Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare and return to the City Council for its consideration, a sensible, financially sustainable, fiscally prudent, Medical Marijuana regulatory ordinance for possible placement on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot. Such Council initiated ordinance would be placed on the ballot only in the event a proposed Initiative Petition regarding the same subject matter qualifies for placement on the November 2016 ballot. The ordinance prepared by the City Attorney for Council consideration and placement shall be modeled upon an ordinance considered by the City Council on February 2, 2016, which contained a phased in regulatory approach to Medical Marijuana in Long Beach.
Item 41, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Council member Superman and Councilwoman Mongo recommendation to request the City Attorney to prepare and return to the City Council a medical marijuana regulatory ordinance for possible placement on the November 8th, 2016 General Election Ballot. Such council initiated ordinance would be placed on the ballot only in the event a proposed initiative petition regarding the same subject matter qualifies for placement on the November ballot. Thank you. Waiting for you, Councilman Price. Sort of secondary. Madam Clerk. Councilman. Councilwoman Mango is seconding the item. There you go. Okay. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So I want to do a couple of things with this item tonight at the request of my colleague who has his anniversary tonight, which we talked about. I want to move this item over to our next meeting, which is going to be July the fifth. And not take this the item of a competing measure up tonight. But what I would like to do is anticipation for that meeting is I'd like the city attorney to provide us with a report on the proposed initiative and the items that have been enumerated in the proposed initiative that are different than what we have discussed previously at council in regards to things such as land use, cups, buffers, taxes. I'd like to just get a sense of what the differences are in the proposed initiative so that we can discuss that and talk about it. The other thing I would like the city attorney to do is to provide council with an overview of recreational marijuana and the interplay between recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Educating us a little bit on what would happen if recreational passed, what would that do to medical? What would happen if both passed? How would they interplay with one another in terms of our land use options? And so I think those will be great discussion points. And as I indicated to my cosigners in regards to a competitive ballot initiative and thinking about one, I think it's important for us to have some data. The initiative that's on there is really the last place that we were as a council, and that's why it's offered. But I'm more than happy to to think about the suggestions that my colleagues have in terms of a competing ballot initiative and to incorporate any ideas that they have in crafting something that truly is a compromise that reflects the best interests of our communities. I understand. And it's. That the. Differences in the proposed initiative might be pretty significant in regards to land use and taxation. And those are data points that we need to have moving forward in determining what options we're going to give the citizens. It's this really is something that's going to go to the citizens. Many do want medical marijuana. Many will probably want recreation. So moving forward, we want to be able to give them the best choices in terms of the impacts to the city and really what we can manage as a city moving forward given the resources that we have. So the item is basically three, move. The. Competitive initiative to July the fifth so that my colleague Mr. Durango can get on his way and not be stuck here all night. And also, Councilman Austin will be here as well and then receive some more information from the city attorney's office from which we can start to have a dialog about what options we want the voters to have. So that would be my request. Councilwoman Mango. Is that the motion that you're seconding? On those three items. I think that for the purposes of considering an alternative, while I love councilmember your anger and want him and his wife to have a wonderful evening, I think that a study is important before determining if we would even want to consider a competitive measure. So I think that for different reasons I will support. The idea. I think voters should have. Choices. I think that there are many people here who fought very hard for a measure that did not pass this council originally, but I think would probably have that support. And I think the voters would likely be supportive of the original. System that did not pass and instead was proposed to be the delivery system. And so I think that there's a lot of space of common ground that could be found between now and then. And I think that a study. I've pretty much voted yes on every study to date, so I doubt I would change my methodologies now. Councilmember Turanga, did you want to speak at this time? I want to wait to see what of colleagues are going to say. But I do want to say that so much has been made of my anniversary tonight that I don't want to I don't want to be the the the one to rush this alarm just because I do have something to celebrate tonight. So I'll wait for my comments later. When they are, I feel they are appropriate. So let's go ahead and continue the discussion. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, I wanted to not comment, but my thoughts here are what I would support tonight is I would support information, but I don't right now I couldn't support and I understand placing this ordinance as a starting point, and that makes sense to me. But we had that discussion about that ordinance already at council and, you know, and the council is well documented on that particular ordinance to start a process with placing a competing, competing ordinance on the ballot. I think you have to start in a different place, I think. I think we had the opportunity. The public went to the ballot if there was something that was going to be competing measure. I think, frankly, starting at the place of what was being proposed by by so many voters who signed that petition and adding protections or strengthening it, there would have been a better approach. So tonight, I can't support the portion to move this to the fifth. But what I can support and what I would encourage and what I hope we arrive at tonight is information, because I do agree that the voters should know exactly what they're voting on. I think that we should do an analysis of the potential impacts of the ballot measure. That's fair. And there is still time. If if there's still time, something more reasonable comes forward. But I could not support this tonight. So in its current form, I would say no. But if the if if there is a, you know, if councilman woman price and it's not as important to me to to right now do a substitute motion. I want to respect the intent of Councilwoman Price. But if she were to, you know, make her motion more about finding information, stand alone, about the measure that the voters have voted on, the voters have signed a petition for. That's something I considered tonight. Thanks. Councilmember Urunga. Thank you, Senator. I can't agree with both. Arguments at this present time, and I'll tell you why. We've we've gone through this. We've gone through this since my wife was on the city council. We got through this last year. We've argued it all. We got reports. I don't know how much staff time we've spent already on building an initiative or getting the task force together. We had people from the community participate in those task force, albeit it didn't go as smoothly as it would should have. But it it did its job and it came back with recommendations. The proposal that was put here that that the councilwoman is putting forward. We went through that discussion. We talked about it. We did the analysis. We even talked about some of those issues that she's bringing up now in terms of further reporting and further further study . We've done that already. I don't think that we need to go any further in regards to getting more information on this. I think the people have spoken. There was a petition that was put out there. More than 35,000 people signed it. We're in the process of validating those signatures. There is a high likelihood that those signatures are going to be valid and that there's going to be a ballot initiative. Our what we have here is an opportunity to let the voter speak. Now, if there are members of this council who do not want to. Let me rephrase it. If there are council members here who do not support the initiative, they can they can do so. They can write an argument against it. But for us to consider a countermeasure, to put on the ballot in the name of giving them giving the voter an alternative choice, I don't think is valid. We went through all of that discussion. So I'm in favor of letting the process go through. Put it to the voter and I would. I want to provide a substitute motion to receive and filed this item here. Is there. Does that come up? Okay. Councilwoman Price Thank you. Vice Mayor So I may have missed something in this process, but I don't recall that we've ever done an analysis of the impacts of the specifications of this proposed ordinance. We have never analyzed the impact of this many dispensaries. This tax base is limited at capped at 6%. We've analyzed it at 10%. We've never analyzed that at 6%. We've never analyzed the impact with. No. We've never analyzed the land use implications that this ordinance proposes specifically. All of the discussions that we had regarding cups and land use and taxes are now null and void under this proposed initiative because nothing that we discussed was included in the current initiative. The buffers have changed. The cups have changed. The tax base has changed. The land use has changed. We have not analyzed this current proposed initiative. And in fact, yes, the voters have a right to know what that impact is going to be. Let me be clear. Let me be absolutely clear. I am not saying let's not have marijuana. That is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is let us find choices for the voters that are more prudent than what is being proposed. And, yes, let's let let the voters decide. There is going to be a cost associated with us having this election. And the voters of the city of Long Beach should be the ones to decide what measure they're comfortable with. I'm not saying that anything about the proposed initiative, other than if we find that it is not the most prudent for our city, then let's at least consider an alternative that is more prudent for our city. And yes, let's let the voters decide. I understand that in a city of 500,000, 35,000 signed a petition. I understand that. But we have 500,000 voters in the city of Long Beach, and some of them would like to know what the choices are in regards to prudence. Some of them may choose a measure that allows for a 2000 foot buffer or a 15 foot buffer from a school. Some of them may choose a measure that requires a C P for these operations. Some of them may choose a measure that goes up to a 10% gap, and some of them may actually think that the more prudent measure is better for the city of Long Beach, especially when we just passed measure a promising promising our residents that this was going to provide some relief to our police department, who has been completely stretched to the limit. And now if we are going to add another burden to the police department, some of our residents may want to know how we're going to pay for that additional burden. This council may not be interested in that information. I, as a resident of the city, I'm interested in that information. So if you're not interested in that information, then vote no tonight. Do it and do it proudly. You'll get a lot of cheers from the audience, but if you're a resident, you may want that information. And as council members, we should do everything that we can to provide alternatives for the voters of this city. I yes, I am always going to pick the more prudent measure. It's not about marijuana. It is not about marijuana. It is about a business. Any business that has elements that are associated with what we've seen in marijuana would be one that we want to have caution with. It's not the legal operators that are a problem. It is the illegal operators that are the problem. It is the illegal operators that have cost our city millions of dollars in police resources. It's the same illegal operators that have cost some of our neighboring cities millions of dollars in police resources. It's the illegal operators that we're worried about. And for every one legal operation that we allow in the city of Long Beach, we will see 1 to 7 illegal operations. Are we ready to take that on? That's the question. Are we ready to take that on? That is a choice for our voters. But what I'm I'm not saying let's not have marijuana. I'm saying let's come to the table and find a compromise. I will meet with anybody who wants to meet with me. In fact, my staff has been meeting with medical marijuana companies, very, very reputable, business oriented professional people. We've been meeting with my staff has met with them. I've met with them. We're looking forward to doing business with a lot of these people that have demonstrated maturity in the discussion. It only took 20 years. So my recommendation to my colleagues would be and I can I can change the motion to request an impact report on the. Fiscal land use and enforcement impacts of the proposed initiative. Because to my knowledge, and I would expect the city attorney to correct me if I'm wrong, we have not analyzed the specifics of this particular initiative . We've never analyzed it. Is that correct? We have not done so. So? So a group of people hired signature gatherers and put together an initiative and presented it to us. That was something that was created by an outside group, not the city of Long Beach. Correct? That is correct. So that's not like this. It's not an offshoot of what came out of planning commission as my understanding. Correct. This is a citizen's initiative. So it's a citizen's initiative. Just for a moment, let's forget that we're talking about marijuana. Any citizens initiative, if they get enough signatures, do we not as a council, have a duty to study what the impact of that is going to be to the city? We are the only entity in the entire city of Long Beach that has the data that can answer those questions for our residents. Our residents don't know what the impacts are going to be. They don't know what the impacts are going to be. They don't know what it's going to cost the police department. You know, who knows that information? The city of Long Beach, our police chief. So we are now proposing way more dispensaries than were proposed before with no coops, limited buffers, limited tax. We're actually repealing the tax that the voters voted on in April of 2014 and capping it at 6%. Our residents may have something to say about that. They may want to at least know that that's what we're doing. So, you know, let's not get dramatic. And, I mean, I understand there's a lot of special interests here, but we're talking about taking a prudent approach. And I just asked my colleagues, you know, if we don't want to vote on the counter initiative or the competing initiative tonight, great. Let's vote. Let's take it up another time. If we don't like the other competing initiative I've proposed. Great. Somebody propose another one. Give us a starting point that you like. I'm trying to get us a starting point that gives us a prudent alternative. If you don't like my starting point, I welcome an alternative starting point. I'm reaching out to my colleagues saying, let's work on something that's prudent. Let's work on something that phases in. Let's work on something that doesn't stretch our police resources more than they already are. We get calls and my staff can attest to this. We get calls every day from our residents talking about property crimes, talking about traffic enforcement traffic, talking about things that our police department currently with their current resources, do not have the resources to follow up on. How can I, as a council member, turn to them and say, we just added more work for the police department? And I don't know how to answer your question about property crimes or traffic enforcement, because not only do we not have enough money to do what you want them to do now, but we just added to their workload. I can't do that. I want to at least be able to say to them, You know what? You had the choice. This is what you voted. And you know what? If the voters vote for it, great, great. If recreational marijuana pass is great, then we're in the same boat as Newport Beach SEAL Beach, Cerritos. Every city around us is all in the same boat. It's a level playing field. I don't want to put our citizens at a disadvantage. It's my duty to protect them. And when they say to me, the police isn't doing enough for me, I want to say, well, you know what? You guys voted on that initiative that's now stretching them even thinner than they were before. I don't know what to tell you. It's kind of like Prop 47. You know, the people voted for it. We're suffering the consequences for it. And maybe with this measure, we won't suffer any consequences. I don't know. I just know that when we're voting on something, we should be voting on the most prudent thing in terms of giving our residents choices. And I just don't know, maybe we can have an alternative measure that says something like, this is where we're going to start. And in six months or a year, we can tweak it to expand. We can do that if it's all going as well as we think it is. And the taxes are, you know, bringing in millions of extra dollars a year that we hadn't anticipated, then why wouldn't we expand it? So, you know, that's just something that we can think about moving forward is that there is a starting point. And if there's any takeaway to be had, it should be that the alternative measure that was proposed, that's on agenda item 41 tonight, that measure asks for marijuana. It is not a ban. My proposal is not a ban. My proposal is an initiative saying let's start with a prudent measure to medical marijuana. That's the proposal. So anybody who wants to come up and complain about it, I'm not saying let's a ban. So get your facts straight. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about starting with a prudent approach and expanding from there. So here's the deal. The main motion is to ask the city attorney's office or the city manager, whoever is going to do it for an impact report on land use taxes. Enforcement. And then I'd also like to get an overview because I don't think anybody knows the answer to this, of what's the interplay with recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Nobody knows what happens. Who is it? But if recreation passes, is this entire discussion moot? Because if so, I don't even know why we're having it. And I don't think anyone knows that answer. So that's my that's my that's my motion. And I'd like to move the item to July the fifth and we can talk about it further then. If you want to vote for it, great. If you don't, great. It's a pretty simple item. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales. Okay. So, you know, certainly listening to all of the discussion, I appreciate it. And I know we've been this is many years in the making, but I just have a question in terms of timeline and timeframe. So going, you know, understanding kind of what each council member that has spoken wants to do. What would be the timeline for a. Going with councilwoman prices. Option in terms of bringing. I mean, she's talking about July 5th, but what would be that like final deadline for submitting a ballot initiative? Mayor, vice mayor and members of the council. If I understand the question correctly, what is the last date that the council could decide to put something on the ballot? And I and I'll defer to the clerk. But I believe it's August 2nd. That's correct. The August 2nd date allows for the city clerk my office to meet ballot measure deadlines that are set by the county regarding arguments, argument writers, both arguments for and against and rebuttals for and against. Okay. So I think that because it seems to be to me that we're a bit fragmented here. So I don't think that there's any cohesiveness at all that I see and not that we have to get there. But I would say that most often than not, this council wants to be as as judicious and as thoughtful as as possible in making a decision. And so I think July 5th, at least for me, puts things in to kind of a rush. And I don't see where there's, you know, we would need more data. And that's the thing I know we've been doing time and time again. But if we are if there's any inclination of putting something on on a ballot, then, you know, July 5th is pretty it's pretty tough, I would say, for me to to at least take this all in and go forward with this. The the item itself in itself is very robust. So I don't think I'd be supporting anything coming back July 5th at this time. What I could say is that it would be great to get more information as to the land use, the taxes, enforcement and an impact report related to the initiative that's already put forward. I think that's fair to just kind of get an understanding of where we where we would be. And also, again, the interplay between medical and recreation, I think is is also fair. So that's something that I would support on that side, but not necessarily bringing anything back. Uh. So much so. I would support to receive and file this particular item. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, I've listened to this and that, and I think in the fairness of all of this, because I've been here since the beginning of these topics about medical marijuana, and these are individuals that's been here and it's stressed their time. I didn't listen to everything that we had to go through with medical marijuana. I think, in fairness, every one of the individuals, not only the individual out there who've been waiting to try to get this ordinance passed, I mean, it's been a long, long haul. It's been a long time. And I think if anything, you know, we talk about our constituents, people in the city of Long Beach, the you know, a large it is. And what they you know, the voters you know, we vote all over the city of Long Beach. And I don't kind of like the idea of certain precincts. They they're the only ones that vote when we have issues of this type, I think everyone would vote on an issue of this type because the fact that we're talking about medical marijuana and you have to understand that these individuals here have waited a long time. And I think if nothing else about the fairness of this, you know, these individual waited. We went to this ordinance. We waited. We waited. We've given everyone a chance. I think even Mrs. Price and we've been very diligent, even with a lot of your, you know, your own interest as individuals. Could you wait get an impact on it? I think we've already went through that. And I think at this point right now, we're going to have to do something or not just throw the whole thing out. Let's get this thing done. Because these people waited long enough. The people have waited long enough. It's time for us to do something. If not, let's just wait on the state and see what they're going to do. I think really at this point, what do we what are we waiting on? What kind of impact are we looking for? We've gone through that. We've gone through everything that I think is necessary in order for us to really find out what we need to do in order to get a medical marijuana, you know, when it's on the ballot, because the people right now, I tell you, we have they have the vote. They have the votes for it. I'm not waiting around to see what we're going to do up here. That's the people that are the ones who we sit up here and represent. We represent the people, not this little guys. This is sitting up here. So what I'm looking and listening to, I think it's time for us to do what we're supposed to do, get this thing over with, and let's move on with and get to something else, because we have a long night tonight. Mr. Liberto, I don't know when you're going to get you wallet. It might be next year. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to take an opportunity to make some comments as well. I think I'll do that now. And Councilmember Reyes Durango, former councilmember, is strong, is still here. So we're hoping to make sure that we wrap this up soon. So I I'm very appreciative and respectful of everyone's position on this council on the issue of medical marijuana. As Councilmember Andrews indicated, we have been at this for quite a long time. And those of us who just joined the council, you've also been at it at least for two years, and that's quite a long time. What I want to share, and I think Councilmember Andrews may have articulated it already, we had our chance. We had our chance for many, many years. And we got it right and that was undone. And then we got close to getting it right and then that was undone. I think we need to step back and accept that we haven't done our duty. I won't speak for myself personally. I and some of the others that are here. We have desperately tried to come up with a responsible measure and as I said, we did have it right and it was undone and undone because of fear mongering , really. If I'm truthful and honest about it, it was because of fear mongering and that kind of rhetoric and and and the politics that go behind it and the passion and forget the politics. It's really the passion that go behind it. It really does create a culture of fear mongering, which I don't think has a place in in a true democracy where dialog can take place and people can have differences of opinions, and then the voters vote or the council members vote, and then things are left as they are. Even before our item, the original ordinance had a chance to to play out for a few years. It was undone. And so we don't know. What I do know today is that after nearly eight years of having had the trust and confidence of those of you that have been involved for a long time, we didn't do our jobs. So there is a voter initiative that went forward. And as Councilmember Richardson had indicated, and Councilmember Urunga and Councilmember Andrews, people did spend time and resources to do that. But let's not forget that that voter initiative took place because we did not do our jobs. That's important to note. We don't get all these bites at the apple because now there's a voter initiative and we feel we have to put a competitive item on the ballot. I think that's highly disrespectful. The item that's brought forward to consider to place on the ballot is not that different from an item that was voted down . So why would we proffer that? I'm just mystified. I'm mystified that we would be here again at this time. This council had its chance. I think it's an abuse of our authority to go forward, to put something competitive to a voter initiative, not because I believe that every voter initiative is correct. I don't believe that. I think a lot of those that we see up and down the state are wrong and it's an it and it goes forward because democracy really didn't work in that moment. But I don't think putting a competitive measure is the answer to that. I think what we can do is educate our voters. And I do have a question for Mr. City attorney, Mr. Parkin. When we do have a voter initiative, what role can the city or council play in terms of the information about that or the analysis that would not put us crossways when it comes to electioneering? If the measure is certified by the city clerk pursuant to the election code, it will be brought back to the City Council. And at that time, the council have three options. One is to adopt the measure as submitted. The second is to place it on the ballot for November. And the third option is to request a report, which you could include these items. That report is due no later than 30 days, within 30 days. To discuss the impacts of the measure on the city at that time, when the report is presented back to the council , the council has two options to place the ballot, placed the measure on the ballot or to adopt it as submitted. So there would be that opportunity once it is on the ballot. The general election rules would apply to the city on the spending of city resources either to support or oppose a ballot initiative. Okay, so that process would take place regardless of whether this council took action today or not. It would have to be an action of the council to request that. Yes, at that time, absolutely. Having had experience with this council and watching other bodies, we always ask for information and we always do ask for a report. I don't see us moving forward without a proper analysis, and so I'm confident that that will take place. What I'm also confident about tonight is that I am not in support of moving the item to another date to forestall this discussion for another date. We do not have enough time to put a competing ballot measure on the November ballot, even if a majority of this council would be interested in doing that. If we look at the bond measure that just passed with our mayors, great leadership on it, that did not happen on a whim. That took many, many, many months of study and polling and research. It didn't happen over a three month summer period. That's what we do when we want to be responsible about putting an item on the ballot. We conduct many studies and we take the pulse of the constituency, and that's why that ballot measure was as successful as it was. Another reason why that ballot measure was as successful as it was was because we earned the confidence of our constituency. When it comes to infrastructure projects and the needs of the city and the neighborhoods in the community. When it comes to infrastructure, it's undeniable. We earned we earned your confidence in that area. On medical marijuana, we did not I think we lost your confidence and we lost our chance to do it right behind the dias. And I do believe that the voters should have a right to vote without our interference. I do support. At the time that it does come back to the council. I do support us receiving information so that we may be able to share that and then take a position once once the clerk finally certifies that it is on the ballot. Whatever decision this council makes, either adopt it on the spot or put it to the voters. Either way, we will have that information. But I am not in support of the original motion. I am in support of the motion to receive and file. And that's why I second and it and I hope my colleagues are with me on that. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Just a couple of points. I'm not going to respond to all of them because I don't know that that would be very effective for our discussions. But the biggest difference I see in the measure that the vice mayor just referenced and this is that I'm not talking about running a campaign. I'm not talking about going out and getting people to support the competitive measure and running a campaign and having city employees volunteer their time to come and work in a campaign office. I'm not talking about getting union support to go door to door. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about putting a competitive initiative on the ballot that lets the voters vote and choose simply giving them a choice of different alternatives. So there's a difference between having a campaign and really having a targeted effort to have what you want prevail. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about putting something on the ballot that gives the voters a choice. Let them read the material. Let them educate themselves. Let them vote. And that's really what I'm talking about. So that's the biggest difference. I'm not talking about running a campaign, but what I would request at this time. Actually, what I'd like to do is do a substitute substitute motion based on what I'm hearing from my colleagues, to ask the city manager or the city attorney or the designee that either of them determines to be the appropriate department to do this, to prepare a fiscal impact report, a land use report, and an enforcement analysis of the proposed initiative, as well as an overview for Council on Recreational Marijuana and its interplay with medical marijuana. And I'd like that report by July the fifth, if possible. I'm Mr. City Manager. And Mr. City Attorney. That is a week away. Two weeks away. They have. What is the likelihood of of you being able to prepare such a report and it actually being thorough and robust? Vice Mayor Councilmembers I want to point out that we have a large history of memos to the council and to the public regarding this subject. So working with that as a foundation, we certainly would give it the college to try to bring back something as comprehensive as possible. I can't promise it's going to answer everybody's questions, but we certainly, if asked by council, will. Put our. Nose to the grindstone and put as much as we can together by that time. And Vice Mayor, I'd add to that that we believe by July 5th we would be able to provide an overview of the recreational and medical. By June 30th, the state should hopefully determine if one of those measures qualifies. Okay. And would council be able to ask for follow up information if there was something that was missing in the reports that they didn't have to come back the following week. Yes. So that's my substitute substitute. Okay. And it's been seconded. Councilman Mongo. Do we think that this is? I guess I'd like to hear from my colleagues. I heard Councilmember Richardson say he'd be interested in hearing the study. It sounds like, from what I heard from the city attorney, a study would be necessary eventually anyway. So this would be putting us ahead. Did I misunderstand? Is this not a study of the impacts? Yeah, it's what would be required anyway, eventually. No, it's not required. No. When the election, assuming the signatures are verified by the city clerk under the election code, the Council will have three options, one of which would be to request a study. It's not required. Would you say that? Typically, I mean, I guess typically would be hard. I mean, if someone came with a ballot measure or it was an initiative that said remove all the trees in the city, it would be pretty simple to say we would lose all of our shade. So a study wouldn't be necessary. But I guess. I don't know what the likelihood is that most citizen initiatives get studies or not. Is there any kind of. There's no way they tend to be individually or specific. We've had in both situations where council is elected to put it directly on the ballot and other situations where they've requested the study and then placed the item on the ballot. Well, I think that deciding and getting that study is advancing the request in advance, which gives us some some better alternatives. So I'm always open to a study. Councilmember Suber now. Okay. Thank you. Things have changed a little bit here since I first clicked in, so bear with me. The I think we have a compromise position here, and that is for a study only. And I'm very late to this party. As most of you know, I wasn't elected until after the. The study group was almost done. A couple of thoughts. One is. I'm just reminded of the the airport international terminal, and I voted against that and the majority of my colleagues voted for it. And I just remember the line. What's the harm in the study? We're not voting for the international terminal. So I'm kind of would be perplexed if if my colleagues would go against a study on this. But I'd like to hear from the public. The other thing that occurs to me, and that is almost daily, I receive emails about a delivery model and I don't I don't have the exact count since our last vote, but probably 100 emails asking us to support delivery. And I think that should be a part of the study to. That's it for now. I'll wait for public comment. So that wasn't part of the Motion Councilmember Supernova. Were you asking the maker of the motion to consider that? Well, I guess what I'm saying is that we don't know what the initiatives is going to be. I can ask the city attorney if if the initiative would include that. Have we studied the initiative? Where are we with that? So we do know what the initiative language is that was submitted. So if the city attorney would like to speak to that. Councilmember Bowl is the is the question regarding the initiative that's being reviewed by the city clerk at this time. Correct. And it does allow for delivery. So we could look at that. Yes. Okay. So that was that was a critical piece that I don't think was part of our discussions in the past. So the study here would encompass that, I believe. Vice Mayor. That's that's what I'm kind of saying. So I think it falls within their guidelines. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I began my comments and they were very conciliatory and in the hopes for a compromise. And I'm very disappointed that it's sort of turned into a shouting session. Our job was to conduct good public policy. The City Council failed to do so. What did we think was going to happen when we didn't vote to adopt a balanced, reasonable measure that we had controls to protect our neighborhoods? We had a cat per district. We had a c p that regulates our operating hours and all the tools that we need as a city to regulate it. The city council did not pass that, so I don't see how we didn't expect the public to go to the ballot. That's exactly what happens when you don't. Do your job. And then the measure tonight, my hope coming in was to find some soft landing that puts us on on a path to a productive conversation . But it started in the wrong place. And then people were bullied about bullied about it. And frankly, not a single member of the council who was actually in support of responsible regulation was asked to sign on the ballot initiative tonight. So it was insincere. It appeared insincere, insincere. And tonight was a bunch of political grandstanding that I frankly don't appreciate. So the options that I see from the city attorney are to place it on the ballot, adopt it outright, or ask for a study. My question right now is, does that study create any additional option than placing on the ballot or adopting it outright? Before you. And that is not before you this evening, but when it does come to evening. I mean, our options about the ordinance on the ballot, the ballot measure. If I understand your question correctly, no, it does not provide you any more options. It provides you the information that the study would provide. But you would at the end of receiving that study, you still have to either place it on the ballot or adopt the initiative. With that study, evaluate the impact of competing ballot measures in the state in terms of recreation. Generally speaking, it would be the study would only. Study the impacts of the initiative that is going to be placed on the ballot by the council. Could that study be expanded to include that an evaluation of recreation, should that qualify for the ballot could include that. It could. Well, I guess if again, if I understand correctly, yes, it could include and provide an overview of the impacts of a state measure on a local initiative. Okay. So what I'm what I would recommend and so is to move forward with Councilman Franco's recommendation. And when the time comes to study it, ensure that we can study it and evaluate the state. Because frankly, I don't want to have this come this very uncomfortable conversation, every councilmember council meeting until that happens. So I don't I don't want to study it now and have a report next council meeting and then continue it have another report at the next council meeting. I want to receive and file this tonight support councilmember during his motion and then do the study in the appropriate time so that we can have that conversation about what is the impact. And so we can be aware and informed as a city on what the impacts are. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. And I wanted to concur with Councilmember Richardson's comments. I. I appreciate you calling out boldly exactly what we witnessed tonight. And it does make me uncomfortable as well. When I referenced the mayor's effort for the bond measure. I was not referencing the campaign, but really the work that went into the effort prior to writing the ballot measure. That is where a lot of the work takes place. That is where the thoughtfulness took place, where many months. And when I say many months, it's over a year worth of study and data that went into it before writing the ballot measure. That's the difference when we consider putting ballot measures, ballot items on to an election. We don't just come to the dias and suggest that in a couple of months this could be written. And therefore we have an item. I would never compare this process to what the mayor went through. I think that would be denigrating that effort. And I want to be very clear that I was not suggesting that there was a similarity. I was actually pointing out the difference and the vast difference that exists. As I've stated before, I do support the substitute, the original substitute motion to receive and file. And I would ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute substitute motion. If I may call for public speakers, please. Mr. City attorney or Mr. Sanchez, would the public speakers be speaking on any of the three motions or just what's at hand? They will be speaking on the motions on the table. So we have three, three. Motions on the table. Okay. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jason O'Toole. I'm a resident of the fourth District and I'm here today to speak on a few things associated with the measure. I think the interesting thing about this measure, I didn't read the current version of the PAC's initiative, but they're going to need 66% plus one to win because they have this tax change in their law, not just 50% plus one. So I think that was kind of foolish on their part to include that language in their initiative. I know this because I've drafted six myself for Matthew Poppers and we actually had to split two measures in other cities because we learned that if we put a tax regulation in our initiative, that we'd have to get 66% plus one instead of 50% plus one was just something I noticed from the discussion, but I came here to make a statement. I'm a little disappointed as a fourth District resident, I think that there should be no restrictions on the number of permits for collectives. I think it's unintelligent business policy because the voters of Palm Beach have already approved the ballot measure maybe four or five years ago. That says, hey, they want ten or 15%. I can't remember. That's for recreational or medicinal, but the voters already said they're okay with taxing it. And I think that, for example, I'll give you an example and signal, hell, we're doing a measure right now. And people have approached our PAC about bringing an edible factory to Signal Hill that could create hundreds of jobs. And I think that's really interesting because Long Beach is a far bigger city than Signal Hill, and I can only imagine the thousands of jobs this could create. But with the current proposal as it is for for delivery services unacceptable to the voters of California, they approve Prop 215, and there are no restrictions on the number of permits that can be in place. And I just think it's not very good business policy, you know, and I think that personally from my research working with marijuana campaigns, I think sorry, medical marijuana campaigns, I think opposition to these reforms and the laws are unacceptable because I think some of the original bans on marijuana are rooted in racism. And if you look at who's incarcerated for marijuana offenses and drugs, it's mostly minorities. And I just think that needs to stop or in a different time. I know Mr. Supervisors told me I've, you know, done some work for him in his campaign. He says he has different values. I'm not I'm not sure he meant by that. But my values seem to think that, you know, we should have as much medical cannabis limited as we want. The voters want it. 35,000 people signed the petition once they signed it. I think three years ago we petitioned. I did. We got 15,000 voters to sign that. I think, you know, the bottom line is with the three council members that are, you know, putting this motion up. If you look at their political districts and as a political consultant, I can tell you exactly why they're making these motions. District three is the most conservative district in the city, followed by District five. District four is kind of a wobbler. But, you know, in my opinion, I came out to say this. I think my council member. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Diana logins. Enough's enough. And I hope you're paying attention. If you want to reduce the police work, all you have to do is close down all those bars in Belmont Shore. I don't know how you deal with it because that's where the crime comes from. I'm truly saddened by Susie and Stacey's lack of compassion and disdain for the democratic process. Their proposal did not pass before, and it should not pass. Now to the educated enlightened. It is clear that this proposal is solely meant to thwart the will and efforts of the people to engage in the democratic process. MBS Price. The monger will profess to be compassionate but claim that they have concerns about funding, etc. but the truth is they will do anything to subvert the people's initiative and this issue. Do not be fooled. This is their personal agenda. Never forget Susie's famous words regarding the continuing the ban. That is music to my ears. Make no mistake, a ban is her ultimate goal. The city of Long Beach. Voters have spoken time and again in the ballot box in support of cannabis. Medically prop to 15. Or is this too much for you, Stacey? She just left. I just want you to know fully. And speaking to the audience fully legalizing marijuana in Prop 19 and then taxing it on Measure A, you must represent the will of the people. If you have one ounce of decency and compassion, you will vote no on prices and mangos propositions and you will favor. Your mangoes. Substitute motion. And in this case, because Councilwoman Price makes her living off the illegality of the substance in question, she should recuse herself from voting. It is a blatant conflict of interest. Diane Logins Advocates for Disability Rights. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. La James. Next speaker, please. Thank you. David Zinke, seventh District resident. Good evening. Later. Thank you. I think. I think I hear water coming. This chamber is about to flood. I for one, as a citizen, I'm fed up with the waste, fraud and abuse that has gone on for 20 years around this issue issue. And I think some of you were here and I've said several times before, you have turned. Medical. Cannabis into a litmus test for corruption. And I've told you before, you're not doing well, but you're a miserable failure now. Miserable. Not one person has mentioned July 1st rescheduling. Is taking. Place. All this discussion tonight is worthless. Just worthless. It's going to schedule to. It's already been told. Triplicate. How? That'll work with what you're talking about. I have no idea. And with legalization of recreational use, I have no idea what it's going to the effect it's going to have. And I don't think one of you has ether or Mr. Parkin, but you have allowed the prohibitionist influence in this council to rule. That is why this has been so difficult all these years. I've been here for all of it. As late as the last task force meeting, Deputy Chief Hendricks said, quote, It's all criminal. And that is the attitude that has been pervasive. And as I told my councilman when he said that this council runs the police department, that's not true. The police department runs this council. It's really unfortunate. But the crime, corruption and violence that we really all want to see reduced. It's just exacerbated by this corruption. You might as well have rolled out the red carpet for the cartels and gangsters. That's what you've done, in my opinion. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm John Donoghue and I'm an expert in this subject. Let me tell you how that happened. I came back from World War Two. I read a wonderful book called Really. The Blues by a musician called RMS Mesmer. And soon as I read that, I said, gee, I got to get some of this. So I tried it. And guess what I discovered it's not a crime. Possession of cannabis and get away from the expression marijuana. Whether that expected to come from Pancho Villa and his revolutionaries used to sing a song called La Cucaracha, Cucaracha, Marijuana, Port Humor. So that's where that expression came from. We should be calling it cannabis. It's been used for thousands of years as a medication. And so this is what we need to know also. I'm also an expert in that. I was I've been I was arrested and did time. I did three years in the federal penitentiary for a half a dozen joints, banks and a crazy federal judge that told me I was worse than a murderer because I had several. Is this is what you get with this kind of misdirection information? Yeah. And also, I understand what Diane was saying about the Miss Prize. She's a prosecutor and a legislator and executive. So we have three forms of government. I don't think we're allowed to people to be on two of them. So I think she should recuse herself from this entirely. Also, I'd like to suggest that the certain certain times the the the you folks should have a limit on your we only get 3 minutes, but you get to talk forever and ever. Thank you, Mr. Donahue. Next speaker, please. Thank you. They're still members of Long Beach City Council. My name is Stefan Dawson, so I'm a policy advisor for the California Growers Association and an independent lobbyist for the medical marijuana community. While I normally celebrate any attempts by municipalities to provide regulated access to medical cannabis, I'm disappointed to see the resurrection of Council Member Price's poorly conceived and slightly designed proposal being discussed again here tonight. As I first said in February before this Council unanimously, unanimously rejected the price measure, maintaining the ban on a combined comprehensive commercial cannabis activity enabled by a delivery only approach is an inept public policy born of irrational taboos and political carelessness. This proposed system does. Not adequately address demand. It creates far more public safety problems than its proponents claim, and it guarantees the future license holders will be functionally unable to compete against the illicit marketplace. Ironically, this proposal would actually make me a weed lobbyist incredibly wealthy. I represent some of the biggest delivery services in Los Angeles who, after being shut down by that city's Proposition D, are pretty much looking for a patient base of 60,000 people to be able to supply. That said, I would never advise them to apply for a license under this proposal as it is designed to fail. In effect, this proposal is a poison pill, a political device designed by legislators to provide the facade of public compromise while remaining fully conscious that the substance of the law virtually guarantees the program's inevitable failure. Councilmember Price has both a direct financial incentive towards maintaining the status quo of prohibition and a record of callously lying about the issue. As such, she does not deserve the public's trust when she cynically claims to be representing the patients. If Councilmember Price actually came. To this issue from a place of compassion. Instead of trying to sneak in this proposal when the mayor is out of town and when every other public policy expert on this particular issue is at a conference in Oakland at the time, she would understand the actual role that delivery services play in this marketplace. Delivery provides access to two groups, the seriously ill. In it for seriously ill and homebound patients without a primary caregiver under law and frankly experienced by busy consumers like myself who already have and who are already aware of the potentially intense side effects of this drug. As the fastest growing patient. Base of cannabis are older individuals who have either never used or at least recently tried the drug. Best practices require that they receive in-person, capable education from staff members at a physical dispensary. The price proposal. Does not reflect the principles of sound public policy or a sincere desire to promote more conservative concepts of public safety. Rather, the plethora of laws and embarrassing flaws and embarrassing oversights in this bill merely demonstrate the deep seated hatred that Councilmember Price has for the culture she associates with cannabis use. This is, after all, the person who published a newspaper article hilariously warning of the imminent danger that stoners like myself pose to the ice cream parlor as a bell. Not sure. Please ignore your colleagues desperate attempt to drag all into a war that she lost a long time ago. Being identified with her with racially biased lost causes is a bad look for public officials seeking reelection or higher office. Her prudence is really prohibition. Thank you for your time. Mr. Garrett, could you clear? Cause the address. I'll be brief. My views on the subject of ice falling somewhere between that of Bobby Knight and Woody Hayes. Take whatever necessary steps you need to take to make sure that we never have legal marijuana in this city delivered to the city at all. Period. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank the public for their comments. Is there anyone else that's coming forward? Are you coming forward? Okay. We're going to wrap public comment up. So if you'd like to speak, please come forward now. Hi, my name is Bobby Waltman. I'm a resident of the second district in Orange County, public defender in Orange County. And I just wanted to add that for myself and other cannabis patients, those of us who are learning about how to use this medicine, which I really do think it is a medicine you need to learn about the medicine because there's not just one weed to smoke. There's not just one edible of one dosage to take. There are many products out there. And as this becomes more and more popular among the public, which it is, we need to educate the public. We need to educate the patients. And people need to know how to use it or else they're going to use it incorrectly. And that's when it can be dangerous. And so I do believe having actual dispensaries with bud tenders who are knowledgeable to educate the patients as to what they need for their particular illness or ailment would help these people use this medicine in the correct way. So I believe that a delivery does not provide the opportunity for those patients to obtain the information they need to make the right decisions as to how to consume this product in the way they want to consume it, to provide them with the pain relief or stress relief or whatever it is that's causing them to use this. I do believe that as dispensary provides them with more information and knowledge, and I think it's just a better way to allow these patients to get the medicine they need. Thank you to. Hello, everybody. My name is Michael Mooney. I'm also a public defender in Orange County. I'm a resident of the second District. And I just wanted to point out some some quotes that I that I overheard, which was, let's give the voters choices. It was pointed out by Councilwoman Mongeau and councilwoman, the price and delivery only is does not give the voters choices. What it does is people who are going to consume medical marijuana, they will be given the choice of, hey, I've got a delivery guy coming to my house. I mean, they're going to do this transaction in my front yard, hand-to-hand through a window, or I'm going to get in a delivery person's car. I'm going to invite this delivery person into my home. What that reminds me of is something I deal with almost daily in my job, which is illegal drug sale transactions. That's the choice that you're giving people by delivery only. You either conduct this business in the same way that illegal drug transactions are conducted or you don't get to safe access. We need dispensaries, dispensaries, storefronts, provide security, regulation and safe access to something that the voters want. Thank you. Okay. I think that is the last speaker. And I wanted to actually just address the last two speakers, not because we generally do this. I have to imagine that it took a tremendous amount of courage to come forward and identify yourselves as the profession that you did not because medical marijuana is illegal, but because the conversation here has become it's certainly in our council for many years. Suggestive that it might be or should be or it should be banned. And so I want to thank you for coming forward and and saying what you did, not because of the opinion you shared. But really, I think what I'm really trying to say is it makes me very sad that we have compelled people to come forward and identify themselves and perhaps risk reprisal at their workplace by doing so, because they feel so strongly about the failure of our policy dialog. And and I want to apologize for that. I am very sad and very sorry that it has come to that. I know people come to us personally and reveal themselves and identify themselves, but to have had to see that at at the diocese, I, I want to apologize to you, but I do want to thank you for that. Councilwoman Price. Q And I am familiar, at least with one of the last two speakers. And I just want to clarify, because I think there's some confusion. The measure that was on was not a delivery only it was a delivery phase and a brick and mortar. So I just want to clarify with a maximum of seven. So that just that I think that's an important distinction, especially I think as lawyers should appreciate that it's six months and then it phases into a brick and mortar after taxes are paid and all of that. So thanks. Thank you. And I know that there's an interest in hearing what the substitute substitute motion is so everyone can be clear. Mr. City Attorney. Vice Mayor, members of the council, we have three motions. The first the substitute substitute motion by CD3 and a second by CD five is to request a report back by July 5th of the fiscal impact, the land use enforcement and Taxes of the Citizens Initiative. And the second part would be to provide an overview of the recreation and medical marijuana. If recreation passes or if both passed, how do they relate with each other? And I was a substitute. Substitute that was a substitute substitute. The substitute motion by council member Urunga and second by the vice mayor is to receive and file the item, and then we have the original motion. So council members were voting on the substitute substitute motion. And again, I will reiterate that we have time to call for an analysis at the time that the voter initiative is certified, as well as call for an analysis of recreational marijuana when the state's measure qualifies. So for today, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute substitute. And Councilwoman Pryce regarding timing. If we did put a competitive measure on, when would we need to vote on that? August 2nd. The August 2nd would be the very last day we would need. The city attorney's office would need to know before that time so that we could prepare something to bring it back for August 2nd. So realistically, we would need some direction sometime in July to bring something back for to adopt the resolution placing something on the ballot . And it's my understanding that August 2nd is national night out. So we have an either no meeting or a limited meeting that night. Right. No. Council Member Price Yes, that is correct. We will have a limited meeting on that day. So July 19th would really be the last time that we'd have the opportunity to discuss and vote on an item. Unless the council decided to call for a special meeting. Yes. So if we were to wait to order a report, that would just delay the amount of time the city staff has to get working on the report. That's correct. The the other issue that I'm hesitant to bring up, but the 30 days would be we need to have that report back in time for council to be able to take an action so that it could be still meet the deadlines to consolidate and place it on the election. If that was their choice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote on the substitute substitute motion. Motion fails. Okay. Members. We are back to our substitute motion, which is to receive and file this item. And again, I urge you to vote yes. Council member, Cipriano. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Your Honor, for staying as long as you did. Happy anniversary. Item five. Madam Clerk, were we time certain? Four, seven? But were we also waiting for Council Member Austin. That's correct. For all three of those items. Yes. Yes. Okay. We can wait 10 minutes for that. What do we have? If you can put me back on track.