existed for far too long has caused undue damage, but can easily be can easily be removed. The regulatory framework that's being established right now that's being discussed at the state level will provide most of the will answer most of the questions that have been that have been discussed here by the task force. The job that they've done was incredibly admirable and will aid you in developing what will work, quite what little is left for it within the discretion of local rules. I would add to there that any that the health component that is being discussed by the health that was mentioned by Christine is incredibly important. Long Beach is underserved in terms of the rehabilitative services for people who are suffering from addiction. We need an increased number of of avenues for people across across the city to. Have the services that they need to deal with addiction. And frankly, the funds that are there would be necessary to achieve this goal can be reached through the cannabis industry. Property taxes are available to BP to make or to help out or to provide for Lewes service. First, Lewes services that are presently needed here and they can be sought through a well-regulated, well-compensated industry here in the city. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, for a wonderful job you've done since you've been mayor for the city and the rest of the city council. You're doing a great job all over the city. I can see it now. The question on marijuana, a 266 is not going to pass. I can tell you that right now the one who wrote it is sitting in jail, in federal prison under the RICO law. So the city attorney needs to do his homework. Before he. Recommend anything to the city council. That's not true. Secondly, as far as the governor is concerned, the bill will be signed by the 12th and it will be regulated under the hip a lot. How do I know? I sit on the California Medical Board and I am a member of the Democratic Governors Association. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Jennifer Johnson. I'm a resident in downtown Long Beach. I have disabled, fully disabled, major medical issues that required at one time nine different medications on varying schedules from once, twice, three times up to four times a daily. I had alarms on my phone not only to remind me when to take the pills, but an hour ahead of that to remind me. So I had to eat to take out pills. Thanks to medical marijuana, I have gone down to three medications on an as needed basis, which equals out to about 3 to 4 times a week with with two of them and one of them sometimes once a day I can get away with five or six times a week on that. Thanks to medical marijuana. Now, as far as the council member who asked, what's the rush, what's the hurry on this? Those of us walk in our shoes. Walk in my shoes for one day, walk in this day, say this other disabled gentleman shoes for one hour. You'll know the daily pain that we live in and the struggle that it takes for us to get our medication. I'm completely disabled. I don't drive. It takes me a minimum of two busses each way to go get my medication. In another city that is benefiting from my tax dollars on my medication. Why? When our city needs money so badly for this and for that, why can't you guys do this? Why can't you set this up to where you guys are providing our medication? You guys have the dispensaries here in our city where we live. Instead of having to travel, like I said, two busses and an hour and a half each way. And on the days when I'm not physically able to do that. That's. That's it. You guys need to do whatever it takes to provide access to our medications that we need. There's Rite-Aid. There's pharmacies all over. Please do what you need to do to provide our dispensaries. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm Larry King. Task force member from the seventh District. And first of all, I'm appalled to hear the word ban all over again. I've been involved in this for nearly seven years. Back in 2010, my mother died while I was sitting here in this room, wasting my time with tat, with city council meetings and workshops with Eric's son and the lottery and everything. When I could have been a better caregiver to my mother in the six months before and six months after she died, I lost about a dozen close family members. And then you say, What is the hurry? People are dying. My a member of my immediate family stayed at the house here in Long Beach a couple of weeks ago. And while I'm apparently wasting my time with the task force, she committed suicide and she could have she what we did treat her and she was fine when she was on the marijuana, when she was on all the pharmaceuticals, they were they addicted her, too? She wasn't fine. And between that and the pain, just three days ago, a first cousin my age died of cancer. And I'll be going to her funeral. And in three weeks, I'll be going to another funeral for my favorite aunt. So I'll miss the 22nd. You say, What's the rush? People are dying. And then I just have I just have one more thing throughout the task force. And you're very you're very appointees. All they did was talk about enforcement and bans the ban, this ban that. And really, they didn't come to any of us that knew what we were talking about who have expertize in this. They didn't they never they not only didn't ask us for any help, every time I tried to give it, I was shut down. And now you're saying that the ordinance that I wrote, along with many experts, was not voted on? It was voted on, and it was voted on nearly unanimously by the Task Force Two to give it to you folks. And so that was the only thing I turned in because I was shut down on everything else. That's the only thing I did. I worked very hard on that ordinance and to be told now that, well, we just don't have time for it. And it was written by with the help of patients attorneys, and it was actually voted on almost unanimously by the very attorneys that were prohibitionists on the task force. So now you're telling me that it wasn't voted on when it was. I was there. So now, after seven years of of of going through this, we have nothing to show for it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Council Members Thank you for having us today. Um, I live with somewhat chronic pain. I've been a caregiver of people dying of cancer, and I wish there was a magic bullet. I really do. Right now, I have heard nothing from anybody here to address the problems, why this was banned originally, several years ago. And for that reason, I urge you to vote no at this time. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Marianne Safari. I'm a registered. Voter in Long Beach. I live in Ms.. Mungo's district. I'm a chronic pain sufferer, but I'm going to urge you to vote no. My husband and I used to live in an area of Torrens called the Harbor Gateway. And one of the main reasons that we left that area and moved here was because of the dispensaries that were popping up in our neighborhood. And with those dispensaries came, uh, graffiti, with those dispensaries came crime. And, uh, we were also billboards that were, um. Advertising the doctors. Who would help people get the cards they needed to go to those dispensaries. And when we saw the people going in and out at all hours of the day and night in those dispensaries, what was very obvious was those people were not pain patients. And that's something that people aren't talking about here. Those people all look the same. And they weren't pain patients. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Rochelle Cramer. I am a resident of Long Beach and a voter. I urge you to vote no on what would have been the ordinance. I understand that will be likely continued, and I agree that more information needs to be disseminated to the public about 8266, and the recommendations from the task force should be better presented to the public for comment. As a realtor in Long Beach, I can say that people that I speak to, they're concerned about property values. And until there is a way that these dispensaries can be regulated properly so we know that they can be safe in our communities. I think that having them can be a real detriment to our property values and our pride in the community. So for that reason, I would urge you to vote. No, thank you. Thank you. I know we have former speakers. I'm going to close the speakers list. Unless there's anyone else who hasn't. Nope. Okay. I'm going to close the speakers off after the gentleman that's getting in line right now. So speaker's list is closed. Yes, sir. Good evening. I'm Doug Cramer. I'm a resident taxpayer and voter. Here in Long. Beach. I would like to respectfully request your. No vote in regards to this ordinance. I am a proponent of a continued ban of medical marijuana in Long Beach, and. I hope that you will take into account very seriously the recent experience that we have had as a. Community. With this issue, specifically the the marijuana collectives that were recently. Operating unsanctioned and illegally, which I know the task force has raised concerns about going forward, in addition to some of the crime issues. That we can directly associate with these with these entities. Specifically the shooting. In Naples that was directly tied to that. Dispensary, the high profile and very disruptive arrest in my quiet suburban. Neighborhood of a owner of a dispensary who was laundering. Cash. Among other offenses. In addition to the millions of dollars that this city has spent in. Litigation and which it's likely to incur additional millions going. Forth related. To this issue. So I respectfully request. I know we want to be compassionate as a community, but we also have to weigh the interests of the community at large. At large. And there are some serious. Safety issues here. There are some serious financial issues here. And I ask that you take them into account. And I also ask that you support at least the. Motion to table this until we have proper documentation. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor. Council Members. Good evening. Rick Adan, United Food and Commercial Workers. I'm the executive vice president of Local 324 22,000 members. We represent a little over 2000 that work here in the city of Long Beach. In addition to representing the retail food industry, we represent the retail drug industry. We represent thousands of workers throughout the state of California. The work at CVS, at Rite Aid, at drugstores, at Kaisers that dispense medicine to patients every single day. We've been on the forefront of an emerging market in this country, passing statewide legislation in New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and hopefully here in California to 66 is a piece of legislation that the young C.W., along with the labor movement, has been working together with the industry. We have never seen an opportunity like this in an emerging market where employers and labor comes together as a force to say, we want to provide good jobs to our community. We want to provide a quality service to our patients. Part of the legislation that currently exist in AB 266 will be regulations just like our pharmacists, just like our technicians that will have to go through a certification process to protect the patients out there to make sure they're getting the best service and the best trained individuals. Just like the the bag on the plastic bags. I came before this council. You are proactive and said we're not going to wait for the state. We are going to be proactive and do what we think is right for our community. That's what's right. About voting tonight in favor of the vice mayor's motion. And and Mr. Mayor. And Vice Mayor. You framed it very well. The it's most likely going to be way before the 22nd. And based on our information and based on the lobbying that we've done up in Sacramento, we believe that this is going to be done this week and sent to the governor's desk. So I applaud this council for for moving this forward tonight and and giving the patience and an opportunity to be served in this community, as well as the opportunity of what you talked about earlier, providing some quality jobs. We are talking about, based on the legislation in Sacramento, hundreds of jobs, good paying jobs for this community. So I urge the council to support the vice mayor's emotion. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, Mr. Mayor. Vice Mayor, Council members. Firstly, I just wanted to say I'm frustrated. I'm angry. But I'm sad. I'm sad because I work with my patients. I work with ALS patients, I work with IBS. Patients, I work with Crohn's patients. I work with mentally disabled. Patients. I work with all kinds of pain mitigation patients. But the one the one that burns me most is an. I work with our vets. This is a two page. Ordinance from the city of Malibu. Two pages. That's all it took for Malibu to get off the ground. Here we've got 52 pages. Like I said, I'm angry. And this was written in anger, so please forgive me. At 4:00 this morning, quoting from the Declaration of Independence. Governments are instituted among men. Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The preamble states that the government derives its authority from. We the people. Now Long Beach citizens, what should we. Do now that we have in the last six. Years voted to regulate. And tax both recreational marijuana at. 15% in 2010 over 74%. Voting yes here, that number, 74%. And more recently, the voters approved a. 6% tax on medical marijuana. Over 65% voted yes. What should happen now that we see over and over that we're getting complete more than we need? 43,000 signatures. It was 2013, vice mayor, that you said that it was about time that we take into consideration the will, the wishes of 30,000 people. That was two years ago. Now. What should we do? We should try to vote you out of office because you just don't hear us. Seven years now you just don't hear us. This is the city attorney, the planning commission, the other agencies, the task force. I'm just I'm I'm completely perplexed that at this. Time, with all the science. That's clear, the fact that our would be Surgeon General Sanjay Gupta connected the dots for PTSD mitigation. And we're still talking about denying. Why do you want to make a vet who's already troubled feel like a criminal? As well as their suffering. But I read that the VA. Touts their success. They are beating their chest about a 14% reduction in suicides. You know what that means? Not 24. A day. 22 a day. And here we are talking about what. We're going to do. I appreciate very much that, Mayor, you shine a spotlight on vet homelessness. As I did speak to Chief Luna. At a town hall not too long ago, I. Said, How many negative. Interactions are vets going to have with. The Long Beach Police Department this year? Negative influence, negative interactions and could wind up dead. And it's through no fault of their own. It's our fault for not helping them. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name's Shawn Donahoe. I'm a resident of Oakland, California. And I've been working actually, I have a background in academia and then I've been. Doing campaign consulting. And then about three years ago, I co-founded the California Cannabis Industry Association. I also serve on the city of Oakland's Cannabis Regulatory Commission. I also am a senior advisor to the. California Growers, and I work with the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, which is a5014. That's working on the 2016 initiative. I've been coming here since the fall of 2013 and really quite frustrated at what I see as the lack of progress. But I'm used to that. I travel around the state and I see a lot of localities that are also similarly trying to figure out. What to do. And I understand that profoundly. I see that there's a lot of communities that are facing a quandary as to what to do. As I see this absence of action at the state level. I have been working quite a lot in in the policy reform arena, and I know enough to know that the, um referred to state legislation in New York and Minnesota and Florida and Washington. There's been some horrible laws that have been passed due to certain compromises. I don't think that anything that's. Bragged about in New York, where five licenses are issued for a state of $20 million excuse me, 20 million citizens is is a good model to follow. I think, frankly, here in California, we know that we produce, frankly, the highest quality, the safest medical cannabis and cannabis produced anywhere in the world. And we have it because we have a value chain that creates value as we have different vendors that pass it on forward. And I'm extremely happy finally, after a couple of years of working in the capital for the progress that's being done with AB 266 I do see that there are some problems with the way that has been presented tonight from the Governor's draft that I'm referring to. You know, you've already missed a couple deadlines. Section 111 11 says that you're missing you're potentially missing a January one, 2016 deadline to prioritize getting the state licenses. You've also certainly missed the deadline of Section one 117, whereby there was a July 1st, 2015 deadline to get full vertical operations in localities where it's authorized excuse me, required or allowed. And and, you know, the voters voted. A year and a half ago at. Two 75% of the voters here in Long Beach voted to tax medical cannabis sales. And you're still nowhere close. So in Oakland, what we've been doing since about February is to work behind the scenes and to figure out that there's you know, there's actual business entities that are out there that are actively providing medical cannabis and medical cannabis products. I strongly urge you to disconnect the question of cultivation and manufacturing from the dispensary discussion and to mimic as you go back and study. AB 266 mimics frankly the license types that are contemplated at the state level. You're missing revenue due to delivery services that are. Delivering here year after year after year. And you're also missing out on jobs. That could be. Created by other license. Types. Thank you, sir. And the last speaker. Mayor Council. I'm just a local guy. Dean Gray. I was born raised in Long Beach. I'm 63 years old. I'm a dad of two great girls. And I'm a writer, an artist and a craftsman. My family's been in Long Beach since the 1920s. I was born in Saint Mary's Hospital, raised in California. Heights, 36, in Orange. And Jordan, high school graduate. My dad graduated from Poly. I attended Long Beach City College, California Heights Methodist Church, the North Long Beach YMCA spent a lot of time there. Now I live in Belmont Shore. Long Beach is my home and it's my hometown. I'm a businessman. I worked as a carpenter, a general contractor, a newspaper publisher and a writer. I make art, and I've used marijuana all my life. It was medical and it was recreational. Why should it matter? It made me feel good. Now I have pain. I hurt. What do pain patients look like? I'm one of them. Why should it matter? It made me feel good. Now I have a doctor's prescription to feel good, but I have to travel out of town to buy the medicine. I don't drive. That makes it difficult. Cannabis never hurt me. We all know that marijuana is not the devil weed where we were sold by the government. It's not a drug. It's a plant. It's an herb. It's a weed. It's not a drug. It's not bad. If my pursuit of happiness involves smoking pot, why would you care? I don't tell you how to relax and have a good time. I'm offended. By the words of Councilwoman Pryce, whose. Trying to ban my medicine. I don't tell you what medicine you can have or not have. I don't do that. And I don't want you to do that to me. I want to buy medicine in Long Beach. I want to pay back marijuana taxes to the city of Long Beach. I want a life to be free of pain and trouble free. And I want it to be easy to get my medicine. The business of America is business, and marijuana businesses should not be discriminated against. Prohibition makes no sense. Marijuana dispensary businesses should be regulated like coffee. Please don't delay a decision to make progress. I want to encourage Long Beach to move ahead. And that's what I expect you as leaders to do. Not to find a reason to delay this another day, another week or another year. So doesn't makes sense. Councilmember Price. Please reconsider your bias against marijuana. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We're going to go now. Speaker's list is closed. Hopefully we just get to a vote. We've got two motions to vote on and a very long agenda still. So to take this back, we have a substantive motion on the floor. Oh, actually, Councilman Mongo wants Councilman Mongo in the ring to go to the vote. The city clerk asked me to clarify the motion, and so I guess I can do that. There are some technicalities in terms of her ability to publish the agenda item by noon on Friday. So the way that the agenda works is that all items that are being submitted for the supplemental agenda get submitted to her by noon on Friday. And even if the city attorney had submitted by the night before, it would not be able to be published until the entire packet had been proofread and attached. And there are times when she can wait as late as 4:00 in the afternoon if it's already pre proofread to make sure that's posted. And so what I'm hearing from the the constituents that have come here today and my colleagues is that we're sure the state is going to act. And so voting yes on my substitute motion only changes things. If the state hasn't acted in enough time to give the city attorney the opportunity to put the attachment on the agenda . So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of information to constituents that I will amend the language, as Poonam has requested, which is that it is to the city clerk, so it can be published when she publishes the supplemental agenda on Friday. That adequate which ago is that adequate city attorney. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. I just want to reiterate my support for the original motion that was on the floor, and I think this is just delaying it even further. I don't think we need to do that at this point. We know exactly the time frame for the state legislature to bring back a, you know, information on regulations. And I think the motion, original motion was very reasonable. I don't think we need to. Go forward and add some more complexity. To it. So I'll ask my colleagues to vote down the substitute motion, please. Okay. So now we go to Councilman Richardson and then to the vote. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Both of these motions are very close. And I think the the main motion does what we've asked them to do. I think the vice mayor has sort of led on this effort. And in the spirit of that, I think it's appropriate that we allow her to continue leading on this effort. So I'm going to appeal to Councilmember Mongo. It's a week and I don't I don't say I don't believe that this is about not providing input or access to information to our residents. If it hasn't materialized, then there won't be an action item on that agenda on that Tuesday because we won't have I mean, the recommendation essentially says to act based on that information. So if there's an agenda item and we don't have the information, we can't take that action. So I just think it's really close. There are significant things to discuss tonight. I don't want this to go down to a split vote because I believe it's unnecessary. So I'm going to ask you to withdraw your motion and support the vice mayor's motion. Councilman Mongo. Earlier today, someone said that I think it was the vice mayor, that the people who are speaking are people who have been involved in this since the very beginning. And today we had neighbors who have come down from the ranchos, who lived by an illegal collective, who have never come to council before and never been involved before . They hadn't received the newsletter that they receive under my leadership and known about the opportunity to come down and be engaged. And so, respectfully, I it is still possible that we will hear this on September 22nd, but if the information isn't available, it is difficult for neighbors to get off work early and to come down to City Hall to speak on items that they're passionate about. And very likely it will still happen on the 22nd. And so I stand by. That information is necessary to make good decisions, and I urge the council to reconsider. And please, if we don't have the information by the Friday before at 5 p.m. to just wait one meeting, it's one meeting and it's the information people need to make good decisions. And for our newspapers to write accurate articles so that neighbors can get involved to know what's going on. Thank you. Now we'll go to the vote. We have a substitute motion by Councilwoman Mongo. Please cast your votes. Motion fails two years. Okay. Thank you. And now we have the original version, which is by Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. I'm going to ask thank you. All the participants, the task force members. I know this is a very passionate issue for a lot of people. I think we get that. So thank you all. Let me get the consent calendar done really quick and then we're going to go from there. Can I get a motion? And the second. Thank you. Any public comment on consent? Please cast your votes.