(Dec. 9, 2015) -- As seen LIVE, the City Council voted 5-4 (Yes: Gonzalez, Price, Supernaw, Mungo, Austin; No: Lowenthal, Andrews, Uranga, Richardson) at its Dec. 8 meeting to approve a substitute motion by Councilwoman Suzie Price that would allow four home-delivery medical marijuana businesses to establish -- with no on-site sales or storefronts for the first six months. Six months thereafter, city management would report back to Council on tax revenues collected and enforcement costs and at that time Council would consider whether to add four storefront locations aligned with same operator(s) of home delivery businesses. Six months after the first storefront begins, Council will consider whether or not to add three additional storefront locations for a total of seven citywide (with a maximum of one per Council district.)

Price's substitute motion derailed a main motion by Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal which relied on the Council's previous voted approval (6-3, Price, Mungo, Austin dissenting) on Sept. 22 of ordinance elements that included nine storefront operations (cultivation, sales or both) with one per Council district (Lowenthal underscored the latter point on Dec. 8.) During Council colloquy, 6th district Councilman Dee Andrews (who had seconded Lowenthal's motion) indicated that he favored allowing two dispensaries per Council district.

The Price substitute motion's provisions will now return to the Council for a new first reading vote in a week or so (when a Council could potentially make tweaks), with a second vote needed for enactment.

[Scroll down for further.]

In advocating her substitute, cited a city management memo -- sent to the Mayor and Councilmembers, an inside-City Hall procedure called "to-from-for" -- on the fiscal impacts of the Sept. 22 Council directive (up to nine storefront locations citywide.) Management's fiscal impact memo forecast that under the best case, tax revenue and fees for the nine storefront ordinance would be flat in offsetting enforcement costs. In a series of courtroom friendly-witness-style questions by Price, Police Chief Luna said the storefront locations would pull officers away from other duties (including security, Price noted.) In similar colloquy, city staff said it plans to reduce enforcement costs by using what Ass't City Manager Tom Modica called a "team" approach that wouldn't use police and would use other staffers (potentially less effective than using police, Price said.)

Price hammered away at the fiscal impacts and crime (effectively taking a position consistent with city management concerns), noting that the net effect of allowing up to nine storefronts would consume budget sums that could otherwise be used for items including infrastructure...and pointedly said that crime had increased in (her phrase) West Long Beach. Does anyone think this is a prudent approach, Price asked rhetorically.

Advertisement

Advertisement

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, in early September the state legislature passed and Governor Brown signed into law legislation creating the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act" that creates a comprehensive statewide regulatory framework for cultivating, testing, distributing and taxing transactions involving medical cannabis and its related products. The statewide ordinance gives cities the choice of whether to ban or allow medical marijuana outlets within their city limits. Some cities, including Lakewood, are preparing to disallow cultivation.

After LB's first medical marijuana ordinance was stricken, the Council adopted a flat ban (which continues for now) on the outlets.

Earlier this year, LB City Manager Pat West and LBPD Police Chief Robert Luna publicly advised/cautioned/warned the Council of what they say will be fiscal costs and public safety resource issues if the Council were to lift LB's current ban and enact a new LB medpot ordinance.

Scroll down for further

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Currently, a number of statewide petition initiatives are gathering signatures; if they qualify for the ballot, CA voters would decide in 2016 whether to allow recreational -- not just medicinal -- use of cannabis statewide...much as Colorado voters did.

And some medical marijuana advocates have indicated they plan to challenge the new legislation in court (assuming it becomes law.) The American Medical Marijuana Association has indicated it plans to challenge the legislation on grounds it attempts to modify voter-enacted Prop 215 with a measure enacted by the state legislature (not allowed under the CA constitution.)

Marijuana remains a designated [by Congress] as a federal Class 1 controlled drug...although the Obama administration's Justice Dept. has said it won't enforce some federal laws as long as they're consistent with state medical marijuana provisions and meet other DOJ requirements. That may or may not change under a different administration...especially if a Repub is elected president.,,which could put state laws on skakey ground unless Congress acts.

A previous LB City Council voted years ago to add a section to the City's federal legislative agenda [policies the City is supposed to be supporting/advocating] to "Support legislation to classify medical marijuana as a recognized pharmaceutical medication dispensed through pharmacies." Such action would involve legislative action in Congress.

Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D, Long Beach-West OC) has supported some legislation supportive of medical marijuana dispensaries, but to date we are unaware of any House legislation authored or supported by him (or by Cong. Janice Hahn (D, LA Harbor/southbay) that would do what the City's legislative agenda seeks. However a bill introduced in March 2015 in the U.S. Senate by Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ), joined by co-sponsors Sen. Rand Paul (R, KY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) -- S 683 -- would downgrade marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 of the Controlled Substances Act. Since then, 12 co-sponsors have been added to the three originating Senators including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA.)