Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you for that. We're moving on to the item on cannabis.
Speaker 2: Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conclude the public hearing and accept negative declaration. 13 Dash 17 Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.9 to and approve any zoning code amendments all relating to the regulation of adult use. Commercial cannabis activity in Long Beach. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and the resolution to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission.
Speaker 1: To certify the amendment citywide.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 4: There's Peter. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So are we going have staff? Please start. Well, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 7: Members of the City Council.
Speaker 2: For this item, we will have a staff report given by Kevin Jackson, our deputy city manager, and Jay Callery, our cannabis program manager. Thank you, Mr. Motor Mauka, and thank you, Mayor and Council. We are prepared tonight to provide a presentation on the Adult Use Cannabis Ordinance and recommend related recommendations based upon Council direction given back in November of 2017. We're going to jump right into the presentation. Our cannabis program manager, AJ Cleary, is going to lead us through this presentation tonight. I want to first recognize, before I turn it over to AJ, that this has been a significant interdepartmental effort with multiple stakeholders, stakeholders engaged in the process and to arrive at the recommendations that we're making tonight. And we have spent quite a bit of time working with the city attorney's office to come to the conclusion that we will make it tonight. And so with that said, I want to turn it over to AJ to lead us through the presentation. And yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Mayor and members of the City Council. Council. I'm here to provide a presentation on the Adult Use Cannabis Ordinance prepared at the request of the City Council. The ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney's Office in close coordination with the city manager's office and other departments involved in regulating the cannabis industry. Before getting into adult use. I want to provide a quick update on the medical cannabis market in Long Beach. As of June 1st, the city has licensed 12 medical cannabis businesses. This includes nine dispensaries, one cultivator, one manufacturer and one testing laboratory. In addition to the licensed facilities, there are 259 businesses in the process of obtaining a medical cannabis license. However, what we've learned from other states like Colorado and Washington is that the business startup failure rate in the cannabis industry is high, so it's difficult to predict how many of these pending businesses will actually open. To help frame the discussion, I'd like to briefly run through the recent history of cannabis in California. Starting in 2015, the state legislature approved a series of bills to authorize commercial medical cannabis activity throughout the state. Soon after, in 2016, voters, California voters took it a step further by approving Proposition 64, which authorized statewide commercial adult use cannabis activity. Those bills were eventually merged into a single act known as the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, which remains in effect today under the MSU CRC, Medical and Adult Use. Cannabis businesses are only authorized to operate in cities that allow commercial cannabis activity within their jurisdictions. Which brings us to Long Beach. In November 2016, Long Beach voters approved measure M-hm. A voter driven ballot initiative which authorized medical cannabis businesses to operate locally. Because Measure MM dealt only with medical cannabis. The city maintained an implicit ban on the adult use cannabis market. Fast forward one year to November 2017. The Long Beach City Council directed staff to begin working on an ordinance to authorize commercial adult use cannabis locally. As part of that request. The City Council specifically directed staff to include a social equity program in the Adult Use Ordinance, which will be discussed later in this presentation in order to provide adequate time to prepare the draft ordinance. The City Council also approved a 180 day temporary ban on adult use cannabis businesses. The 180 day ban has ended. So today we are presenting a draft of the Adult Use Ordinance for City Council consideration. In preparing the proposed ordinance, staff staff drew from a wide range of resources. First city departments submitted policy recommendations to the city manager's office for consideration in the Adult Use Ordinance. These policy recommendations were based on recent experience with regulating the medical cannabis industry in Long Beach. Next, the city attorney's office spent considerable time researching cannabis ordinances approved in other jurisdictions throughout California, as well as other states. Staff from the city manager's office also attended numerous neighborhood and industry meetings to hear the community's thoughts and concerns about cannabis. And finally, staff fielded hundreds of direct calls and emails over the past year through the dedicated Long Beach cannabis hotline and email address. With that, I'd like to go through some of the key provisions that have been included in the Adult Use Ordinance. First, co-location co-location means permitting adult use and medical cannabis activity on the same premise. The Adult Use Ordinance will require co-location for dispensaries. In other words, only the existing medical dispensaries will be authorized to apply for an adult use dispensary license and only from their current location. Unlike dispensaries, co-location will be optional for non dispensaries. Non dispensary businesses include cultivators, manufacturers, testing laboratories and distributors. These business types will have the ability to apply for a medical license, an adult use license or both licenses from the same facility. Businesses that apply for an adult use license will be subject to the requirements of the Adult Use Ordinance, identified as Chapter 5.92 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. Next, the ordinance sets restrictions on where adult use cannabis businesses can locate. It does this in two key ways. First, the ordinance establishes minimum buffer distances between adult use businesses and sensitive uses such as schools, beaches, parks, libraries and daycare centers. Specifically, buffer distances are a thousand feet from schools and beaches and 600 feet from parks, libraries and daycare centers. The proposed buffer distances are the same for adult use as they are for medical cannabis facilities. Second, the Adult Use Ordinance Amends Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to add cannabis use types to the city's zoning tables. In doing so, the city will ensure that moving forward, cannabis businesses locate around other appropriately zoned uses. For instance, industrial use types such as cultivators, manufacturers and distributors will be restricted to industrial zones of the city. Retail uses, including dispensaries, will be permitted in commercial or industrial zones of the city. In other words, Title 21 will treat cannabis facilities like any other similar use type in the city. The purpose but with one exemption and that is that existing medical cannabis businesses will be authorized to apply for an adult use license from their existing location regardless of the new zoning requirements. The reason for the exemption is to recognize that many medical cannabis applicants have made significant investments in their properties based on previous location requirements. Without this exemption, a significant number of medical cannabis businesses will be forced to remain medical cannabis, only placing them at a significant disadvantage in the cannabis market. Staff added a number of new public health provisions to the Adult Use Ordinance. First adult use businesses will be required to obtain a public health permit prior to operation. The permit will grant the city's health officer the authority to protect the health and safety of cannabis consumers and employees. Specifically, the health permit authorizes the health officer to conduct random quality assurance testing of cannabis goods and force packaging. Labeling and product storage requirements. Exclude employees diagnosed with an illness from handling cannabis goods, ensure basic sanitation of cannabis facilities and take other necessary precautions. The ordinance also authorizes the Long Beach Health Department to establish a responsible cannabis vendor program. The participation in the program will be mandatory for all new managers and employees of adult use dispensaries. Training topics will include cannabis, public health issues such as preventing youth access, risks of driving under the influence, proper methods for safe storage of cannabis goods and other important health related material. The ordinance also sets minimum security requirements for adult use cannabis facilities. Businesses will be required to maintain 24 hour onsite video surveillance, install security alarm systems and are monitored by a security company 24 hours a day. Hire security personnel, utilize electronic age verification devices to confirm proof of customer age and provide employee ID badges for use during business operation transportation or delivery of cannabis goods. Violations of the ordinance may be enforced by the city using various administrative, civil and criminal remedies. Specifically, this includes administrative holds on cannabis products, permit suspensions and revocations, administrative citations, civil penalties and criminal penalties. The multifaceted approach to enforcement will allow the city to tailor enforcement actions to the nature of each violation. In addition, the draft ordinance grants the city access to security camera recordings from businesses upon request. Access to security footage will allow the city to fully investigate community complaints about cannabis businesses. Finally, the appeals process for penalties, suspensions or revocations of adult use cannabis permits will follow the standard procedures for other non cannabis businesses in the city. That means appeals will be heard by a hearing officer referred by the city clerk. The ordinance also grants the city full authority to charge fees to offset the cost of licensing and regulating adult use cannabis businesses. If the City Council moves to approve an adult use ordinance, staff will return to the City Council with proposed changes to the master fee and charges schedule to establish new fees for the adult use cannabis industry. Proposed fees will include an annual regulatory fee, fire permit fee, health permit fee and tax audit fee, as well as one time fees for application review and criminal background investigations without establishing new fees. The General Fund will be forced to subsidize adult use cannabis regulatory activities. On this next slide, you'll see projected fy19 cannabis tax revenues for the medical cannabis market staff projects a potential increase of up to $750,000 in Fy19 general fund tax revenues from authorization of commercial adult use cannabis. Bear in mind, though, that cannabis tax revenues are incredibly difficult to predict. For example, so far in FY 18, the city has collected significantly less in cannabis tax revenues than originally budgeted for this year. For this reason, we do not recommend budgeting any increase in business license tax revenues for the adult use market at this time. Staff will revisit cannabis revenue projections during the FY19 budget development process. That concludes the first part of my presentation. And now I'd like to go over the cannabis social equity program. As part of the request for an adult use ordinance, City Council directed staff to consider social equity policies to include in the proposed regulations. Based on this direction, the Office of Cannabis Oversight works with the Long Beach Equity Office and the Pacific Gateway Workforce Innovation Network to develop recommendations on a cannabis equity program. The first step in this process was to research cannabis equity programs approved by other cities. What we discovered through this research is that social equity has become a core focus of cannabis policymaking. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and Oakland have all approved cannabis equity ordinances. State legislatures have also begun to develop cannabis social equity programs, including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In December of 2017, Massachusetts passed the first statewide cannabis social equity program. Recently, the California State Senate began considering SB 1294 a bill to create a cannabis equity program for all of California across these states and local jurisdictions. A consistent framework has begun to develop around cannabis equity policy. This framework involves defining who is eligible for the program, establishing program benefits, and designing a process to encourage partnership between businesses and low income residents. The goal of cannabis social equity is to recognize the impact that federal and state cannabis enforcement policies have had on low income communities across the country. Specifically, low income communities have experienced a greater number of arrests and convictions for low level offenses such as cannabis use and possession. Despite similar cannabis cannabis usage rates relative to other groups, a cannabis conviction can lead to permanent loss of property, disqualification from employment opportunities, reduced earnings, potential exclusion from public benefits such as housing assistance or student financial aid, and other negative consequences. Recognizing this fact. California voters or California residents voted to decriminalize cannabis activity at the state and local level. However, many cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento have taken this a step further by adopting cannabis social equity programs. These programs are meant to support economic inclusion in the cannabis industry for industry, for individuals who may have been negatively impacted by federal and state cannabis enforcement policies in the past. The first step is to define who should be eligible for the cannabis equity program. Other cities have consistently used income, geography and prior cannabis arrests as eligibility criteria. We are recommending the same for Long Beach. First, a person must be low to moderate income to qualify for the program. This is defined as having an annual family income at or below 80% of the area median income. By establishing income limits, the city will be able to target program eligibility to those individuals with the greatest need for assistance. Next, an individual must meet at least one of the following two criteria. Either was previously arrested or convicted for a low level cannabis related crime in Long Beach that could have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a citation under current California law, or lived in a low to moderate income census tracts in Long Beach for a minimum of three years. The arrest criteria is meant to identify individuals who are directly impacted by the enforcement of laws that have mostly been decriminalized at the state and local level. The census tract criteria is meant to identify residents from disadvantaged neighborhoods whose communities have experienced the disproportionate burden of cannabis criminalization and enforcement. For individuals who qualify for the equity program, staff recommends providing two categories of benefits. The first category is direct business assistance. Business assistance for equity applicants includes fee waivers, expedited application review, expedited plan check, business license, tax deferrals and application workshops to help navigate the process. In addition, the Office of Equity will coordinate a fresh start clinics to help individuals previously convicted of a cannabis related offense, petition a judge to have their convictions reclassified, expunged or dismissed. Finally, we created an incubator program to help encourage partnership between established cannabis businesses and equity applicants. The incubator program requires businesses that do not qualify for the equity program to submit a plan to the city detailing how they intend to support equity applicants. Incubator plans will be published and made available to equity applicants seeking additional support. The second cat. Excuse me. The second category involves employment opportunities. Staff has proposed a 25% equity employee hire requirement for all cannabis businesses to meet this requirement. A cannabis business must ensure that at least 25% of annual business work hours are performed by employees who are eligible for the cannabis equity program. A similar percentage requirement has been adopted by the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. Businesses that fail to meet the 25 threshold may still satisfy the requirement if they show a good faith effort to hire equity employees. The equity hire requirement will be overseen by the Pacific Gateway Workforce Innovation Network by advertising the program. Registering individuals interested in the program. Confirming employee eligibility. Connecting equity employees with businesses. And monitoring businesses for compliance with support from Pacific Gateway. We believe that the 25% requirement is an achievable standard for all cannabis businesses to meet and will expand, extend the benefits of the equity program to a much larger population within the Long Beach community . In addition, the ordinance requires all adult use cannabis businesses to enter into a labor peace agreement with a labor union that represents cannabis workers in Long Beach. This requirement is consistent with the labor provision provision that voters approved for medical cannabis businesses through a measure aimed. Staff estimates a one time cost of 266,000 to develop the cannabis social equity program. The one time cost is anticipated to be offset by citywide budget savings in excess of established departments. General Fund Savings Targets in FY 18. The one time cost includes 200,000 for Pacific Gateway to establish the 25% equity hire program, 50,000 for development services to offset the cost of providing automatic expedited plan checks for equity applicants and 16,000 for the equity office to coordinate the Fresh Start programs.
Speaker 2: From ongoing.
Speaker 7: Costs related to the Pacific Gateway, 25% higher program will be offset through an equity hire fee charged to adult use cannabis businesses. Establishment of the fee will be requested through proposed changes to the master fee and charges schedule following passage of an adult use ordinance.
Speaker 1: Going to be.
Speaker 7: This slide outlines next steps for the overall adult use ordinance. The temporary moratorium on commercial adult use cannabis activities has expired. Regardless of this expiration, the city maintains an implicit ban on commercial adult use cannabis activity through its permissive zoning laws. This implicit ban will only be lifted upon approval of a commercial adult use ordinance by the City Council. Absent this approval, staff will continue to deny applications for adult use cannabis business licenses in Long Beach. Should the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance? Staff estimates that adult use cannabis sales from licensed Long Beach dispensaries could begin as early as August 2018. That concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 2: Stay safe. Thank you. And so we'll go to public comment. At this point, any member of the public want to address the city council and I'll be the time.
Speaker 8: Very good. You. Kirk has the address. As I stated before, if the city is forced to have cannabis.
Speaker 2: The only location that we will.
Speaker 8: Sell it on.
Speaker 1: As a the top floor, the.
Speaker 8: Police.
Speaker 2: Department, and we will rent out spaces there and the city will.
Speaker 1: Make money for that. However, however.
Speaker 2: That should only occur once the city gets stabilized. And what I mean stabilized when we have a city manager that is not a period principal individual and we have a new mayor who will shortly, I think, in the next 6 to 8 weeks, be indicted by the new US attorney who tomorrow morning and we'll be watching the tapes. Where the mayor last week essentially thumbed his nose and gave his middle finger to the concept that he would be going to prison together.
Speaker 8: With his complicit fellow travelers.
Speaker 2: In the raising of marine stadium to s. Period. As I pointed out before.
Speaker 1: There were other items that were a higher priority on the federal level.
Speaker 2: But once we get a new mayor, and I think that will happen probably within the next 11 months and we get.
Speaker 1: As city manager, that is not Peter principle.
Speaker 2: We might be stabilized enough.
Speaker 1: To allow these. But then again, the only place we should allow them is on the top floor.
Speaker 2: Of the police department. We'll have one for each district. And they can be open.
Speaker 1: Maybe from 10 to 2 in the afternoon, in the morning.
Speaker 2: To two in the afternoon, three days a week. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Yes. Mr. Vice Mayor and council horrible land. I was Googling this morning. Personally, I really didn't know. It says only one in seven California cities allow recreational marijuana stores. And also to find out that Orange County only has, I think, maybe three stores out of 34 cities. And those are typically in low income areas. I like to make some suggestions. One suggestion I wish I could make would. Why in the heck are we disregarding the laws and the rule of law? That flag? And why didn't we go with the throw with the 80% of the cities that hopefully won't sell this stuff? I just don't get it. But I guess I do. Well, and it's going to have to happen. The elephant in the room here is not shown in any of your research, any of your slides, that nothing that is that cannabis has been recognized by the military as having a negative impact on their perception. And anybody in the military who drives a truck or a tank or an airplane and smokes pot, whether it's medical pot or any other kind of pot, is out because they know they hold this pot X on the brain, the highly THC part of it. Now the CBD, CBD. And we have not touched upon the fact that in the training that their perception dysfunction quadruples when it's mixed with alcohol. So we're going to.
Speaker 2: Have.
Speaker 1: All.
Speaker 2: The pot.
Speaker 8: People coming from Orange County through our arteries, coming in through our schools, buying the pot. And we've got a lovely place for them to come down after they smoked a few joints and have a beer, whether it's a shoreline or a sauna for sure. And then they go back their merry way to Orange County. So I think Orange County. So this is a quality of life issue. And I in fact, before I even knew that Orange County had so few, I asked myself the question. I said, who in Laguna Beach or in Newport Beach wants to have pot sales? Well, and you know who it is. Nobody anyway. Also all half the money needs to go to these kids. That that to the development we need of course, at City College or of course, it or we should avoid school district in 12th grade and take half the money dedicated to use activities and teaching all that. But it may be okay, but you mix well with alcohol and you're going to be possibly a dead player. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up is vice mayor. I'm sorry. We're going to go back to public comment to let me click on public comment. Yes. We have five members of the public. Is there anyone else as to public comment before I close the speakers list? I have you included Francis. Okay, then the five folks that are here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Stephanie orson. So, second district. Congratulations, stacy on your child. Parenthood is awesome. It's gonna be great. Also, in response to Mr. Goodyear's suggestion that we sell weed at the beginning, at the top of the police department, our police station chief Luna is a fine police officer, but I sincerely doubt his ability to tell me what a really good gram is right now. The only adult use commercial retailers are unlicensed, untaxed and are selling untested product. I posted a picture on my Facebook account from there featuring some of the product that's actually sold by somebody who delivers services. It's dried. Brown doesn't contain any of the helpful Terrapins that you would actually want. Really is not fit for any sort of human consumption. But it's being sold daily here with the lack of adult use licenses being offered last year. Adult medical businesses have served as an excellent model for future regulation. These retailers of PET that are open today have incurred zero violations for illegal underage sales. By comparison, the 7-Eleven near my house and on Orange Avenue has had its license suspended at least once a month, every month this year so far. Again, we we it's a brand new day today here in 2018, unlike in 2014, when I was the only stoner on the 14th floor quietly begging for my weed stores to stay open. We have state level regulatory. We have a state level regulatory framework. We have retail taxes, and we have the ability to use affirmative zoning laws and clear to support the clear electoral support that has been provided on this particular issue. I want to thank specifically the council and the city attorney's office for their time and concern in this man on this matter. Please pass it as is. In addition, I want to add a particular plank for the social equity thing to be concerned about. Right now, the district attorney's office in Los Angeles, as well as our city prosecutor's office, has the data available regarding the ratio of any particular racial disparity regarding marijuana arrests or any of the the status of our of people who have felonies that are felonies on their record, marijuana felonies on the record that would be eligible for expungement. In terms of data sharing, if those were provided to to advocates within this area and or frankly, just automated, I mean, I think that they're probably given the number of people are calling my office , they're probably a fair number of people in the city that would benefit from that. So automatic expungements for felony marijuana, felons, that's been something that's been considered on the state level and as well as been adopted by a couple of different cities throughout the state. It's really worth considering. Thank you and have a good day.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counsel, for this opportunity to speak with you. I've worked with a few of you over the past year. I have spoke publicly one other time and it was after a roundabout discussion that got bloody. So I'm happy that all the previous presenters had happy things to talk about and the social equity. So I'm Greg Emmett. I'm part of the Go Forward group that won a license at 5630 Pacific Coast Highway. It's in the Iron Triangle and Susie Price's district. Although we've heard stories about the city being hard to work with, I got to tell you a personal experience. It's been great. Planning and zoning has been great and the council has been great. Very open minded. I've I come from Colorado. I moved here over a year ago. I have one licenses and 22 states. I've got a lot of a lot of history helping cities and police departments write rules and regulations, training the marijuana enforcement division in Colorado in my facility, teach them things to look for, things not to look for. I look forward to working with Commander Herzog in our district and having an open door policy. I think transparency is very important, especially in the marijuana industry. Even with people that live near or near a place, an open door policy to come in and see how it's done. Now, in Denver, Colorado, we've seen teen use drop by 11%. We've seen opiate addiction go down. Opiate deaths go down. We've seen veterans. I know we've been talking about military. We've seen veterans get helped tremendously overcoming post-traumatic stress disorder. I've seen children go from 300 seizures a month to three a year. So I'm a big proponent for marijuana, medical and adult use. Adult use. We've seen in Denver is out-of-state people coming from states that they cannot get help. Midwest states, it's illegal. They travel and spend money in our community, pay taxes. I think if you really look look at your vote tonight. If you vote now, it's a vote yes for all the illegal people out there. Right now, there are 64 illegal delivery companies in the city right now. I don't think necessarily if you vote yes that it means that you're you're going to be visiting the store and buying marijuana next week. But what it does show is that you're listening to your voters and that you are ready to get the get the dark side of marijuana out of the back alleys, get the pesticides out of the out of the product, and really provide a clean medicine for people to help their ailments. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next week, a piece.
Speaker 4: My name is Lewis. I'm from the fifth District. Thank you for letting me speak. I live over by Ward, the Norwalk boulevards. There is a marijuana dispensary that's been permitted to go in there. It's close to two schools and also in a residential area. I really don't agree with the blanket proposal you have in front of you today that says all marijuana medical dispensaries should be open to adult use. In fact, I would actually think we should look at expanding the distance of these dispensaries from school. There is really I don't know what due diligence this council has done to look into the adult use in other cities, for example, Seattle and Portland. I know some people on the police department up there that actually have stated there's been an increase in violent crime, theft, burglary and traffic accidents, as the gentleman said earlier, from the result of legalization of marijuana. So unless the city is really committed to hiring additional police to patrol our schools, our communities. I am very concerned about our children's well-being. There's a lot of children that walk home every day around these dispensaries. So if you make it adult use, you know there's potential for additional threats. We have enough threats of violence around our schools these days. We don't need this additional potential threat imposed by this initiative. As a representative of the city. You can potentially be held personally liable, responsible for harm to these children by these decisions you make today. I know I will personally, you know, look to your decision and go back to the different cities and excuse me, the different schools and take your decisions back to those who are in the schools, in school administration, and let them know what your decision is. I ask that you expand the distance of these dispensaries from our schools and our homes and to not convert all of these to. Dispensaries. Two adult use. I mean, we have plenty of dispensaries. We don't need any more, especially adult use. I ask that you please do the right thing for community, have a moral compass, and look out for our children's well-being. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Nick Speaker, please.
Speaker 2: My name is and I can say I'm a resident in the sixth district. I love this country because, you know, you can have people who advocate individualism and a right to privacy and limited government in one breath. And then in the next breath, they ask for a government, you know, imposed energy, but towards what you do in your household. It's very interesting. I think that this I'm in support of this bill to be passed. I think the time that we're at it is a surprise. What was that like? Was that a dog whistle coming from you? I'm in support of this because I love the city and I love the idea of tax revenue coming into the city, especially in regards to, you know, we recently had in the last election was a measure him or her in order to offset the the tax money that we needed for the general fund. So I feel like this is what the city needs. It's a it's a beautiful example of, you know, trying to work within the capitalist system that we have here. This is a this I think a lot of city governments have been looking at marijuana as a as something other than a commodity. This is a commodity. These bands increase the activity and the presence in the market of illicit drug cartels. And the longer you take to pass these things, the more market share, you know, drug cartels and other illegal groups maintain. I think it's great that we have people from Colorado and other states that have also recognized this as a legal right coming into the city. I like the idea of the Pacific Gateway. I think it should be increased. I think it should be more than 25%. We should incentivize these companies coming in to hire more people. And also potentially, I'm not sure the legality of what the banks situation here with carrying money come from marijuana companies. But if we can incentivize them or force them to hold more of their money in banks here in the city, that would also be a great way for us to bring more revenue in. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Hey, good evening. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, council. I definitely support the passing of the. I'm sorry. Oh, I support the passing of the recreational marijuana. However, I want us to really understand that the disparity disparities in cannabis arrests have caused hardship to the community. Last data that I read from 2013 that was studied over ten years showed that the African-American community is 13% of Long Beach, however, made up 46% of the arrests. The Long Beach was third only to San Diego in Los Angeles, in the state of California for cannabis arrests higher than San Jose, which is double the population. My concerns are we have a base for social equity, but we don't have a strong social equity piece that I think. And Mayor, you were quoted actually in an article in 2013 when those stats came out and you were very concerned, which I really appreciated about those stats because of those arrests and those disparities when you were vice mayor. So what I encourage us to do is we've personally sat with the Cannabis Association. I think they're an incredible association that's willing to work with businesses and community members to create a path to social equity. However, as of right now, we have a very skeletal basis. We have no reinvestment fund and no tax dollars going back in when states are going up to 50% investment back into youth development. I believe some of the tax dollars are used.
Speaker 5: In different.
Speaker 4: Ways, but they're not directly to social programs or services. The path to ownership is also an obstacle because there's no set amount. There is no. For example, San Francisco gives 50% of all of its permits to social equity applicants. My recommendation is that we have a social equity fee and that that fee is supports nonprofit foundations in those districts where that particular cannabis industry is and that we define more so the path to ownership as well as integrate more education into the social equity. Small businesses have a hard time opening up as it is without all of the rules and regulations. And so just sort of giving them a way in without the tools and the assistance and financing and training is an obstacle. So I just I just ask that if we I don't want to stop from the passing, but I really ask that we explore the social equity piece because I think this is a moment for us to to undo a lot of the wrongs. And I think it could build the city as a whole. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mayor Councilmembers My name is.
Speaker 2: Matt Bellamy, Executive Vice President of Europe, CW Local 324 That represents.
Speaker 1: A little over 100 cannabis workers here in the city of Long Beach. I just want to stress the sense of urgency of passing this tonight. As most folks know.
Speaker 2: People are like leaving the city. I think 70% of the people that go into the dispensaries today think it's recreational and therefore leave. And so without passing this tonight, it really is a death sentence for these businesses and for.
Speaker 1: Good union jobs in the city. When we've passed contracts and workers have voted to accept contracts, some of these young folks in these shops have actually turned to us and said, you know, I'm so.
Speaker 2: Excited I can go home and I have the same benefits. I have a great living wage. I can tell my parents, I can move out, I can have insurance, I have a pension. I have all the things that a good job requires.
Speaker 1: And I think it would be extremely unfortunate if.
Speaker 2: We don't get this passed tonight and really let down those workers.
Speaker 1: Also, the potential to have great union jobs in the city with the expansion is what we're really.
Speaker 2: Looking to do. And I'm sure every council member here would like those good union jobs in their city.
Speaker 1: So again, I.
Speaker 2: Would ask that you move.
Speaker 1: Forward and pass.
Speaker 2: This tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our last speaker.
Speaker 2: But evening, honorable mayors, city council, city attorney, city staff. My name is Adam Hijazi. I'm on the board of directors of the Long Beach Collective Association. I just wanted to share some quick notes regarding cannabis regulation. So as we all know, it's been a very complex and we've been grappling with this for about nine years at this point right now. You know, we've dealt with zoning. What distances? Community reinvestment efforts, job training, public education. We're also working on creating jobs and good paying jobs for that. And through our engaging with the community and hearing other leaders concerns and the municipalities concerned as well, we feel like measure and member and with the voters has been a compass to cannabis.
Speaker 7: In the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 2: With that being said, we understand. And some of the difficulties that came from it. But nonetheless, the measure was enacted by the voters now. City staff has worked for the last six months regarding putting an ordinance forward to move cannabis in the right direction. And quite frankly, the legal markets are hurting. It's not what everybody thinks it is. We're hurting every single day. And we just want to be able to compete against whatever illicit market is out there. There are there are concerns because this is such a complex issue, whether it's social injustices that's happening that I think needs to be addressed, whether it's how we're going to enforce against some of these deliveries and other issues that we have here in the city. But the most important thing is that we need to undo this not which is not being adult use. And a lot of cities around us have already moved in that direction. But more importantly, they shouldn't be the ones moving. We're the city of Long Beach, and I think we're the model and we can show what a good, solid cannabis ordinance can look like. So really what we ask is the ability to be able to compete. There's a lot of enforcement mechanisms that are going to be able to help. But I think with the legal markets being in the front, it will slowly defund some of these illicit market and these issues that are in our city today. You know, we talked about hours of operation potentially. That's state law saying 10:00 and it is what it is. Do you want to do nine? You want to do ten, whatever it is. But the bottom line is people are not going to stop buying cannabis at 8:00. They're either going to go to the guy down the street or they're gonna go to Wilmington or they're going to go to wherever it is that they need to go to be able to get there. So again, it's really about giving us the ability to compete with what is and it's not only about the hours of operation , it's really the city's support, which we have had good conversations with among our city staff and different individuals, individuals in the city that are that are getting it. We just ask city council to support us and to please support this ordinance tonight and move it forward, because there is an urgency going on here in the city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our last speaker assembly, Dustin Harris.
Speaker 4: I have put together. I'm Francis, Emily Dawson, Paris, my reside in District one, and.
Speaker 1: I put together a.
Speaker 4: Presentation for you and I have a three page document, communications for the police officer, the tenant cabin copy of which is the city attorney, Mike Mace has the entire copy of it and I'll give you an excerpt. And it speaks about the major problem is smoking marijuana. The bus stops on the metro platform and inside the metro line. And so when I looked at this article regarding the governor's spell and it spoke about the marijuana, the cities have a decision of yes or no, whether or not they want to have recreational marijuana. It's up to the city because I see that this is on the agenda. So the same mom is just looking at this as a potential moving forward on it. I am a pediatric nurse. There's copies of all these articles on the research I've done which I've given to the city clerk for the hard copies. Now, I've heard a lot this evening, and what a predicament you're in. We might not be sitting here today with this matter in such a fashion if when it went on the ballot there was about to have for the stay long missed vote regarding having recreational marijuana are and having. Medicinal dispensaries maybe had two different ballot measures. And then the voice of the people would have been main down and the one going and trying to figure out yay or nay what we're going to do about recreational marijuana and looking at the dangers of mixing marijuana, whether it's medicinal, recreational, with drugs, with alcohol. It's catastrophic. There's such a thing called acute marijuana intoxication. Also, it escalates problems for persons with neurodevelopmental disorders and other types of conditions. You really have a major decision you have to make this evening. I actually think that the city is not prepared to move forward on this massive amount of what you have before us. I'm looking at the children and the effect of it getting in their hands. I don't think what we have in place would need to have to have in place to have the city protect it. I actually think that this matter should be put on hold and we need to come back. The chief of police is here. You know, I've spoken about what the police have to say about it, so I don't have that much time to speak. But I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. But I actually think that there's some major matters. Each one of you have opportunity to come forward to get this matter and a better fashion than what it is right now, because it's really not working out. And I think every one of you can figure out a way that we can get together and get this work out, because it can't be about the money. It's got to be.
Speaker 2: About the welfare.
Speaker 4: Of the city, the welfare of the children, the welfare of the people that live here. And there are cities that have banned having medicinal marijuana. And I have them listed down on here. And I have probably Beverly Hills, Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, West Covina and do not permit recreational marijuana. So I'm going to leave it to you to do the right thing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Very much.
Speaker 4: Do the right thing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So much.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Okay, great. Thank you so much. So we are now going to close public comment and we're going to go to some discussion from the city council. So I'm going to have a few points I'm going to say. And then I might turn this over to Vice Mayor Richardson. He's got a first motion and then we'll go we'll go from there. I do want to start by saying that I think that it's important to note that there's a lot of a lot of the council has been obviously dealing with this issue for a long time . And I just want to be tonight and I ask also that those here that are the audience in the audience to also have a little patience there is going to be, I think, a conversation. And I think we want to make sure that we get to a place where we have something that there is approval on. And I want to make sure that it's going to be ideas and I know they're going to be presented. And so I just want to make sure that people know that. I mean, everyone is trying to come at this from a place of a kind of caring about the community and caring for their issue. I know in the past these some of these debates have not gone well, but I just ask that I ask those watching to watch what's going to happen. I think you're going to have a good conversation on an important topic. The second thing I want to make my position very clear, and I hope it also guides where the council goes. I think the voters have spoken on this issue multiple times. I think they, in large majorities at the California state level, passed recreational marijuana. In large majorities, they passed a local ordinance to support marijuana here in the city. That created the ordinance that we have and certainly at almost 70% pass the taxing mechanism that we have created here in the city of Long Beach. And I know this mechanism well because I worked with the UFC, you and a lot of the business owners to create what was, I believe, a fair tax system for our dispensaries in Long Beach. And so. I think my like a lot of folks, views have also changed over time. And I do believe that it's been pretty clear that voters in California support, support not just medicinal marijuana, but also recreational marijuana. And so I'd support staff recommendation. I've made that already. I think public and clear. I think they have a proposal in front of us that is fair. It affirms the will of the voters. And in my opinion, it moves us to where the conversation on this is across the country. And I think if you look at most major cities, this is the conversation that that they're having. Now, I'm also aware that there's also concerns and and some questions from other council members. And I think those are fair. I think they should be discussed so we can come up with something that folks can can come to some consensus on. But I just wanted to make sure that I was clear about where I'm at. But I also respect where other folks are coming from on this issue because it's complex as well. And so with that, Vice Mayor Richardson.
Speaker 2: Well, I wanted to just start by just saying this has been a really long conversation. I remember when I was still Neil's chief of staff and, you know, they went through a whole process and lotteries and all those things and it's developed. That conversation has certainly developed. I've learned, I've grown. I've seen the the voters in the state of California, the voters in Long Beach reiterate their position on this time and time again. I've learned a few things. So one thing I've learned is past experience is the best indicator of future performance. And every time the council has has gotten this, we haven't gotten it right. But we've tried to create a more perfect system and I think we've gotten better. The mayor mentioned Measure in May. That was, you know, the community come forward with Measure M to legalize medical marijuana and the city saw an opportunity to sort of, you know, of course. Correct. Put forward a balanced measure on taxes and put it forward to the voters. And the voters rewarded this and we got it right that time. I think we have an opportunity to get it right again today. So first, I want to thank our city staff for the presentation. I think it included a lot of the things that the council gave direction on. And that's important because we you know, I you know, the second thing I've learned is really we have a true diversity of opinion in our city and all of them are are valid. And we go through this process to try to create something that really works and is custom fit for Long Beach. And so six months ago, we asked staff to take a six month pause and, you know, pause everything while we go back and really dig into the recreational ordinance, evaluate how it's going to work in relation to the medical marijuana ordinance, consider opportunities to craft, you know, some, you know, take a look at what we're doing around social equity. And we had a presentation from National League of Cities and we took a look at what city other cities are doing to make sure that that's sort of central, central theme in this ordinance. And since then, the city manager's office, the Office of Equity, City Attorney's Office, I just want to say, I think they've done a fantastic job at bringing a well-thought out ordinance to city council. So I want to just say thank you to the entire team that worked on that. I really respect the work that you did on this. And just to be crystal clear, I support staff's recommendation. And so so I think that there are some elements I want to focus for a minute on the social equity piece. I think the city has made a constant conversation and began to grapple with this conversation around equity and and economic inclusion. And I think that the economic inclusion elements here are consistent with our blueprint for economic development, consistent with our EVERYONE initiative, and is consistent with the values of what the things that the Council has supported and has begun to support even more in recent years. So I want to highlight that. So a few things, a1a few things I want to call out. So one, it provides opportunities for local Long Beach residents to begin to own their own businesses in a new emerging industry. I think that shouldn't be. I think that should not be understated. I think secondly, it provides support for local entrepreneurs as they begin this this this journey, this process that could be confusing for many people, this process of a brand new emerging industry to provide support it it installed it creates a process fresh start clinics to ensure that we're providing opportunities and second chances for by peop for people impacted by drug enforcement policies prior to the legalization of cannabis. So I really want to call out the Fresh Start clinics. I think it's a good idea. This ordinance has opportunities for quality family supporting union jobs for local residents. I think that is something that can't be understated as businesses open. There is there's a requirement here for quality union jobs that support families. So this is a this is a great start. And as I mentioned, you know, past experience is the best indicator of future performance. This is a council driven ordinance. So we can always come back, make additions, tweak it, evaluate it and make changes. We can always do that. And so so I applaud I applaud the work that's been done. So I'm going to make make a make a motion here. But I want to just clarify two points that I'm going to I'm going to mention. So, one, there was significant interest on behalf on the part of the people in the community and on the local hire goal at 25%. Now we have a project labor agreement with a goal of 40%. I think that we should set we should aim high to hit our mark. I think we should aim for a 40% goal. So I'm going to make a recommendation to move forward with staff's recommendation, but make an adjustment for 25% to 40% . And secondly, I want to clarify some language I know that we've talked about. There's there is something in here for workers. There's something in here for small business owners. But what about just the surrounding community? Let's say that you are not a user of cannabis. You are not interested in work. In a cannabis business. You are not interested in owning a cannabis business, but this new businesses in your district. How do you make sure in your area how to make sure that we track and evaluate the rent, the community reinvestment that's happening with these businesses? Many of these businesses that are already opened are already doing a good job at reinvesting into our communities where they're located. But I think that we should we think we can track it and then continue to encourage it. And that's why I'm proposing that there's a report that is submitted, and I think we should call this our community. There's a report that each cannabis businesses support is submitting as a part of this ordinance, and I think we should call that a community reinvestment report. And it really outlines and demonstrates your commitment to reinvestment the activities that you do. It keeps a lens of equity. It's important to local communities. And I think that's something important that the community knows that there is a plan for community reinvestment. That's something that came out of community. So I know there was a lot of conversation about the use of cannabis taxes. I just want to be clear. There is this isn't the conversation to talk about cannabis taxes or equity fees or any of that. That's all budget conversations as master fee and charges, schedule conversations. That's really not a part of this conversation. So I'm going to go ahead and start with a main motion, and this is the staff motion with those small sort of clarifications. So I move that we receive the supporting documentation to the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt, accept the negative declaration, and that we declare the ordinance amending the lobbyist municipal code by adding Chapter 5.9 to and amending Title 21 of the city's zoning regulations related to the regulation of adult use cannabis activity together with a local coastal program amendment read for the first time in LED and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading with the following changes to the text of Chapter 5.9 to as presented staff's recommended action. So number one, that Section 5.92.154.8.1 be amended to change the social equity local hire goal from a minimum of 25% to a minimum of 40%, to be consistent with the city's project labor agreement goals. And that the second that the first sentence of section 5.92.1540. B be amended. Minutes Read. Adult Use Cannabis Businesses shall submit a community investment, community reinvestment and small business incubation plan to the city, describing how they intend to support equity businesses, adjacent neighborhoods and communities within eligible social equity program census tracts. I also move that we further adopt the resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the city's certified local coastal program. So that is my motion, to be clear. That motion allows us to move forward with a first reading today, and city attorney has a copy of this motion and essentially is the same ordinance that's presented with an amendment to a local hire and clarification of language. I encourage City Council to stay the course. I'm open. You know, I would love to continue the conversation. I know there's a there's a diversity of opinions and let's see where we land. But I hope that we can try to incorporate the interests and the needs of what people want and that we maintain the structure, integrity of the witnesses, present it today, and that we move forward today. Those are the things that I think should be a guideline or guardrails for the conversation today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ranga.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for being so thoroughly in his motion, because I totally support staff's recommendation and I totally accept the amendments, not amendments, but the enhancements that you've recommended as well. And it's in line with what what the people have voted for. I mean, we've been through this now for at least the four years that I've been here. And I know that this started back in 2008, 2006, around there when a different council was addressing this issue when it first came to light. So, I mean, we've been at this now going on ten years and we're almost at the end of the trail tonight. And I think that that's one of the opportunities that we have that that we can basically put it to play tonight so that the already the businesses that already have been licensed can continue to keep their doors open, continue business. It's true that this document is a living document. We can always come back and tweak it if we need to in regards to any necessary changes that we may need to make to comply with with current law. But we can't do that unless we get something in action on the table tonight. I'm totally supportive of Vice Mayor Richardson's motion, and I hope that my colleagues I know we're going to have a robust discussion coming up, but I hope that in the end that my colleagues will be supportive of passing the solution. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have some questions about local hire for Mr. Schultz. So there were in the presentation I received from the staff last week, there were criteria by which a local hire counted. And there was some discussion in the community that they felt that some of those requirements were because of our funding, which I know could not possibly be true, because you can't use real funding when you're discussing an item that's illegal at the federal level. So my question for you is, if the ordinance stated well, I guess we can talk about what it states today, you could hire up to 40% either low income or from a CDBG. Would you be comfortable supporting and lifting through that program? Because in the presentation I received, it was you had to be low income and from either a CDBG or a low level offender, which I think is with a 40% goal, a significantly more difficult measure to meet and a significantly more difficult monitor. And from what I understand, you are the monitor and your staff, even though funded through general fund, would have to be the one verifying all these components if A, then B and all these others. And I just don't see as an employer having to actually own the business before being able to use that kind of consideration in hiring.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Mongo before Mr. Schulz answers that, we'd like to take an opportunity to have Mr. Kelaher, Mr. Cleary, clarify the criteria that we're proposing relating to the question that you're asking. Wonderful.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Sure. So we view and recommended the policy because it does have a local hire component to it. The 25% or potentially 40% equity hire requirement is open to individuals who have lived previously in low or moderate income areas of the city. They don't currently have to live there. So it is open up to two other residents of Long Beach Community. And the second pathway that we created for applicants is for low income individuals with a prior cannabis arrest or low level cannabis conviction. And those residents could have lived anywhere in the city as well. So there is open opportunity in the city. But we also chose to target low and moderate income areas of the city, specifically for the higher requirement because of the nexus that it has to two prior cannabis arrests and the focus on low income areas in the city generally. So that's why we we chose to target low and moderate income census tracts through the program.
Speaker 4: So my desire would be low and moderate income census tracts or currently low income. Is that something you might be amenable to, vice mayor?
Speaker 2: My understanding is that we already have some flexibility. Let's have city staff try to clarify. I think there is a trigger if you're not of those first strikes and you meet other criteria. So let's just get a better understanding. So. AJ, would you mind clarifying that a little bit?
Speaker 7: Sure. So two responses, I guess. First, the, the, the first answer that I gave, which was that there is still a pathway for residents of the city that are not currently residents of lower mud census tracts. But also, I would want to discuss what some other cities have done to encourage local hire in addition to the equity hire requirement. So for example, the city of Los Angeles has a 30% equity hire requirement, but in addition, they have a 50% local hire requirement for cannabis businesses. That's not necessarily an equity component because it's not so much an equity policy as it is just a local hire policy. But the two can work in coordination with one another. Same thing with San Francisco. San Francisco has a 50% equity hire requirement. But as part of that, they also have a 30% local hire requirement. So it's possible to to still separate the two issues because as staff, we view them as as two separate issues. There's equity for low and moderate income individuals from particular geographies of the city. But then there's also local hire, which is not really part of the equity program. But if it's a priority of city council, they could include that as well. Separate, though, from the equity policy.
Speaker 4: I appreciate your answer, but it's not what I'm asking.
Speaker 2: Okay. Can I can I take a crack at it, please? Thank you. So currently, as the proposal was written, you in order to qualify, you have to be low income and. And from one of the longmont's census tracts. Right. Or low income. And have anywhere in the city or a previous resident of the city. And have a prior cannabis arrest record. That or incident that could have been that would have been charged as a misdemeanor prior to 2016.
Speaker 4: So so that is what I interpreted the briefing to have stated. But that is not what I've interpreted some of the dialog in the community and with my colleagues to be. So what I would like it to be is anyone who lives in Long Beach and is low income. If you lived in an area or don't live in an area, but you live at home with your parents who happen to live in an area that's no longer low income, then you're low income. We should be hiring you and we should be giving those great jobs to those individuals no matter where you live in the city . Another thing is we are looking to bring up the median income of the CDBG areas. So if you live in any of these areas, if you live in the first, the second, the sixth parts of the ninth and then the seventh. Any of those residents would, by being hired in a good job that pays a good wage with a 50 cent raise every six months, we would be able to increase the median income in those communities. And one of the things that Mayor Garcia raves about is how in some of the lowest income areas of our city, we've seen a $20,000 annual median income increase, and that's because we're putting people to work. And so I would like to state if Mr. Richardson's open to the friendly, you can be living anywhere in the city of Long Beach as a low income person, or you can live in a low income area as designated by the map that I've seen. That was during the briefing. And both of those would count towards the requirement to hit 40%.
Speaker 2: So a couple of things. One, I talked about the guardrail we want to keep today is making sure we don't you know, we maintain the integrity of the ordinance, so we keep the first reading. So my first question for city attorney. A change like that, is that a simple change or is that something requires going back to the first reading?
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor Richardson I think it depends. I'm trying to think of an easy way to do this, that we could do it simply by injury, linear. And I don't I could offer a suggestion. I'm not sure if it meets Councilwoman Mango's goal, but what we're talking about, if you have your ordinance in front of you, is on page 121 of the ordinance, and it is section 5.9, 2.152083. And that Section A3 A says the individual satisfies at least one of the following criteria. Small AA has lived in a Long Beach census tract for a minimum of three years, where at least 51% of the current residents have a household income at or below 80% of the Los Angeles County median income. We could make an easy change that I think we could accomplish tonight by striking the three year requirement. That would mean that we would take out the three year residency requirement and would read a person would qualify if they lived in along long census tract for a minimum excuse me, living along the census tract where at least 51% of the current residents have a household income at or below 80% of the Los Angeles County area median income. So that would be no matter where in the city and there would be no requirement. So someone could qualify tomorrow. That is something that we could do easily by intermediation, if that if that meets your goal.
Speaker 4: So what if someone is a low income resident but doesn't live in a census tract? And let me let me take a step back and address, Mr. Vice Mayor. RICHARDSON Yeah. One of the other things I'm asking for would actually make the first start date of operation September 1st. The difference between a first.
Speaker 2: Reading out of respect. If you can finish that, if you can finish the thought on the first, once we get clarity, city attorney wants to be very clear about every change and I certainly want to hear you, but I really want to close the loop so we get it.
Speaker 4: But I just wanted to. I just want to. Every idea is good and important, and I recognize there's a really big rush. My goal would be everyone has to pass it tonight. I've heard that at least 40 times in a week, at least from 40 different people, sometimes from the same person. And I do appreciate those of you who have met with me on this matter, because I know that we've had very good discussions. But my goal would be that we have adult use available in the city September 1st. The difference to me of August 10th and September 1st to get it right and to make sure that you guys aren't getting restrictions that are going to be so hamstrung that you actually are going to not want to or not be able to meet them. That would be worse off. And this from a person who feels so passionately about it and have met with the community so many times. And I have residents here who know I've had over 20 community meetings, many of which the dispensaries in my district have attended. My district knows I am willing to vote yes to get this passed for you to have adult use by September 1st. If the requirements are in place that protect the neighborhoods and make it possible that Long Beach residents get all these jobs. And so I'm trying to make it easier to hire Long Beach residents no matter where they live, if they're currently low income or can demonstrate they've been low income. Because I have Section eight renters in 90808 today, people who are on Section eight in 90808 today that need jobs. And so would I like you to hire someone from downtown to drive across the city to one of the six dispensaries in my district? No. Hire one of the nine a way to eight people. Who's on the section eight role? Alison has a list she can work with. Nick will give everyone a list of potentials. But under the current way that it's written, it's so restrictive. I can't just hand you guys a list of here's 70 residents that are all eligible that help you meet your 40%. So I appreciate that. And if we can just change the end to an order, I think that would hopefully be agreeable. I see you guys have finished conversing. Do you have an answer now?
Speaker 1: I'm Mr. Mais cricket. I'm wrong. But I think that the initial request that Councilman Mangal made, which was on the local hire piece, that is possible. And we'll still keep this a first reading, is that correct?
Speaker 3: If if we make if we remove the three three year requirement. But I don't think that meets what she is asking for. And I think what Councilwoman Mango is asking for, unless you could give me, you know, line and verse of what it is exactly we want to amend. We couldn't do that on the floor tonight. We could bring it back after we have a chance to rewrite it.
Speaker 2: Councilman Mango, if I can just interject here. So, number one, two things. So I don't disagree that if someone in Long Beach gets a job at a dispensary, that it's it's it's something that we should discourage. I don't disagree. Okay. However, two things. The guardrail we're talking about is sort of maintaining the integrity of the ordinance. There's the whole intention of calling out specific zip codes was to say 100%, you're going to hire 100% of people. You still have 60% of your workforce are still going to hire. That could all be from Long Beach. It says that you want to try to target either people who live in zip codes, who are, you know, zip codes, who traditionally face certain issues. The census, like these maps, were not created by city staff. They're consistent with federal CDBG maps. That's that's that's the intention there. I think we maintain the integrity there and there's and the order that you're looking for. So if someone has a record, they no matter where they live there, there it is included. The other parties we talked about. We're going to continually have to change this if we find that 40% or 25% is not feasible or that we have people that people you know, we have people that are looking to be like, I doubt someone's going to say, I'm not hiring you because you don't live in this census tract . It's not realistic that it's going to take at least six months for Pacific Gateway to work through this whole process. If city staff comes back in Pacific, we come back and says, there's a real problem. We're not high enough for fifth District residents. Then we'll make it. You know, we can make that change.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Let me just finish my thought. Let me just finish it. So what I would say is, if that's not something we can do tonight, I respectfully would ask, is that something that earns your support or is this something that you're at? Is it something that earned your support tonight?
Speaker 4: I think it depends. I have a few other items and I think that's the.
Speaker 2: Answer without a full understanding of the full picture what you're asking.
Speaker 4: And I'd also.
Speaker 2: Say I just have a list that I'm keeping. That's what I'll just do for now.
Speaker 4: And I would also say that the local hire passed by this council years ago, which has an annual report, has never met its goals and doesn't come back. And so it's easy to say that, but we're fighting 70 to 100 items a week right now, items where they're important and great and they take hours of our time and we it doesn't come back. So maybe. Let me ask Mr. Mayes another option. Mr. Mayes, if we pass the ordinance tonight, as it is, could we go to second reading on July 10th and bring an amendment on July 10th that would then be amended? Just the amendment things tonight to that ordinance on July ten, before a first reading of an ordinance amendment.
Speaker 3: Again, if it was the type of amendment that was small in nature, for instance, if you are changing an hour of operation from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., we could do it because that's an easy thing to do. But if we're making major changes to the structure of the ordinance and the public hasn't been notified of that, I would say we couldn't do it, but we would treat it as a first reading on July 10th and bring it back at the next council meeting the following week for a sec for first second reading.
Speaker 4: So maybe what we should be doing is working on an amendment that comes back on a different date so that all of those amendments could still be folded in before the August 10th versus September 1st open date. Because I feel like I'm going to get pushback on any item that I've discussed with anyone who has an opinion on this. If you are legally allowed to speak with so far because it has to make it the mark of it has to be the first reading tonight, which I just don't feel is reasonable. And it doesn't give an opportunity for a true dialog at the Council, which is what I expect of my colleagues. So I'm going to reserve the rest of my amendments here. What my colleagues have to say. I'm a Q up at the end.
Speaker 1: Councilman Price.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I did want to Mr. Mayes raised a good point that I don't think we covered in the motion that Vice Mayor Richardson made, and that's hours of operation. Is your proposal to change the current hours of operation? And if so, what's that proposal?
Speaker 2: Well, I so that was a piece that was presented here. And I'm happy to I'm happy to read it and get your feedback since you're cued up. So this specific bullet is and I'll read it, it is that section 5.92.915 be amended to permit dispensaries that operate to operate until 10 p.m. instead of 8 p.m., and that all deliveries must be completed before 10 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. up to seven days per week. Now my understanding from a city attorney an adjustment from 8:00 to 10:00 is not something that would trigger another first reading. So it's totally on the table for us to discuss.
Speaker 5: Okay, so that's one of the things I want to talk about. So I just have a few comments and I appreciate you clarifying that. So as everyone here knows, I've been one of the leading voices for proceeding with caution on this issue. Sometimes that's not been met with enthusiasm by voices in this council chamber and some that some times that opinion has not been met with respect from all sides. So I appreciate the course of the discussion that we're having tonight and the fact that the vice mayor has recognized that we represent a very diverse city with different interests , and that the mayor encourages everyone to be able to talk freely and honestly without intimidation and, you know, the unnecessary commentary, because it allows us to to all represent our constituents well. But I think prudence remains a great place to operate from when we're dealing with a new industry that's in the process of getting established with regulations . This industry remains ever evolving. And it's clear to me that despite the efforts that we've made to have regulations, we're going to have to make some tweaks along the way. And I'm grateful that we have a council and an industry who's open to that. It's also clear to me that the voters have voted and the will of the people has to be considered in combination with a desire to be prudent. I respect the voters and as their representative, we'll do what I can to balance their will with the possible impacts to effectuate a policy that will protect the quality of life concerns for my residents. I will be I have to say that I've. Been very pleased that we have not had a huge impact of illegal storefronts, although we have a great deal of illegal delivery operations in the city, which concerns me greatly that those businesses are not following the rules when it comes to health and safety. And the and most importantly, for me, as you all know, education measures, education measures for our youth education and for impaired driving, which has, in fact, gone up in Orange County. There's a 46% increase in drug impaired driving submissions to the Orange County crime lab since Proposition 64 was passed. It's absolutely something we need to be educating our communities about. And so I've always been concerned about the illegal dispensaries because they have no duty or responsibility to educate, they have no duty to invest in the community. And frankly, they have no duty to make sure the product that people are getting is safe. And to me, that is a huge, huge issue. So moving forward, I want to have discussions about some, you know, cracking down on the illegal delivery operations. Having said that, having said that, I'm incredibly pleased with the stores that have opened or intending to open in my district. The operators have been good communicators, responsive and very accommodating to our requests for quality of life impacts. Eliot Lewis is here. He's one. He's the first operator to operate in the third district.
Speaker 4: The first.
Speaker 5: Day the business opened. This is a this is exactly what I would wish for for any business operator in my city. And the fact that it was a marijuana business operator set a gold standard for everybody that's going to operate in the third district. Unfortunately, the standard is so high, and I'll tell you why. The night or two before the store opened, I reached out to Eliot. I said, Eliot, please, I don't want lines, hire extra bud, tenders or whatever it is you call them, but I don't want lines out the door. He he said, don't worry, we got it covered. He put the two security guards out there. They looked intimidating. They did not look like they belonged in Belmont Shore. I told them, I said, Can you put these guys in a polo shirt, give them some khakis? I want them to be more like a greeter, like the guy outside of McCarthy's than I want somebody to be like a security guard. And within a couple of hours, he had one guard inside, one guard outside. And the guy outside is so nice and so very diligent with the regulations. I don't think he would let me in there if I said, I'm the councilwoman. Can I come inside and see? He would say no, and I'm grateful for that. So I can honestly say that I've had we had another issue with a resident who walked by and said she smelled marijuana. We contacted Eliot, he checked his filters, fixed the problem issue, resolved immediately within 24 hours. I can honestly say I've had zero issues with the one dispensary that's operating in my district and nothing but very positive interactions with the future. Greg and the other dispensary operators who are coming into my district. So I'm very, very grateful for the partnership. They have given me a lot of peace of mind in regards to what we are to expect when recreational comes online. I have no reason to believe that they would operate any differently with recreational than they've been doing with medicinal, and that to me has meant a lot and above and beyond all of that. They have been really great partners with me in addressing my real concern, which has been the illegal dispensaries. They supported our efforts to crack down on shutting off utilities and fines in the thousands of dollars for illegal operators. That was really huge to me and I know it wasn't an easy thing for them to support because they may have colleagues operating illegally in the industry. I do have concerns about some of the the impacts to the specific communities that my dispensaries are in. As those dispensary operators know, a lot of the dispensaries are located in very, very close proximity to residences. And so for me, you know, I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: It's not about when people are going to buy the product, it's about the neighborhood impacts of operating the shop. At the time that we're operating the shop on Second Street, for example, we close most retailers close at 9 p.m.. So I'd like to make a friendly amendment that we extend the hours or reduce them from the proposed 10 to 9, and then we can come back once these stores have been operating for six months and see what the impacts have been and consider extending it at that time.
Speaker 2: Councilmember I think that's very fair. It's within in city Attorney That's within what keeps it a first reading and allows us to make this a productive meeting, correct?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Vice Mayor. Mayor Richardson, I just want to point out that what Vice Mayor Richardson just read into the record was not actually part of his motion.
Speaker 2: So you're part of my motion.
Speaker 3: It is part of your motion. Yes.
Speaker 2: And I'm accepting the friendly amendment from Councilwoman Price. And thank you for. Actually helping us to understand that context. I think it's fair what's proposed initially a staffer recommendation was eight. I proposed ten. You're asking nine? I think that's very meaningful. Thank you. It's accepted.
Speaker 3: So so just to be clear, we're going to have 9 p.m.. 9 p.m., yes. And what about delivery?
Speaker 2: Delivery till ten until 10:00?
Speaker 3: I love it. Ten storefronts. Nine.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes. When you do that. Yeah. The intent there is you'd rather someone be in their home until 10:00 rather than out, out until 10:00 to pursue it if they don't need to. Right. We want that flexibility at 10:00. So, yes.
Speaker 3: So that that would be an amendment to section 5.9, 2.915, and we'll make that change.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor, as far as the social equity piece of it, I agree that equity is important. I understand that I support doing everything we can to give all of the residents jobs in every industry that we can in the city. You know, I, I think we should be doing more to try to get people who have criminal records, job training and employment. I don't actually just talk the talk. I walk the walk every day at work when I approve offers for on cases and dispositions on cases of, you know, I did it today. I came off of a strike charge on a woman who was going to be deported because the strike charge would have affected her negatively. I understand the need to give people second chances. I wish we would be having these conversations.
Speaker 4: Just globally.
Speaker 5: Citywide about job opportunities and job placement, not just in the marijuana industry. But I understand it's relevant to the topic tonight. I like the idea of the Community Reinvestment Report and in requiring the businesses to outline the activities that they do. I also want to highlight that we do have a very diverse city. So while equity may be an important issue in some part of the city, youth education may be an important issue. In another part of the city, drivers impaired driver education may be an issue, public safety may be an issue. And I would hope that the partners that are working with us in our issues are talking, are in our districts, are talking about the impacts to that to the particular area that they're operating in and helping mitigate those concerns. And I look forward to working with the dispensary owners and my district to identify some of those community impacts and work together to mitigate them. So I will be supporting this item tonight, and I thank my colleagues for being involved in a very collaborative and respectful discussion, and I thank the audience for I think we've come a long way in terms of maturity and wisdom and so all of us. So I thank you guys for being partners. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Price. And just to clarify, also kind of where we're at, so we have a motion on the floor to approve the staff recommendation. There are two tweaks to that. The first is to take the 25% to a 40% goal, and the second is to move the hour of operations from 10 to 9 . That is a motion on the floor.
Speaker 3: There was mayor, there's third there is a third one. And that has to do with slightly changing the language to read that the first sentence of section 5.9, 2.1.
Speaker 1: I mean that's a that's technical, right?
Speaker 3: Well, it's what.
Speaker 1: Tell me if there's substantive change to that.
Speaker 3: Yet. It has to it has to do with describing the type of it report that is that that's fine.
Speaker 1: That's fine. That's pretty technical. Okay. Then the larger changes are around those two. So that is a motion on the floor as accepted so far by Vice Mayor Richardson had. Councilman Andrews.
Speaker 8: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm here. You know, I really cannot listen to what I've just heard. And I think that that's very commendable and both of you guys part. But I want to thank the staff, you know, for prepared this report and everyone has formed an opinion and brought it up, you know, to our council tonight. I think we need to pass something today because, you know, there are dozens of dispensaries that have followed the law in there and have been patient, you know, with us. And they have lost business because of the illegal dispensaries. You know, I feel strongly to reward the businesses that have followed, you know, the law thus far. And with that, you know, I think that if we discover that there are things that we need to fix, I think we can discover them down the line because to do trial and error, we must start somewhere. And this is why I really want to thank our councilman Rex and Mrs. Susan Price for at least getting us started in the right direction. And I think by doing that with my total recommendation, I definitely would like to get this started because I've never seen the dispensaries. You know, that we had come to the table and be so, you know, compassionate, honest. They've never had any. We've never had any picket outside. They came here with intent to say, look, I'm going to follow everything that the city has asked them. Now they've done that. Now it's time for us to reward them and do what the right thing. And I think that to do the things that we have in our both of our attention, I think that's the right thing to do. I want to thank Councilman Price and Susie for doing this. I mean. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 8: Vice Mayor Richardson.
Speaker 1: Thank you, too. Thank you very much, Councilmember Supernova.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And just to follow up on the mayor's synopsis, I'm not sure if you mentioned delivery til 10 p.m., but storefront still not delivered. Okay. Yes. I just had a question for staff and I'm moving forward on this. I just want to give them a chance to respond to the changes that are made. So, for instance, the 25% versus 40%, I assume there was some thought that went into the 25%. So here's your opportunity. If you'd like to tell us what might be problematic in going to 40% or it's no. Are there any issues, impediments to go this way?
Speaker 7: We don't view any impediments. Other cities have gone higher. Los Angeles is at 30% equity higher. San Francisco is at 50% equity higher. We're splitting the difference. We have a good faith requirement as part of it. So we have the flexibility to work with businesses to achieve that goal. And we have a built in window of a year for businesses to hit that that target. So we think it's something we could work with.
Speaker 2: Okay. And just where where do the 25% come from? Was that best practices elsewhere or how did you arrive at that number?
Speaker 7: We looked at we did a projection of the number of jobs that the industry could create. We compare that to the economic demographic data for the targeted areas. We also found a telling statistic with the Census Bureau that found that 25% of jobs in Long Beach are held by Long Beach residents. So we felt that since we were targeting a subset of the Long Beach population, that that was a realistic goal to aim for. But it's an art. It's not a science. And I think that 40% is reasonable.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. The other question I have would be on those delivery hours till 10 p.m.. What recourse would we have? Should neighbors complain about noise? We've had we've had issues with grocery delivery at that hour. So maybe the city attorney can weigh in and that what are our options moving forward?
Speaker 3: So if we do allow 10 p.m. deliveries and it proves to be a problem. The recourse really would be to bring the matter back and change the delivery hour to an earlier hour that might be more compatible with the neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 4: Yes. I want to first say how much I appreciate staff's work on this. I know putting together an equity policy for a new industry in 180 days wasn't easy. So I want to applaud you guys for your efforts. I'm really glad I waited too, to speak. It was really great to hear my colleagues speak tonight, and I'm fully in support of the motion on the floor. I think that it shows leadership on this council's part. It shows growth and how far we've come to be able to tackle some of the difficult issues. I do have a couple of things that I wanted to just mention. There's no changes I want to make on the floor, but there are some substantive issues I just want to bring up quickly. One in the local hire piece and the social equity 40% number. I do agree with Councilmember Mongo on the challenges with getting to that number. And so I want to encourage staff. I've already brought it up with our assistant city manager and AJ. Some of my concerns on this issue. And so I hope that in 6 to 9 months we can get a report on how we're doing. My hope and I know the city prosecutor's not here tonight, but out of everybody that can ID who has a low level offense in the city of Long Beach, a low level marijuana offense. Possibly we could get them to do some outreach first and direct them to the program. I know that we can't share that information across departments, but hopefully we can think creatively about how we ensure that that pipeline is strong so that we do meet those goals and that idea around working with our housing authority as well with Section eight. Anything we can do to help support making sure we have that creative opportunity. I know that we're also working on, you know, an apprenticeship program and that we have to really understand as a city we're bringing on an entire industry that has been underground, but that if we've got a J if you could answer for me the question because I don't have the presentation in front of me, how many doors are open, whether it's grow manufacturing or retail, and how many are in the queue right now?
Speaker 8: This could have went real bad, real south.
Speaker 7: Other people answered it for me. 12 businesses licensed and 259 are currently in the process to obtain a license.
Speaker 4: And that to me is probably. I think that you guys have done a great job in creating this policy and creating a vision for where we want to be as a city. But that's really hard. That's I don't want to use the word embarrassing, but we have said for the last year and a half how important it is to follow through on the will of the voters. And I know I had a long conversation with with Lynda Tatum around what are we doing? And I'm not going to insert that into this policy. But my hope is that as we move forward with the budget, we're looking at what are we doing and development services to make sure that not only is it a priority, but if we are generating taxes, we need to understand, we need to put money upfront to be able to open up those doors and that waiting for those tax money to come in is not going to happen unless the doors are open. And so we really need, if we're going to move forward with this, to do anything we can to ensure those doors are open. Because these are small businesses that have been waiting for nine years. They have been waiting and they've been investing their life savings sometimes to do this and every month does go by. It is something that taxes them. And so I wanted to go on record, but the two things that are important to me moving forward is voting on the measure, on the motion, on the floor, making sure that there's a strong pipeline and that we're working with all departments that possibly can help us meet that goal, that we're not just putting the goal out there. And that, too, we are doing whatever we can in our Development Services Department to make sure that we're identifying staff, whether it's an ombudsman kind of proposal or having somebody that is making sure that we don't have six months after somebody puts in a proposal until they get something back and then they have to go back to the drawing board. So that that was what I wanted to say. And I really appreciate, again, this council's leadership and everybody's efforts and all the businesses for believing that Long Beach was the right place to open your business and sticking it out with us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 4: So two of the other issues that I had are I feel like there are nine dispensaries that have put their neck out there, five of which have been open since March and have paid for employees, gone through the process is really spent the time to help the city know and understand the ordinance. And I believe that the dispensaries that have not opened yet have been waiting in the wings for all of you to do their work for them should have that same kind of grieving period when when you talk about the story that Councilman Price has had, where issues come up and a dispensary responds, well, they should be rewarded . And we also need a similar time period where if a dispensary violates that, they would give up their ability to get an adult use permit. And so something that I had discussed extensively and I really had felt was important to our community was that a dispensary should have to be open as a medical dispensary before being able to open as an adult use. So. What that would mean is if we made it a six month limit that you had to be open for six months before being able to open as an adult, use that September one, which this ordinance would be effective August 10th. At this point, if there's a substantial change, that new substantial change should I have to introduce it at a future meeting would be effective August 17th instead of the 10th. I know that sounds life changing to some people, but I really feel strongly that for those of you who've made the investment, who've hired the staff, I've talked to some of you, some of you have 80% Long Beach employees. That's phenomenal. For those of you who have suffered through the 30 to 40 to 50 patients a day because you are only medical, I can only hope that you would want to be supportive, that each different business that is your competitor and your partner would go through that same kind of six month process where they would be evaluated by their community. There are lots of impacts of dispensaries. There are significantly less impacts of a medical dispensary. The number of customers of day of a medical dispensary is far less than a coffee shop. But the number of customers per day to an adult use facility is significantly more than a coffee shop. And so what you're talking about on these impacts to the community and the ability for a community to adjust is very, very important. And so I would like to know what options Mr. Richardson would be open to in allowing those of our partners who are sitting here today, the green room connected Stone Age one, love the station. All of you have been open for six months and you have a track record of no violations. And so my hope would be that the five of you could open September 1st and then on a rolling basis after the dispensary has been open for six months, that others would be able to join that lead. And so I think that it's really important for that demonstrated success and proving to the community that you're a good partner. We've also had and many of you may or may not know we've had violators of our medicals, some of which you have locked the doors on our enforcement. And so we need that six months to be able to either walk through a process where there's a corrective action and you make those changes or you get violated , you lose your license and it goes up to auction to one of the others of you that have already been good partners. And I would love to see a program where current Long Beach businesses who don't have violations get first stab at any license that's violated by somewhere.
Speaker 2: The question was, would you mind narrowing the question a bit?
Speaker 4: The question is, would you be open to a friendly that requires a dispensary to be open as a medical use for six months before being able to operate as a adult use?
Speaker 2: I'm not open to that at this point. I owe you more of an explanation. I'm happy to explain. My thought is if there's all. It's already taken a long time to get just throws open and once recreational happens. What I don't want to see is lines of people lined up outside of dispensaries because they have a six month delay. I mean, there's going to be I mean, we need to be prepared. What we have in front of us is already complex enough. There's two tiers right now. People who are in the pipeline, people who are not. That would create a third tier of people, open people in the pipeline, people who are not in the pipeline. It will really confuse this process. I do understand the merit of where you're going, and I don't want to dismiss that. My response was a little short, but that is why I believe that if we do see a problem as we move forward, the council owns this ordinance, we can move forward and make changes. But that is a that changes the structure a little too much, in my opinion. That's my justification.
Speaker 4: If it was able to be included as a first reading tonight, would you be okay with that?
Speaker 2: I don't believe that it can. But if it could, I look to the city city I look to the city attorney on whether that's even. Mr.. Mr.. MAYS. Is that a minor change or a significant change to the structure of the ordinance?
Speaker 3: It would be a significant change to. It's not something that I would feel comfortable doing with. I question on the floor. It's certainly a policy change that we can make. But we couldn't make it this evening.
Speaker 2: Could I think maybe we can work? There's nothing that stops us from coming back, working together on changes. Once we evaluate what this process looks like, and I'm sure that there will be changes to this ordinance. So I want you to just know this is this is going to be an ongoing process. And we and it seems like from the majority of the council members that have gotten there, the integrity of the ordinance that staff has presented for the most part has gotten positive responses. And that would be a dramatic change in terms of the ordinance. I just don't think that that's something I hope to.
Speaker 4: Well, my district has more dispensaries than 50% of what's open today, and my residents have had several community meetings, and this is very important to them. And so I've brought up two items that are important to the residents. I've had more community meetings probably than any other council member on these items, and I feel as though when I discuss this with city staff that we should have been put in a position where an item was come into the agenda, where we could have had more flexibility. And so I really want to be supportive of this item tonight, and I will again thank those of the dispensaries who have spoken to me. If you're a dispensary that's in my district and you're giving me opinions tonight, shame on you that you didn't call your councilmember before that because I have six in my district. Six and not all of you. Actually, less than half of you have reached out. And quite honestly, most of the reach out have been from the dispensaries in the other districts. I really appreciate many of you that are open and have made those efforts and I feel that those of the dispensaries that are in my district that have come to community meetings, I feel that you've heard the voices of the neighbors who feel very strongly about a performance period. And so we will work and see what we can do to find a way to make that happen.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And lastly, we have Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 5: Yes, this was a really great discussion. I'm also glad that I sort of waited in the wings and listened to what happened today. It has been a long, long road for so many of all of us, on many very various sides. And I'm just glad that we're here today talking about this. And I do believe, you know, we certainly have to move this forward as well. I, I understand, you know, and in my district, overwhelmingly supportive of recreational marijuana. But on top of that, we do have some things that absolutely we have to think about. And I know that these are included in the ordinance. And I really appreciate the very thorough ordinance that includes all of the details. It seems like no detail was left out, which I truly appreciate, that it was very mindful and it was with the approach that, you know, working with business, working with the UFC, working with all of the players. Of course, I'll just reiterate, I know it's been discussed many times over various years on the city council, even city councils prior. But of course, major education on the do's and don'ts of where you can and cannot smoke. I have a lot of residents who constantly complain and all of this is aside from the ordinance, but just constantly complain about smoke in their home. And I know that that is a major quality of life issue for a lot of individuals. And so thinking about ways that we can do some pieces around that to make it more of a robust discussion and also maybe working with a property owners and apartment association to be able to include those types of messages for those for that issue. And then the same as Councilwoman Price, the illegal deliveries and the. Eagle storefronts. I know we're still battling that, and it absolutely compromises the competition that our legal dispensaries and legal deliveries are currently going through in that we need to just nix right away in any way, any way, shape or form. And I am going to keep belaboring that issue. But, you know, it's a big deal. And then lastly, I really appreciate that. Well, it's state mandated, but, you know, I know that just being able to the product packaging and advertising for youth, I think we see that a lot in the vapor side of things. But being able to really do something very creative here locally because we do have a lot of youth, especially now, as I mentioned, with vaping and all of that. I have a 17 year old at home and just the thought of him picking up something and thinking it's, I don't know what and it's bubblegum and it's packaged , you know, for kids and youth and directed towards that. So with all that said, those are like my three main things that I think I've heard a lot about just being a mom, but also just representing a lot of parents myself I wanted to make sure we brought forward. But again, I look forward to seeing this through. It's going to be a big benefit for us and we'll see what that looks like in terms of tax revenue and the return on investment for the city and where that will lead. So thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. With that members, we have a motion in front of us that by Benjamin Richardson and customary Ringo. Please cast your votes. Well, Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: I thought I would make one last plea to the vice mayor. Okay. Mr. Vice Mayor, do you understand that I have more. You and I have the most dispensaries of all city. You and I combine four more dispensaries and 70% of the sale. What about an item that allows for home delivery immediately? Ready? One. But you have to be open as a store front for six months before you can sell at the storefront.
Speaker 2: Home delivery is already very active in our city today.
Speaker 4: But I'm talking about adult use home delivery by my by authorized dispensaries.
Speaker 2: How are you going to police that? It is a large, broad conversation.
Speaker 4: Look, I know our dispensaries are choosing not to do home delivery of adult use because they don't want to violate. We'd be opening that door for them.
Speaker 2: Has this proposal been vetted by staff? Have you talked to the city attorney? Have you talked with the industry? Has been has been because none of every proposal that's come up has been sort of developed through the process. Know what I don't want to do is deviate too far from the integrity of the ordinance.
Speaker 4: I have discussed, as with city attorney, he said it would be more substantial than originally expected. I discussed several of these things with city staff a week ago, none of which was folded in because it was bifurcated, but it was important to the community. I have met with members of the industry and there is just a huge community impact and it is completely disrespectful to the community that some of the dispensaries that are not open yet are waiting in the wings until the day adult use is available and then they're just going to open up and steal a lot of customers from. Some of you have been up in open for a long time. You should have first rate to the market and first rate to those individuals.
Speaker 2: Thank you. But I'm not interested in that that amendment.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Support this motion and I'm looking forward to moving forward. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 0: He. Motion carries. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We're going to take. Next. We're going to. We have believe it or not, we still have two items that have been requested to be moved up. And so where do those next? One is on suicide prevention and the other is a report on fireworks. So those are gonna be the next two items. We're taking a one minute recess. I want to get to those items and then the regular agenda.
Speaker 2: And then the regular.
Speaker 1: €133 compensation.
Speaker 4: Everything is important. But first of all, you're going to have nine open. Oh. And the what?
Speaker 3: You know. They did.
Speaker 4: But they did not meet any other goals. I wrote about it the other day. They're like, You don't require they do anything. And if they don't, they don't do anything because it wasn't God, it was a CFS.
Speaker 1: Oh. I can have everyone grab a seat, please. And. If you're chatting, please exit the council chambers.
Speaker 3: Okay? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, everyone.
Speaker 4: Everyone should.
Speaker 1: Madam Kirk, can you please take a role for Councilwoman Gonzalez?
Speaker 0: Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember. Super. Now here. Councilwoman Mongo here. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Arango. Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. Mayor Garcia.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And again, we still have two items before we hit the regular agenda. So I want to get through those. We're going to do a suicide prevention plan and then we have a fireworks report. And from what I understand, there's also a fire. Report from staff that it's I think we're going to do them at the same time, but two different items. Okay. So let's go ahead and do the suicide prevention plan.
Speaker 0: Communication from Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Price, Councilmember Super Non recommendation to request city manager to work with Department of Health and Human Services and Long Beach Police Department and report back to council in the next 30 days.
Adopt resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program.  (Citywide)