The City Council passed a first reading Tuesday of the medical marijuana ordinance that will eliminate about a dozen more collectives by adding a buffer zone for parks after several different substitutes and amendments were turned away.
The council passed the following rules:
• Collectives will not be allowed to exist within 1,000 feet of parks (in addition to the 1,000-foot restriction to elementary and middle schools, 1,500 feet from high schools and 1,000 feet from other collectives). However, beaches were stricken from the definition of parks for the purposes of this ordinance.
• There will be a 45-day public comment period regarding the propriety of issuing a permit for a particular location. There will be a City Council hearing within 60 days after the 45-public hearing period.
• Each approved collective will need to install and maintain video surveillance equipment that will allow the police department to monitor the exterior grounds for the purpose of looking into criminal and nuisance activity.
• Collectives will be allowed to operate only between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.
• Each collective will be required to submit an annual audited report prepared by a CPA that will detail statements including revenue, operational costs and expenditures.
• There will be a one-year moratorium on accepting any new applications starting immediately.
The original law had been enacted in the late summer, eliminating many of an estimated 90-plus existing collectives through an application and lottery process. After the lottery, the number of potential collectives was reduced to 32.
Then in early November, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske and Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell introduced an agenda item for further restrictions. The council decided to enact the park buffers. It was believed at the time that an additional nine collectives would be eliminated with the newer restrictions added.
For much of the meeting, the debate centered on three issues: Whether patients’ rights were violated with further security camera measures, if collectives eliminated by newer restrictions should receive a 60-day relocation period and whether the council should go further and enact rules that would restrict the number of collectives to two per district.
Eighth District Councilwoman Rae Gabelich said she was concerned with requiring collectives to have a “live tape” setup for the Long Beach Police Department to use at all times. Several people in the public comment portion of the item echoed her sentiments.
“Is it (this kind of measure) going to be at a CVS or Walgreens?” asked Christina Roberts, a First District resident and U.S. Army veteran.
Seventh District Councilman James Johnson remained adamant that the council vote to cap the number of collectives to a maximum of two per district. He pointed out that as the buffer zones stand right now, that his and other districts in north Long Beach have a much larger number of collectives. He said he wanted a “more equitable distribution” so that no district was overburdened, and that patients would have equal access all over the city.
Ninth District Councilman Steven Neal made a motion to adopt the further restrictions, but to allow those displaced a relocation period of 60 days — and to remove beaches from the parks definition for this specific ordinance. That motion passed 5-4.
However, during the council’s vote to impose the one-year moratorium, it appeared as though Schipske had a change of heart. She asked the council to reconsider the vote that had passed 5-4. She then changed her vote and the measure failed 5-4 (Schipske, O’Donnell, Johnson, DeLong and Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal voted against).
Earlier, the council voted 7-2 (Johnson, O’Donnell dissenting) against Johnson’s request for a maximum collective cap of two.
The council passed its final ordinance 6-3 (Johnson, Gabelich and Sixth District Councilman Dee Andrews dissenting).
The new restrictions could open the city up to more lawsuits from collectives. Attorney Richard Brizendine warned the council that nine collectives already had approached him about potential litigation against the city.
Lobbyist Carl Kemp, who said he was representing four collectives, pleaded with the council to at least allow for the 60-day relocation amendment to pass.
“You have to let people relocate if you change the rules (further),” he said.
The council still must pass the ordinance change on a second reading before it goes into effect.
Source: Gazettes
Posts
