A new draft ordinance will be expected to outline a phased-in approach, which would allow a limited number of marijuana businesses to operate only home-delivery services before they will be approved to open physical storefront locations.
On Dec. 8, the council voted 5-4 to request the city attorney’s office to deliver a new draft ordinance that emphasizes that phasing-in process. Councilmembers Lena Gonzalez, Suzie Price, Daryl Supernaw, Stacy Mungo and Al Austin voted to approve the motion. Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal and councilmembers Dee Andrews, Roberto Uranga and Rex Richardson were the dissenting votes.
Councilmember Price offered this latest motion, which was seconded by Austin.
Under this draft ordinance, only four businesses could offer medical cannabis to be delivered at a residence at first, but they would not be allowed to operate a storefront location yet.
The timing of when the first delivery-only business will open affects how quickly brick-and-mortar stores could be opened. According to the motion, six months after the first business opens, the city staff will be expected to report on the amount the City collected in tax revenues. Staff will also determine the fiscal impact to the City (including enforcement) and note issues concerning public safety. The council will only then consider allowing those four initial businesses to open storefront locations at that time.
[aesop_image imgwidth=”500px” img=”http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Marijuana2.jpg” align=”left” lightbox=”on” caption=”The Long Beach City Council voted 5-4 on Dec. 8 in favor of requesting a new draft ordinance to regulate medical cannabis sales. The new draft is expected to outline a phased-in approach, which would allow a limited number of marijuana businesses to operate only home-delivery services before they will be approved to open physical storefront locations.” captionposition=”left”] The motion states that “six months after the first storefront is operational, council will consider adding up to three additional storefronts, for a total of seven [businesses].”
The motion specifically noted that the City will not allow any more than one business per council district. It also requires that the city attorney’s office prepare regulations for cultivation, but those specific regulations could only be implemented “after the city council determines that a storefront facility is appropriate in the city.”
City leaders have struggled through years of debating and developing an ordinance. They even organized a lottery to select businesses that could operate a dispensary legally. A previous council a few years ago decided to ban dispensaries altogether after one court determined that the municipal code conflicted with parts of the federal law.
Prior to last week’s council meeting, the council had requested in September that the city attorney’s office develop a draft ordinance that would allow nine operations, with no more than one dispensary per district.
In a phone interview, Price explained why she had opted to recommend that only seven storefront locations could be eventually allowed to operate in the city, provided that the businesses turn out to be compliant operators and there are no other issues.
“Well, right now we’re speculating what the need is going to be, what the demand is going to be,” Price said. She explained that the process will take some time for the operators to go through the conditional-use permit (CUP) process and then open a delivery service. Price estimated that obtaining the CUP process itself could take about a year. She noted that after six months of the first store becoming operational, the staff will look at the impact that these businesses will have on the community and report on the tax revenues that will be collected.
“While we’re figuring that out,” she added, “any patient who needs it will have the substance delivered to their front door. So, unless you have a financial interest in an actual brick-and-mortar location, you cannot quarrel with that prudent approach.”
In a phone interview, one 3rd-district resident and business leader expressed concerns with safety, especially since these businesses operate on a cash basis.
“The biggest issue in my mind is the danger that [a medical marijuana business] creates by not being able to do anything with the cash problem that it causes,” Lee Vieira said. “And it becomes a liability for the owners that run the place, for police that have to deal with the repercussions of that.”
Vieira also serves as the president of the East Anaheim Street Business Alliance and vice president of the Park Estates Homeowners Association.
Public safety was also on the mind of Adam Hijazi, a spokesman for the Long Beach Collective Association and a medical marijuana advocate. He criticized Price’s new proposal, adding that patients couldn’t distinguish between delivery services that are legal and operations that are working illegally.
“I think there will still be a significant public-safety issue,” Hijazi said in a phone interview. He estimated that there are already about 40 to 50 delivery services already operating in the city.
“The delivery system did not address regulation the way it’s intended,” he added.
Larry King, another medical cannabis advocate and former operator of a dispensary in Long Beach, criticized the ability of the police to shut down illegal operators of delivery services. He noted that the police could close storefronts if they are not located in the approved zones or if they don’t have conditional-use permits, however, he noted that with delivery services, drivers don’t usually carry more than what a patient is allowed to possess legally, which he said is about half a pound.
“They’re going to have a much harder time closing these people down, or even catching them,” he said. “They’re on the move.”
Assistant City Attorney Michael Mais was asked when his office would return to the council with a new revised ordinance.
“There is no specific time line for bringing it back,” he said in an email to the Signal Tribune, “and we will not bring it back until we are sure it adequately reflects last week’s motion and is protective of the public and the medical-marijuana patients who will be receiving deliveries at their homes and residences.”
