Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The Planning Commission. Today is 02/03/2025, and it is 06:30. I'd like to call the meeting to to order. May I have a roll call please?

Commissioner Light, Commissioner Boswell, Commissioner Craig? Present. Commissioner Gattis? Present. Commissioner Conroy? Present. Commissioner Hazeltine?

Here.

Chairperson Lamb? Here.

Pledge. Thank you. We will now have the salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it

stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. Okay, next we will approve the order of agenda.

I move to approve the order of agenda. Second.

Toss-up here. So, Commissioner Gattis has, made the motion. Commissioner Hazeltine has second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, blue folder items. Are there any blue folder items for this meeting? Blue folder items are additional backup materials to administrative reports and or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet.

We have one blue folder item for J1.

There a motion to receive and file?

Items.

A second.

So Commissioner Gaddis has made the motion. Commissioner Hazeltine has made the second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda is the consent calendar. These are business items except those formally noticed for the public hearing or discussion and they are assigned to the consent calendar. The Commission members may request that any consent calendar item be removed, discussed, or acted upon separately. Items removed from the consent calendar will be taken up under the excluded consent calendar section below.

Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar as is, which is essentially approve the affidavit of posting for the Planning Commission.

Motion to approve the consent calendar as is. Second.

So Commissioner Gattis has made the motion. Commissioner Conroy has made the second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Now we are here at H, public participation on non agenda items. This section is intended to provide members of the public with the opportunity to comment on any subject that does not appear on the agenda for action. This section is limited to thirty minutes, and each speaker will be afforded three minutes to address the Commission. Each speaker will be permitted to speak for three minutes and only once.

Is there anyone in the audience here who would like to speak on non agenda items? Jim, you had said J1, but here

I have one for H.

And you have one for H. Oh, see. Okay.

Jim Mueller, District five. Planning Commission implies you all are about the future. Here's the future of North Redondo. More and more multifamily, population density, more higher income, and well educated consumers. And most importantly, more well educated voters in District 34, And 5.

Preservation is now at the top of the Redondo Beach agenda. One of the biggest battles in Redondo Beach political history was fought to preserve the Esplanade, the Riviera, and the harbor from development and modernization. The battle continues today. The AES property, for example, sits like it always has been. The most outspoken council person currently represents District 1 backed up by District 2. District 34, and 5 representatives, council people, North Redondo are for now relatively quiet. Will the March election change that? Not this time. All the current mayoral candidates are from District 1. Three are outspoken Esplanade preservationists.

Three people are running for the District 1 Council seat, while in North Redondo's District 4, the incumbent is virtually unopposed, and last time the District 5 was unopposed. The new planning director is very experienced in enclave preservation, having come from Carmel and Laguna. But planning is about the future. For every 60s North Redondo single family bungalow getting scraped, three unit condos with six young people who can afford a million dollar home move in. If you put your ear to the ground, you can, as Bob Dylan might say, hear a train rumbling toward City Hall, and it's loaded with new North voters who don't want dope shops like this, for example, or this.

They don't want hangout bars, tattoo dens, hard liquor stores, or massage parlors on their main street, Artesia Boulevard. They'll wonder why the city allows big empty lots like 2017 Artesia and rundown stores being squatted on for years by absentee owners paying reduced property taxes, supporting low volume and low value businesses. They'll see the Galleria for what it is, an empty dead hulk only good for storing inventory. When those new voters get themselves informed and that train full of them arrives, the little Band Aids for North Redondo, like the FAR and the Beautification, are going to be ripped off and the carefully preserved ground is going to be shaken real hard. So here's the question for you planners.

Looking to that future, will a general plan be enough and come soon enough to assuage those new voters on that train?

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Thank you, Jim. Anyone else like to speak? Yes. And please state your name.

Hi, my name is Sandy Anlu, and he's a tough one to follow. I'm new at this. I'm new to North Redondo Beach, but I'm not a new homeowner. I've owned my property since the early '90s. I'm a block away from Artesia. And I moved from Hermosa. Lived in Hermosa for thirty years. I was a business owner for thirty years. And now that I'm in North Redondo, I am missing the community. I'm missing that feel of community.

I'm missing a place to go eat. I'm missing a place to go shop. I've also been a business owner. Those business owners are struggling. They need help. They need the streets to be cleaned. I don't feel safe. I can't imagine they feel safe. I've considered opening a business there myself but I too don't want to be surrounded by smoke shops. I don't want to be surrounded by liquor stores, fast food stores.

All I'm saying is yes, let's have a few but do we have to have them all on one block? I want a place to take my visitors just to walk. There's so many communities. I have the skinny three ones across from me. I have a cottage still.

But there's a lot of people, there's a lot of families and there's not a place to go to feel safe and take a nice stroll in that area. I hope that the planners and the art commission can do something to bring a little charm to it. I've been to the planning commission the cultural arts commission, I guess you call it. And apparently there's a grant. I'm hoping that everybody can work together to make it a more charming beautiful place.

I mean we all spend a lot of money in our taxes to live here and we can do better. I really think we can do better. Hermosa was able to pull it together. I think we can do better. Thank you.

Thank you for speaking. And with active community members, I believe we'll be able to move forward. Thank you.

If I could say one more thing just since you brought it up. The general plan, there are a lot of really good that the Planning Commission put in there and the City Council I believe also did. I think it went through the City Council, the general plan, and then it needs to be voted on. That works specifically on Artesia and beautifying it and all of that. So we actually did a lot of work. The planning department did. And it was in front of us. Everything takes too long.

I mean I'm just worried about whatever

City Council works on that kind of stuff when it finally gets to them and they make that decision.

Stay involved. Yeah.

Hi, planning commissioners. My name is Eugene Solomon. I'm a resident of Redondo Beach. I would say that it is a really difficult balance for us here in the city, balancing private property and how it's zoned such as the AES site, the 51 acres that is zoned a park with a conditional use permit. Private property that any significant changes to would have to go to a vote of the people.

Difficult with regard to places like the South Bay Social District, private property that has been brought before the Planning Commission, your successors and your predecessors, for development. Lots of development has been approved here. And unfortunately in a difficult economic environment, those plans have been stalled, something that the city does as much as they can to move forward, such as granting additional residential units as you've done here at the request of the ownership. Difficult for all the private property that's owned on Artesia Boulevard, all the vacant storefronts, and to whom those private property owners decide to lease their properties to. If a person decides to lease a property to a smoke shop, then that's their prerogative until the city acts otherwise, which the city council has been taking up.

Thought it was a great idea. You've seen a gentleman come down here from the NRBBA and suggest creating a bid, a business improvement district for Riviera excuse me, for Artesia Boulevard, which is great. The NRBBA has tried to do that before but wasn't able to build consensus along Artija Boulevard with all the disparate property owners. It does take time. It takes a lot of raindrops to make a flood.

And there have been a

lot of little raindrops that have happened in the city and continue to happen. When you have private property owned by reluctant or uncooperative property owners or a marketplace that makes it difficult for those property owners to develop their properties. There are some things the city can do to encourage that, such as muralizing, such as increasing the FAR, such as doing many of the things that you've done here, and we've seen at City Council. I understand and appreciate the frustrations that a lot of the residents are feeling, understanding that those are private properties and we can encourage people to develop those. We can provide lots of tools for them to develop those, but we can't develop those ourselves. Ourselves. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Can I

ask Mr? A Solomon?

Yes, sir.

That was well organized. My question is, though, is someone down in I believe you're in South Redondo?

I am, yes.

Do you ever find yourself on Artesia on foot? Frequently. You do?

Yes. I was there on Wednesday night last week and again on Saturday.

At any time did you feel unsafe?

I did not.

Do you feel unsafe, Basil?

Do I feel unsafe right Yes. Now in this

But when you're there.

But that's just my general level of fear. On Artesia? Yeah. I've lived here thirty five plus years. Never once.

Yeah, I don't feel unsafe in North Udanda either. So

I'm not sure what it is that would cause somebody to feel unsafe on Artesia, but if there's something specific or some dicey people following you, 911.

May go?

No, you may not. Jay, go ahead.

You have a great police department.

Yeah, they'll be there in like forty seconds. Okay. Because it's not like they're writing parking tickets.

Is there anyone else in the audience?

Lady feels unsafe.

I'm sorry.

Jim? And she didn't really describe that other than I feel unsafe. I'd like to know how. We really can't talk about this now.

Keep it

on. That's a first.

Keep that handy.

Keep that handy.

Disrespect intended.

All right. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience this this evening who would like to speak on non agenda items? And Jamal, is there anyone online that would like to speak?

There are no e attendees.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any non agenda written comments? Next we have tonight a public hearing. But before we get to the public hearing, we need to hear from our commissioners if they have ex parte communication to report.

Anyone would like to report ex parte communications?

Should we start with Commissioner Hazeltine?

Yes, we

should. Okay.

I do have a question. Are we starting back from like three years ago or do we just start since this came on our agenda? Because we've talked to a lot of people in that time.

Since it came onto the agenda.

Just for tonight.

Just for agenda.

Okay. So, I spoke with the public and I had a really brief conversation with Chair Lam.

I spoke with members of the public.

I had conversations with Councilman Lowenstein and Councilman Nerneheim.

General public, Councilmembers Nerneheim Abhaji, and the mayor.

And I've had conversations with Commissioner Hazeltine and Councilmember Narenheim.

And

I do need to add Mayor Light. Pardon me.

And Mayor Light.

Doug also. You can ask Doug.

Doug?

Yes? Do you have a question?

Any ex parte to report?

That's what I get for showing up late. I'm like invisible the rest of the night. I did have a brief attempt at a conversation from Nels Narenheim, but I did shut him down and say I don't talk about these things before the meetings because I want everything that I use to make a decision to be in the public forum to be out in front of everyone. I don't want to do anything that the people that are concerned enough about this to watch it online or to sit in our audience, that they should see everything that is being used to make a decision on my part, as I've been doing for the last couple months. So I nipped him in the bud.

Thank you very much, Mr. Boswell.

You're welcome.

Okay. So this evening is, as I mentioned, public hearing. This special meeting is a public hearing of the Planning Commission to consider the ordinances amending Title X Chapter two Zoning and Land Use and Title X Chapter five Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code pertaining to regulations for cannabis retail sales and also consider categorical exemptions from the California Quality Act. Under CEQA section 15,000 sixty(two) and section 15,000 and sixty(three) per section 15,008 for the proposed amendments. And what this actually means, if you all don't mind, is that there is already an existing law on our books, a code, and the City Council has made amendments, has suggested amendments to that code.

And for protocol, because those amendments are within the purview of the Planning Commission because it's in the zoning code, we are per protocol required to make comment on these amendments. And so just so that it's clear about we have a very narrow area of purview for this particular public hearing. So hold on, hold on. Is there a motion to open the public hearing?

I'll make the motion to open it.

And second.

And second. So Commissioner Craig has made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaddis. Is there a presentation this evening? Yes, sure there is.

I'll get to it. I'll to it.

Get to it.

I wish you a

vote on opening the hearing.

That's correct. That's correct. So there is a motion, a second, Mr. Craig. And all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No? The motion carries. So staff, is there a presentation? Do we start with Director Weiner?

Elizabeth Haas, the Community Services Director will be giving the presentation tonight.

Thank you. Welcome Ms. Haas.

Thank you Chair Lam. Good evening Commissioners. That was a great introduction to the item so thank you for that. And Jamal, if you could share my screen.

Which computer are you located

at? Probably.

Oh, come on.

Not that one.

You have a number?

Not that I can see. Good evening, commissioners. Tonight for discussion are the draft cannabis regulatory ordinances. We have been working on the retail program in Redondo Beach since 2018. Up on the screen, you see the timeline starting with the establishment of the cannabis steering committee in 2018.

In 2021, the committee's recommendations were shared with the council. And from there, the ordinances were prepared and presented to the Planning Commission and then it was then brought back to the city council. Our regulatory ordinances were adopted in September 2022 and then in March 2023, Measure CT was approved by voters. The cannabis regulatory ordinances that were approved in September 2022 are the ordinances that we are amending with the drafts being presented to the commission tonight. So what initiated the amendments to the ordinances was a report to counsel in December 2023 where staff had identified some discrepancies and some ambiguities in the existing ordinances.

So we began the work of refining them to ensure that they were clear, that they were concise, and that they were truly reflective of counsel's direction. And that's what we have been working on with the counsel for the past year. You see all the dates up on the screen item for council discussion. At the most recent meeting on January 21, the council provided the following direction. So the first was they directed the Planning Commission to review the zoning ordinances at this special meeting scheduled for tonight.

And then the second part of that was a direction to staff to schedule a public hearing before the city council for next Tuesday, February 11, for consideration of introduction and first reading of the ordinances. Just a quick review of the regulatory ordinances. Ordinance number 3,240 one-twenty two and ordinance number 3,230 five-twenty two. These are the ordinances you'll be considering tonight. They amend the municipal code to allow for commercial cannabis activities in the city.

There are two of them because they apply to two different areas of the city, the coastal area and the inland area. They are identical in content, and they provide definitions and zoning requirements for the operation of cannabis businesses in Redondo Beach. These are the ordinances impacting zoning. So again, these are the ordinances that the commission will be providing feedback to staff on tonight. The third ordinance, ordinance 3,200 forty-twenty two, this regulates commercial cannabis activities in the city, and it provides things like operating standards and application procedures.

This ordinance does not touch on zoning, but we wanted to include it as an informational piece for the commission. So again, the two ordinances that we are reviewing, 3,240 one-twenty two and three thousand two hundred and thirty five-twenty two, were included as drafts with the red lines in tonight's agenda packet. And what I want to do is go through the items, the bigger items that were redlined in those ordinances with the commission tonight. So on the screen, you see the first item, which is the recital section. That will need to be updated by the city attorney.

And he has committed to get that prepared sometime this week before the agenda is published at the end of this week for next Tuesday night. The second big change you'll see is to the definitions. The first definition that was updated was commercial cannabis activity, so it's been refined to specify that only storefront retail and retail delivery are permitted and explicitly excludes other cannabis activity within the city. Day care centers was also updated to the same definition included in the California Health and Safety Code. The initial definition didn't specify whether or not the day care centers have to be licensed, which as you can imagine can cause issues down the line when you're trying to update the buffer map because we can't track unlicensed ones.

So we just wanted to have a more holistic definition included in the ordinance. So we wanted to have the same one as the state. The development agreement definition was removed. We no longer need one because we have permitting procedures in place, so the development agreement is no longer needed. Liquid acid was included as a definition because as part of updating that third ordinance, council wanted to ensure that any operators within the city do have liquid assets on hand.

So they wanted to be very specific about what that meant to them. M license and M licensees have been included because we referred to them, but we never actually defined what they meant. So we wanted just to clean that up to make sure those were included. And same goes for the definition for school. It was referenced in the ordinance but not included in the original explicitly says that we can't allow for delivery retail activities.

It was implied before so we just took the time to specify that that is allowed in Redondo Beach. Then council decided to remove section C60B. No retailer shall be established or located within 1,000 feet measured from nearest property lines of each other of the affected parcels of any other cannabis retailer. So when they were looking at maps, saw that Artesia Boulevard touched on two districts, but there are some other areas within the city where there are district lines that separate areas. And they wanted to not preclude two cannabis operators from being in different districts, but a little closer to one another than 1,000 feet because it might just be the ideal location.

So they just wanted to remove that and see where they might land on the buffer map. And then council has selected to include C6DD, And that's just an additional buffer around Dale Page Park. There are some commercial properties in that area that they wanted to exclude. So that buffer of 150 feet just allows them to do that in that area. So really next steps is for the commission to discuss the updates to these ordinances, for you to provide staff with feedback, and then we will go ahead and capture that feedback and present it to the city council during our meeting for next week.

And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to go back to the previous slides if that helps with the discussion tonight. And I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for that thorough presentation. Director House. Pleasure. Are there any questions from the commissioners?

I have a couple questions. I just want to sort of couch the reason that this is happening a little bit. What is the incentive, and I know the answer to this, but I just want the public to be aware of why we're talking about rules for two cannabis dispensaries to be opened up in the city of Redunda Beach. Just to frame this discussion. Is the why are we doing this is the question.

Why are we doing this again? Again?

I know the answer, but I just want this to be as part of the public We're doing

what,

though? Permitting two cannabis dispensaries in the city of Redondo Beach.

Why is the city of Redondo permitting that? Gotcha.

That would be us, yeah.

But I'm going to intervene here. That's not what's on the agenda, right? We're only focusing on what you've presented here to us. They've asked us so we're here at the pleasure of the council, and they've asked us to review just these. We're not to comment my understanding is that we are not to comment on anything outside of these. Am I correct on that, Mr. Weiner?

So I can speak to that. So the policy question has really been that's one for the city council. They've had several meetings on this. As to the reasons why, I wouldn't really want to opine on that exactly, but I know it's in the record as to why the council has decided to go down this path. And I believe they want to do it with limitations on how many dispensaries we would have in the city, and that's why it's been limited to two, to avoid potential impacts by proliferation.

The Planning Commission's role tonight is to review the zoning ordinance amendments. That's a requirement by state law that the Planning Commission review those and provide written comments to the city council. And that's what's within the purview of the planning commission tonight. That said, we've provided the entire zoning code sections to the commission on this matter. And it's really unlimited in terms of whatever recommendation or comments that you may have on it in terms of the zoning ordinance.

So just for clarification, my understanding is that our comments were only to be directed towards the amendments and not the entire code.

That's correct regarding the amendments. I would say if an amendment is inconsistent or conflicts with some other portion of the code, that may be worth mentioning by the Planning Commission. But really at this meeting, the Planning Commission is not being asked to weigh in on the policy decision as to whether we should have cannabis retail businesses. That's been a decision that's been directed by the City Council and it really strictly pertains the regulations and the zoning ordinance and more specifically the amendments.

And the amendments have been presented to us this evening.

May I ask a question Sheila? So, zoning is what we're supposed to talk about. So, we should be able to discuss the buffer zones because that's in our packet. We should be able to discuss anything that has to do with zoning, would think. That's what's coming in front of us.

That's not my understanding. So let's check. Let's check.

I didn't think that would be that hard a question. Seemed like a really easy Well, guess the planning commission.

So zoning is What was

your question?

My question is, I wanted them to frame why this conversation for the public, for the record, just why this conversation is

asked. Said about

It's only Well, its conversations is included.

I think that's A little

deeper than that, and that is, you know, what incentive does the city have to allow to cannabis dispensaries?

Access.

Because there is a whole context for this. There's more

than that.

That's kind of the biggest thing.

And that said, having been to some of the meetings, not that it's real just for the public's benefit, my understanding is there's definitely a revenue component that's important factor. Revenue is important for the city to be able to provide services to the residents, be it safety and other necessary services.

Okay. And I understood that if we didn't come up with our own ordinances that the state would declare that basically we would have no control of how many dispensaries or where they would be. Is that correct?

That's correct. When the law was That's passed

what I'm trying to frame.

Several years ago, cities had the option of adopting an ordinance that would either prohibit or allow it. Absent that ordinance, it would be allowed under state law.

So, part of this is the taxation issue. Just continuing the question, and you've confirmed that. So, have that context. So, currently, I understand that people are driving into the city from outside the city perhaps, selling cannabis, delivering cannabis, collecting that, and we're collecting no taxes on that, and this would change that. Am I correct?

Correct.

And also, when somebody enters one of these dispensaries, they have to present an ID, and that's kept on record, right? Whereas if cannabis is being delivered, we don't know who it's being delivered to because they're outside of the control and enforcement of the city currently, right?

That's correct, yeah. While the ordinance would permit it to some extent, it also is more efficient in regulating the sale and distribution cannabis in the city. It improves our ability to do that.

Okay. So my next question is, right in the same trail of questions, if part of this is the ID component, which is throughout this document. Is this ID component also enforced in delivery? And how is that? What is the mechanism of that? Because I didn't see a description of that. Maybe I just missed it and it's in there. So everybody going into a dispensary presents an ID and that's kept on record, but what about the people who are ordering for delivery? Is there a mechanism anticipated? I didn't see it in the document, just asking.

We require I'm sorry, Mark. May I provide a response to the best of my knowledge? So the ordinances permit for retail delivery and all retail deliverers must abide by state law, which requires a track and trace program, including who you sell to, how often, and the amount. So when they come to us for a permit, we would verify that they are part of the track and trace program because we would be granted access to the state program. And if they are selling illegally, they would not be permitted if they're not part of that track and trace program. So we would essentially be given that protection through the state programming.

Okay, so you're saying the state actually dictates all that. Okay, great. Thank you.

More questions?

I had one question, which is related to this part here. Yes. The question I had, you mentioned about the buffer zone, like within the 1,000 feet and such. In talking to the public, one of the concern that came up was while we're allowing two in the city and not two in the same district, potentially in Artesia Boulevard, you could have two dispensaries. District 4 And 5 overlap on Artesia Boulevard. Is there any I didn't see anything in here, but is there anything within this ordinance that would preclude that potential scenario from happening?

Not right now. They removed that one item that would preclude that from happening. Why did they remove that? If I recall that conversation correctly, because they had many, they didn't want to because if that happens, let's say there's two operators, one in District 4 and one in District 5, both on Artesia Boulevard, and they both are just phenomenal operators. Why would we preclude them from operating in that space?

If that's just where they fit best and if they present the best proposal, we should allow them because then if we drop down to the third best, but they're not as great of an operator or as trust of an operator, but yeah, they happen to be in District 1, was that really something that they wanted to have happen? Or would they rather just leave that room for two great operators kind of close to one another?

Let me ask Commissioner Craig, and then I'll get to you. Commissioner, is this something that you think we should recommend to the council?

I think so. I think it's something we should consider because their intent is to, I don't think, have a concentration of if we're going have two locations limited to the city, they want to have a concentration in just one part of the city. I think the public is from my part is having it spread across the city if we're going to do something in two different locations, but not within that close proximity.

Agreement with you. Next, Commissioner Boswell.

Just to chime in on that, I don't know why we couldn't have just said one will be South Of Oneninety and one will be North Of Oneninety and no one will be on Oneninety. It would have solved that problem. Anyway, a question that I have when I read this, it kind of jumped out at me as, what? But then when you mentioned it, you gave a qualifier. This is the 150 feet distance from Dale Page Park, which is the dog park, right? That's the road I'm thinking of. What commercial properties are within 50 yards of the dog park?

I'd be happy to pull up a map, if that'll help.

Or you could just tell me. I'm not quite

sure exactly which business is.

Can't other than is somebody worried that Morell House might be a weed shop?

You're thinking of Dominguez Park.

It wouldn't be big enough.

You're thinking of Dominguez Park. Del Page is in a different section of the

city. It's

dog park.

Because I think in the text, it did say dog park. That's in District 5,

isn't it?

So Dale Page is the park up at the top of where the Green Belt.

Yes, it's right there. See that green?

It's way up there. Okay. So that's referring to the little stores and restaurants that are right next to that. Okay. So that makes sense. Never mind. Thank

you. Thank you. Mr. Boswell, do you have another question?

That was my question.

Yes. Commissioner Conroy.

Couple questions. First one kind of goes in line with that map. You might even want to put it up again. I'm curious based on the proposed buffer zones, are there areas available district, each of the five districts where a retail dispensary would be allowed?

Would be allowed?

Would be allowed. Yeah. Because we wouldn't want any district where the buffering created basically exclusion. Aviation. What What do we have on Artesia? I see basically like 50 feet maybe. That's going to make that property real valuable I would imagine. Seriously, right? Am reading the map correctly?

So it's these

pink buildings right here. Oh wow, very few isn't there.

Then when we're talking District 5 we've got even less opportunity. Where else besides on Artesia do we have for District 5?

Let me see. We have it just here at North Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

Exactly. And these buffer areas have already been discussed and accepted by City Council. That's not a part of the discussion that we're here having tonight. Correct.

There's two parts that they added. So that's the 150 foot buffer around Del Page. So that's being discussed tonight. And then the removal of that 1,000 foot buffer between each operator. That was part of the buffer map as well.

So that was kind of my second question. So that's a removal of the 1,000 foot buffer and that's for any two operators?

Correct.

But that's knowing that no more than one operator could exist in a single district, right?

Yes.

Okay. That's all I have for you right now. Other than just a statement that every again, don't want to exclude any district from participating in this. I think there's an element of not in my backyard, but as a city this is something we've adopted and so every district should do their part to carry out what city council wants to do here. Thank you.

Okay. I now would like to ask the public if there are any speakers. But before you come up, any of you who would like to speak need to take the oath. So if you would stand up if you'd like to speak. All right.

And we're going to do, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Thank you. So first I will be calling I have to make a motion. So we've opened the public hearing. We've heard the presentation. Now we have public testimony. You've taken the oath. I have some cards here.

Jim Mueller, would you like to speak?

District 5. So looking at the proposed ordinance, now I'm going by what was published in the website, and there's a lot of whereases. Proposition 64, which resulted in the AUMA, allows local government to ban cannabis businesses and cultivations. According to the California Department of Cannabis Control, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, El Segundo, Lawndale, Inglewood have banned cannabis business entirely as well as cannabis cultivation. Hawthorne and Rolling Hills allow medical sales only, which require physician's authorization.

Manhattan has gone so far as they can go to keep it out of their community. By considering the proposed ordinance, the city of Redondo Beach must want to be the cannabis capital of the South Bay. Probably the worst idea in Redondo's proposed ordinance is it allows private cultivation and processing of cannabis products. Of all the dangerous and potentially disastrous potential of the proposed ordinance, the worst is allowing private cultivation and processing and the selling tools and supplies to do it. Why is allowing cultivation up to six plants and processing the harvest a bad idea for Redondo Beach?

Who is to control what's produced, its strength, its quality, how widely it gets spread around? Teachers know that intoxicating substances are around in the community. Their students get a hold of it from friends, from neighbors, from their own parents' stash, and from the street. Talk about a law enforcement and public health disaster just waiting to hit Redondo Beach. And what does Redondo Beach get for all the potential trouble in allowing sale and cultivation of cannabis?

The projected revenue is expected to be less than 1% of the city budget and probably a net minus when increased law enforcement costs are considered. And I know that proponents have said that it will be less law enforcement, but that is totally ridiculous if you really think about it. I recommend the proposed ordinance be amended to disallow selling cultivation tools and supplies in any cultivation or processing of cannabis in Redondo Beach. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening,

commissioners, staff. Thank you for all that you do. I know being on this commission is oftentimes a thankless job and you guys have sure had some work over the last couple of months given to you. My My name is Melissa Deshaun. I'm almost a thirty year District 1 resident. I'm a parent of a high school student from our extraordinary school district, Redondo Union High School. I'm a scientist. One thing I wanted to add that is always left off of this cannabis timeline is the 2022 Measure E vote whereby 75% of our residents in the city voted no retail cannabis. Currently, medicinal sales via delivery are legal in every city. The state cannot come in and tell you that if you don't have an ordinance, you will have to have shops put in.

The city, someone can come in as they did for Measure E, Elliot Lewis of Catalyst Cannabis, and they can propose something. Our city residents voted no. We voted yes to have a tax rate, but we voted no overwhelmingly to no retail cannabis. I was asked to be one of the rebuttals for Measure E. In that time, the cannabis industry has changed dramatically through no fault of the cannabis industry.

There's currently a scandal with the Department of Cannabis Control where there is zero safety with regards to the testing. There was a federal whistleblower that has come forward. They have shown that the cannabis supply may be laced with fentanyl. High, high levels of pesticides way outside of the realm of what the EPA allows. False reports.

And the DCC currently has no response to that. That is an ongoing scandal, and that's a dangerous situation certainly for the youth, which is who I'm advocating for, but for all of our residents. Secondly, retail cannabis normalizes cannabis use for our youth. There's ample peer reviewed data, some of it very elegantly done in Los Angeles that clearly shows that kids who walk by a dispensary, see the billboard, see the signage after thirty days are exponentially more likely to try by the age of sixth grade. That is real data.

Secondly, there is no difference between legal and illegal cannabis dispensaries with regards to youth use. Again, peer reviewed data collected in Los Angeles. This is fact. You'll hear other things from people who have a vested interest in, a financial interest in the cannabis industry. I do not. I'm a scientist and a parent. Finally, again, no fault of this industry, it's a triple tax product. The revenues have been steadily declining. That's important to me because the tier three funds collected that tax revenue. Right now, we're $3,000,000,000 behind from the state.

This is public information. Those revenues go to prevention programs. So I urge you to think about what the residents actually voted for and my concerns about the safety. Thank you so much for all that you do. I'd like to introduce the peer review data into the public record.

Oh, yes. Motion to

assign oh, you're did you make the motion? Yeah. Second.

Okay. So Ms. Hazeltine Commissioner Hazeltine has made the motion. Commissioner Gattis has made a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Please. Happy reading. Thank you.

I caution you, I'm a scientist, so it's all

here. What

kind of scientist are you?

I do bench immunology. I'm a bench immunologist. I work in public and private health.

Thank you.

I wrote a statewide resolution for PTA that over 10,000 members voted on for cannabis and youth health and safety. It was adopted by the state.

Thank you. Thank you.

All

right. Anyone else in the audience here would like to speak on this issue? Oh, you must be Jonathan.

That's me. Good evening. Jonathan Setko, District 1 resident, longtime resident. Went to high school here. We're here tonight in large part because of my original efforts here to advocate for cannabis in the city here. Thank you very much for allowing us to take the oath tonight on that premise. I would like to make a correction that I assume was just merely a mistake. But it is absolutely false that the state will force us to allow cannabis shops in the city if we do nothing. I know that for a fact. It is my profession. I work at the state level where we advocate and we write many of the laws for cannabis. I know this very thoroughly. There was a bill that came. It passed. It did not force any city and will not force any city to allow for shops to come into their cities.

Commissioner Gattis, I really want to thank you for the question you started with here tonight. The whole premise of why we wanted to begin this year within our city was we had the incentive. We had two big incentives. First one, financial. Second one, it was a health related incentive. Why would you allow for legal cannabis sold here when we could have legal that's supposed to be tested? As was mentioned by someone previously, the industry has changed drastically since we started this. What you're looking at right now is a failed industry, and you're going to be reading and hearing more and more about its failures. Right now, it was just reported that in Santa Barbara County, it has become such a failed industry that they are down 75% of their taxes that they've had since 2022. 75%.

On a state level in that same time period, we are down 40%. We have gone below the thresholds that we had established several years ago whereby the governor had also set aside $150,000,000 to backfill if we couldn't bring enough revenue so we could support drug prevention groups to make sure that our youth are safe. That $150,000,000 was used up in the first nine months of those three years. And now we're looking at, with a failed industry, of a tax coming in to increase where we're currently raised tax at 15%. We're going be now having our tax raise in July to 19%.

Our counsel here has recognized that. And so what have they done? When they could have taxed up to 9%, they're recommending we do 4.5%, recognizing we have a failing industry here, a failing industry that has now been well documented by the Los Angeles Times that the other incentive we had to do this year was for health reasons. The LA Times has proven multiple times on the front page with many articles that the tested products that the state was supposed to guarantee are safe are, in fact, not. And we are seeing increased reasons as to why this is a massive public issue, public health issue.

So now as a city here, I'm asking you, if we don't have the same incentives, both economic as well as for public health, why are we doing this here right now? I'm here before you as a resident, as the reason that we're probably here tonight, as probably one of the biggest advocates and one of the most well learned individuals before this industry and whether regulations come in. And I'm asking you, please recommend that we pause until the state understands its mistakes and corrects them so we can do this

remuneration for, that you work for or own or are an employee of currently, maybe in the last two weeks, deliver cannabis to residences in Redondo Beach? I do not. Thank you.

Question? Certainly. I can. So I'm not sure if I caught the full gist of what you were saying early on about correcting something that was untrue, that if we do not pass this today, then entrepreneurs can open shops all around Redondo, and we have no control over it. That's what was stated before is true. You're saying that's not true?

Correct.

Who do we believe? Can I expand on

it real quickly? Can I what?

Can I expand on

that real quickly, Sure?

Just

real briefly.

There was a bill Any

opposed? No. In favor? Aye.

Very

quickly. Several years ago, there was a bill by Senator Weiner, SB eleven eighty six. And SB eleven eighty six sought to force shops into every city that had to date not allowed or set up any kind of regulations within their city. The bill ended up passing in a way that it made it so that if a city had not allowed for shops in their cities, then medical delivery was the only thing that was allowed into any one of those cities. Nothing else. Shops are not forced in the city. There is no other on the books otherwise that would require us to allow shops in our city whether we pass our own ordinance or not.

So then somebody in the city would still have to approve a shop whether we have this ordinance or not?

The city would have to first allow through an ordinance whether we would even allow for shops to be in the city first. So the first step is to have an ordinance to allow it. Second steps would have some sort of a selection process as to who gets to have those shops.

And where are we right now in regards to those points? We are at

the point to where we have rejected Measure E, so we do not want shops in the city. We have passed our own ordinance, as you all know, one that we have worked for a while ago. That ordinance then has since been changed drastically to match, quite frankly, much more closely to what we rejected in Measure E for a lot of reasons. We could probably go into another time. That's where at right now. We're completely changing that ordinance to potentially allow shops into the city. Should we choose not to, there's no reason to think that shops will be coming in. We don't have to do this right now. It is the wrong thing to do right now. We have time. We have spent lots of time to get to this doing this right and for a reason.

Okay. Thank you, Jonathan.

You're very welcome. Thank you for your time tonight.

If you need more clarification, I think Director Weiner can help with

My next question is, okay, rebuttal.

Yeah, so I apologize I misspoke earlier. State law does allow certain cannabis rights, for example, allowed to possess it, allowed to grow it to a limited amount, delivery. With regards to the retail shops, the lack of adopting an ordinance does not entitle the individual to open a shop. Basically, you adopt an ordinance allowing retail businesses and you're opting in to allowing that. So I misspoke on that earlier.

There are certain things that are allowed such as delivery that the retail shops that the city would have to adopt the ordinance to allow, which we did several years ago, and this is a refinement of it to improve the regulations. So I apologize. I misspoke on that earlier.

So as of today, can somebody open cannabis shop in the city of Redondo Beach today? No.

I can go ahead and speak to that. So we have ordinances in place that allow for two cannabis shops in the city of Redondo Beach. That said, before releasing the RFP to welcome applications for those two permits, the council and staff identified issues in the existing ordinance, and that's what we're finding and fixing with these ordinances. Before we go ahead and welcome applications for those permits, we want to make sure that our regulations are in line, are cohesive, and make sense for what it is that the council wants to see in these shops.

So that's a no?

It's yes pending council release of RFP.

The question was today?

Today, no.

No. Okay. So if we do not pass this, then the status quo continues. And no one can open a shop in Redondo Beach, right? Because the ordinances are not completed.

I don't know if the chair looks like she wants to speak to this, but I'd be happy to answer that. Yes, please. Tonight, directed the Commission to provide feedback on this. So let's say you decide not to give feedback or to recommend that the Council not continue with the program or with the updates to the existing ordinances, we would bring that feedback to Council. I can't speak to what council will do, but they may very well decide to ignore that recommendation and move forward, or they may take your recommendation into consideration and keep the existing ordinances in place, and maybe further down the line move to remove the ordinances altogether and go back to no cannabis retailers?

There are a things lot we could guess at that the city council might do or not do, which is kind of irrelevant. They can't do it without our approval first, though, can they? That's why

but the planning commission's role is to make a recommendation. So you're making a recommendation to the city council. The city council will evaluate that and factor it into their ultimate decision on this.

So they can still make a decision regardless of what we do just like everything else we do?

Correct.

Okay. All right. So that really doesn't change. So if we don't pass this, it goes to the city council to decide on.

So I'd like to respond to that in just a moment. But Commissioner Hazeltine

has Just really a quick. I just wanted to clarify. I heard you speak so many times in front of city council and you were always speaking four shops, right? Could you come I just have a really quick question, if that's all right with everybody. So I think you were for shops every time I heard you speak, right? Now you've decided you're against shops right now.

Be clear.

To pause. To pause. That's just to shake out what's going on with the pot shops or wheat shops in California. Is that the idea?

It is. I mean the issues we have are so large and so grave to where we have a failing industry that now is no longer able to guarantee a revenue source and we have now a public health issue to match it. I don't understand what the incentive is for us as a community to allow this here at this time.

Isn't that up to a private individual whether they want to open a company that's going to fail or not though? Mean if I'm looking at that you're saying, well, they may fail. Well, so might that restaurant next door. So I'm just trying to wrap my head because I heard you speak so many times in front of City Council.

No, and thank you for that. I do think that there is a massive responsibility for us as a community, you as commissioners and as our council members, to oversee what is the right thing for our community right now. So we have a lot of people here. I should say, well, we have about four or five companies that have come and approach the city here that seem to believe they can make money off of us. And we have every single economic and public health indicator suggesting this is the wrong thing for us to do at this time.

Okay. Okay. Just needed to understand that a little more. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity.

I have a question to follow this discussion.

Right. So let me get some clarification here. The ordinance is already on the books. Correct. That's municipal code Ten-twenty1626, correct?

Correct. So that's the permitting ordinance, correct? Correct. And what the city council has asked us to do is to look at the changes to that ordinance and make a comment on those changes. Staff's recommendation is that we agree with your recommendation.

Our recommendation is just that you provide us feedback for us to share with counsel. So the updates we presented tonight isn't staff updates, it's updates made by counsel over the past year. So our only recommendation is what counsel directed, is we're here to collect your feedback and any changes or additions or reintroducing back things like the buffer into the existing ordinance.

To the amendments specifically. I'm going to pause here and go to you. So,

first of all, just to again frame it, if this goes through, okay, we put this in place so the applications can be done, etcetera, etcetera. If that doesn't happen, and if these cannabis stores are never opened, we're not going to be in a free for all of anybody coming in and opening cannabis shops and delivering without any license or control or law enforcement. We're not going to enter a chaos situation. We're not doing this to stave off a chaos of cannabis shops opening willy nilly all over the city and deliveries occurring that nobody knows where it's coming from or the city has no control of it. Am I correct about that?

That's correct.

Okay. So secondly, we're here to look over these changes for the application and governance process for these two shops that are already permitted, right? But can we come back and approve the changes to this, but overlay that with, listen, we don't recommend that this occur at all, but if it's going to occur and you decide for it to occur, these changes are fine or here are a couple tweaks we want to make to these changes. But we could come back with that as a response.

I would say that's in the Planning Commission's purview, if you reach a consensus on that because ultimately the Commission is making recommendations on land use matters. The ordinance is being amended so it's up for consideration again. We've asked that the Commission focus primarily on the amendments. But because you're reviewing the ordinance as a whole, you can also make broader recommendations on it.

Great. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Real

quick question. I had a few points, if I could. Regarding the Del Page Park, it's a park. Isn't there buffer zones around other parks in the city? Or another way to ask the question is what makes this park different than all the others? It's a great place to get high.

There aren't buffers around other parks in the city. There's buffers around schools and daycare centers, youth centers, not specifically around parks. This park was pointed out because there was concern from that district's council member that those little areas there's just a preference from the residents not to have the shops establish themselves there in that commercial area next to Del Page Park.

In that commercial area next to Del Page Park, do they sell cigarettes or vapes or alcohol at all?

I don't know off the top I'm of my not quite sure.

Alcohol? Okay, not like a liquor store. It's a restaurant there. There's a restaurant there. There's no convenience store grocery store or anything like that?

Hair salon.

Oh, man, a hair salon?

There's a caterer there too, but I don't think they have.

So no, is the answer to that question no or we don't know?

There's liquor served at the restaurant that's there.

There's a liquor store there? No. Liquor

served at the restaurant. They buy at a store. It's a

Brazilian place, right? Yeah. Think that's beer and wine, right?

Correct. And I think beer and wine is all they have.

Yeah. But

it's served at the restaurant. There isn't It's

not to go. There isn't like Like,

I don't know. Like, the store is seven to Eleven. No. Not since COVID. Okay. I'm hypocrisy like, okay, we're selling cigarettes and alcohol at the park, but not this. And it sounds like we're not.

It's a tiny little commercial district that,

you know Four shops, I think.

Do we have commercial districts? Somebody were

to pick that as their spot for their wheat shop, they'd be out of business in two months because no one would find it. It's not even a good place. But apparently the District 5 City Councilman is listening to his constituents and we can't fault him for that.

Can't fault him for that. And we're here to make recommendations to city council. I would just argue on behalf of being consistent. So I think that we should either my recommendation would be either we have 150 foot border buffer zone around every park in Redondo Beach or none.

Okay, make sense.

Right. We'd have to look at all the parks then and see. Does that also basically eliminate large amounts of potential space such that you wind up having both shops in South Redondo? Well,

in two different districts. To your point, if nobody could find it by that park, then probably not the best place for somebody to open a shop. And I would expect that the people that we would consider issuing a permit to would be very large and well established players at this

question. That's that's a

financial

issues. Question. I think don't think we're going to find a couple

of hippies coming down from Santa Cruz saying, hey, let's open a shop. Agreed. Agreed. So probably the buffer zone around Del Page Park is probably because nobody would want to open one up there And

if you don't want marijuana in the city, then you want to recommend one of those spots by Del Page Park.

So I've heard already I've heard two recommendations, one from you and one from Commissioner Craig. I'm wondering if at this point it's appropriate if you agree to close the public hearing. And then Oh, we have one more. I'm sorry.

I knew he. You. The planning commissioners are affirmed to speak truthfully. The direction that the planning commission received and what you're debating, we have, as you've heard tonight, an ordinance on the book permitting two retail cannabis shops in the city. That is not your charge from the city council to make a recommendation as to whether or not we should permit two retail shops in the city.

That was decided in 2022. Your charge tonight was very specific with regard to these definitions within the ordinance and discussion about the buffer zones. With regard to the buffer zones, it's very easy when you begin throwing out ideas to create a de facto ban throughout the city. So if you wish to expand the area around Artesia Boulevard that is in two separate districts and you want to reinstate the thousand foot band, you could be creating, as you saw with such a narrow band of opportunity there, a de facto band, that could lead to challenge from an operator. So if you specify, say, Artesia Boulevard, is that arbitrary and capricious?

Subject to challenge? You would want to have something better than we just don't want two too close together on Artesia Boulevard. Some sort of health and safety reason or something else that would be upheld. When it comes to the industry itself, it has challenges, as do all business industries. One out of five restaurants fail within the first five years.

Or excuse me, eighty percent of restaurants fail within the first five years. Many of our fast food places sell foods that cater to kids that are full of fat, sugar, salt that David Kessler wrote a book about, the former head of the FDA. There are challenges in every industry. There is no doubt. And I don't want anything to happen to any of our youth. I want them to be protected. But if we begin legislating vice like this for legal products, we go down a path that I don't think

we want to go down.

The last thing I'll say is that with regard to what is allowed and not allowed, it is my understanding that delivery as of January 1 is permitted everywhere. And we cannot stop the delivery, the retail shops being a different situation, but that delivery is permitted throughout area. And delivery is happening right now, and we cannot stop that part of it. So when you say what's allowed and what's not allowed, important to remember that we want to go ahead and take what steps we can to go ahead and monitor, license, and tax these operators that could be coming into the city through delivery or retail. Thank you.

Quick question. Yes, sir.

You have a thought on the question.

I don't even know how to phrase it really exactly. But is not one of the main things that the ordinance are trying to do is to make sure these things are not right next to each other, that they are distributed across the city, and that they don't I mean, it's not like a street with antique shops. It's not like a street with thrift shops where they locate next to each other to create a community. And it improves their sales. I don't think that would happen with weed shops like it doesn't happen with liquor stores.

I'm not seeing I mean, they took out the 1,000 foot or whatever distance part of the ordinance on Artesia so that it would open up more spots on Artesia that you could locate in. I mean, 1,000 feet really isn't that far. And frankly, if you're looking for the out of town business, Artesia is probably the perfect place to locate. So is there really anything that we can do to make sure that there aren't two weed shops on Artesia

council meetings, they have lengthy discussions about no more than one in each district. And with regard to the specific area of Cartesian and the buffer zones, you have that before you tonight where they change that part of it. I would defer to the directors for that.

Now, opens up some other questions as well because district borders change based on population. And what is in two districts today might be in the same district in five years. So yes, let's ask our staff.

Before you go on, I think we have question here. No, he should I Do think

we want to follow through on Okay,

go ahead. Go ahead.

So how much trouble would we be getting ourselves into if we put that 1,000 foot clause back in there? I mean, how much legal exposure is the city going to have? I think that's the main reason why we would not want to do it, right?

I don't know. I can't speak to legal risk. I just know why it was removed by the city council. So they just didn't want to preclude, like I said earlier, if two amazing operators apply to do different areas of Artesia Boulevard, they didn't want to preclude both of them from being there if the third operator just wasn't as great as those first two. So in a way they understood the risk of having two operators on Artesia but they also understood the risk of eliminating that option and they went with one over the other.

And the risk as far as they're concerned, the risk of having that in there is that they might lose a really good weed merchant?

I wouldn't phrase it that way. That they would miss out on the number one or the number two operator that scores in that top band.

Yeah, let me address the buffer question. So I would say that from a zoning perspective, the city could impose that requirement if we're looking to achieve a balanced mix of uses or avoid an over saturation of a certain business type within the area. Certainly cities will do that in their zoning codes and that's why they have these density limits for different uses. They're looking to balance the uses throughout the city. So there would be a zoning justification for doing so.

And it sounds like Director House has given you the background on why the council removed that. They're concerned about maybe precluding an operator just based on that buffer requirements. But those are the different factors that go into the commission's decision and making a recommendation.

So we actually believe, or the city council believes, that a top tier cannabis entrepreneur would bypass Redondo altogether if they couldn't be on Artesia Boulevard, that there is no other place on Pacific Coast Highway or Catalina or Riviera Village or anywhere else in the city that wouldn't serve their purposes. We're actually thinking, for some reason, that everybody's going to want to be on Artesia. Isn't that a red flag?

Doug For us? Commissioner Boswell, if we all agree, right, we can still make that recommendation if we believe that they've made the wrong decision.

Oh, I understand that. I'm just trying to understand what are the ramifications for us making a decision one way or the other. I don't know that everyone wants to be on Artesia.

I think

part of the reason Artesia plays such a big role this is because it straddles two different districts for a large portion of it. I think, you know, PCH is just a big

a thoroughfare. So but it's that doesn't really address the circumstantial evidence that the city council is concerned that they will lose a top tier cannabis reseller if they aren't allowed to be on Artesia. Because that's what taking this buffer zone out gives them. It gives them the opportunity for them both to be on Artesia. Whereas if the 1,000 foot barrier is in, there's less opportunity for them to find for both shops to find a location on Artesia.

Wouldn't we prefer it that way, that there was something built in even if it is indirectly resulting in one of the weed shops having to go somewhere else, like up on Inglewood by Manhattan Beach Boulevard or down in South Redondo and

Riviera Village. You suggest that recommendation, Deb.

Yeah. Yeah.

I'm not at that point. I'm asking, ramification of this? This really is this something that

Are you

asking for us to feed

the I'm asking everybody. Do we want to put that back in because perhaps it's a good idea for there to be some limitation on having two week shops on the same street?

I hear your argument. I want to check to see if there's any other commissioner who has a comment.

No, there aren't any.

We have one e comment.

Okay. Anyone else?

Oh, yeah, I had a question.

Yeah, quick question.

Okay, quick question. We've heard that there's currently allowed by state law delivery within Redondo Beach of cannabis, current. Would the change to putting in these ordinance, you know, having the ordinance open up and now we're selecting those who are delivering in Redondo are now known to us, control, paying taxes, license, blah blah blah, does that preclude outside delivery services, outside of the city? So essentially that closes the to these two operators, the same two operators who have the locations, the cannabis dispensaries, as being the only ones who can deliver within Redondo Beach? Or clarify that, please.

Sure. So Right now what we needed to do as part of these updates is make that clarification. So the two brick and mortar operators are permitted to also do delivery within the city, but we've also put in there that retail delivery only operators are also permitted to deliver within the city. If they deliver within the city, they have a permit to deliver within the city. So even if they are in the city or outside the city, they will have to have a permit with the city and pay taxes for all deliveries within the city.

Okay, and there's no limitation on the number of operators or whether they're physically located in the city or not?

Correct.

But to deliver in the city, they have to be licensed?

Correct.

Okay. But they don't have to be one of the two Redondo cannabis stores. They could be so we could have two cannabis stores that can deliver anywhere in Redondo, and we could have 50 cannabis stores around LA that could all deliver in Redondo at the same time.

Had a permit.

If they have a permit.

They have to be permitted first

and pay taxes.

And pay taxes. And be registered with the state.

And the state does not provide any vehicle by which that could be limited, those outside sellers?

Can only make presumptions here, but the market would dictate how many deliverers can be within this area. In terms of the state's limitations, I don't know of any. And currently, the ordinances that we have would not have a limit to the number of permits we would issue for delivery only within the city.

So the city text has in anything that limits the number of outside companies that could distribute in Redondo? Correct. So it could be 10 or it could be 1,000.

Clarify that for you?

I have a question for Jim. Oh, you have a question for Jim? Have a question. Jim, you can come up. I have a question for you. I'm going to ask you a question. Okay. Does that, having the two shops on Artesia, if were, if what we're talking about, would you see that as a problem? Because I know you're in that district.

Would I see that as problem?

What we're debating here, right here, could you give us your insight into what we're debating?

Yes, that would definitely be a problem because right now we have six smoke shops.

Well, that's a different issue. We need to, and that was on city council last week, but specifically

would be a problem, yes.

Would be Is that what you wanted to

That would be a big problem. And, you know, I was just informed that, just to clarify, only medicinal delivery is allowed in the state, and I should remind you that the District 5 council person surveyed their constituents who were firmly against any cannabis in their district, much

less would to say a very unscientific survey, which started out explaining. So that survey is to be taken with a grain of salt. But I think the

only survey that exists right now is an up or down cannabis. It's the only one that exists.

Thanks, us Doug. Thank

We're going to limit conversation. Thank you.

All right. I just think that we just got it in your fault.

Yeah. No, we can talk about whatever you want to talk about when we close the public hearing.

Just have one more follow-up on what we're talking about.

Okay. So one more follow-up.

Okay.

Are the outside delivery services, do they have the same permitting thresholds as are discussed in the document for the dispensaries? And that is, you know, you can't have violated the law over the last period of time, and complaints, you know, all of the high bar we've set for the physical dispensaries, is that applicable to these licensed out or permitted outside delivery services that we're permitting?

We have a different application process in place that's in that third ordinance that regulates all this. That is different for delivery only as opposed to retail shops simply because retail shops have a fiscal presence that the council was very adamant about regulating. We do have parameters in place for delivery only and that's in line with state requirements and regulations. And we want to also ensure that they haven't been in violation of anything related to the state in terms delivering to minors and things

There like are services outside the city that are delivering all over LA area, but they would never be able to obtain a permit here because they don't meet some criteria Correct. That's in

Now, are there any comments?

We have one e attendee that would like to speak.

Okay. Good

evening. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. Good evening. My name is Timothy Dodd. I'm the CEO and cofounder of Sweet Flower. We're actually a cannabis operator based in Los Angeles with multiple stores throughout the city and quite a few up north as well. I actually wanted to kind of just clarify a couple of comments that were made. I understand Mr. Serveco feels passionately about the industry, but it's the way he paints the industry is not a way that I would recognize it.

While we are definitely experiencing some setbacks, I would say that our businesses remain strong. I'm actually up in Chico, a small town way north of you tonight with our store. That store, in two years, has contributed over $1,000,000 in revenue to the city of Chico without incident or complaint. Most importantly, we've contributed over $100,000 in direct contributions to seven charities supporting food insecurity, under housing, combating domestic violence, and we have a very active youth prevention, youth education and engagement plan. We've also contributed thousands of paid volunteer hours by our staff to the city of Chico.

We've done the same in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles over the last five years, we've contributed over $300,000 to 32 charities focusing on food insecurity, underhousing and racial and social injustice. So it's not a situation that I recognize. I understand that some operators may be failing, but in the city of Redondo Beach, I believe the issue is acute. You have, as Mr. Mueller said, six smoke shops on Artesia alone. In Artesia, those smoke shops, because I visited each and every one of them, are selling hemp, which is another form of cannabis. They are not taking sales tax. They are not checking ID. They have no security.

They are open way past the hours that a legal cannabis store can open, which is 8AM to 10PM sorry, 6AM to 10PM. And by the way, these are things that the City of Notre Beach can control. You can control the look and feel of a cannabis business. You can control our operating hours. You can control our security. You can control how we show up in your city. You can control the way that we present. You can control how we advertise or not advertise our product. You can as I do in Culver City and as I do in Pasadena, we don't say the word dispensary on the front of our store. We don't say the word cannabis.

If you know, you know. If you don't, not an issue. So the comments tonight about normalizing cannabis as a father of four I have four kids, 10 through 20 I don't recognize. I think there's a real need here for some grounding in a rational product. This recall issue that's been raised, if you look at the food recall industry in California, I think it's 1,000 recalls last year or over.

Cannabis had 67. Not perfect, but I think in context, this is a young industry striving to do better as a lot of industries that are more mature than us in California. My last point is this, you have cannabis in Redondo Beach. This is not a question of if, it's a question of how. And I would urge you to consider this from the point of view of a rational business, which cannabis is. How means tax, regulated, tested, and controlled. Thank you so much for your time tonight. I appreciate the great lengths you're going to get this right, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. But thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do you mind if I close the public hearing?

Does he have a question or add

a question to the staff? Oh,

for him?

No, for staff, actually.

Okay. Do you mind if I close the public hearing?

If I could just ask him a question, that's fine.

Okay. Yes.

Is there a rush?

I'd like to close the public hearing, sort of move this on. Would you like to speak now? Okay.

Have You don't have Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I I'm honorable. I'm No. No. Come up and Do you swear to tell the truth?

I do. The whole truth

and nothing but the truth.

I only do. Okay. Thank you. Again, my name is Sandy Anlu. I live on Matthews, which is parallel to Artesia. I agree with the gentleman on the Internet. It's coming. We can control only what we can control. What's delivered, we don't know. But we do know that they're gonna put there's gonna be stores. But I do ask that I love your idea. If they can be divided and not all on Artesia, it would be beautiful. I know that they're both districts are on there. I know we have vacancies, but we need something other than two more pot shops. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your work. Okay. No more on Zoom. Is that correct?

No more e attendees.

Okay. Everyone has spoken who wishes to speak? Okay. It's time to close the public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Motion? Motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

Okay, the motion was made by Commissioner Hazeltine, second by Commissioner Conroy. All opposed? All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you all for speaking. So now it's time for all of us to discuss, ask questions. We can still ask questions of staff, correct? No?

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

We

can still ask questions of staff. All right. Let's move forward.

Oh, I asked my question.

You asked your question. Okay. Point

of clarification. I was under the understanding that delivery in California was only allowed for medicinal purposes, as Mr. Mueller said. I've heard that many times. I just want to confirm that.

Yeah, as of January 1, we cannot prohibit medicinal cannabis delivery within the And

also the observation too of where I live. I have a neighbor on each side of me. There are two to four of them. They get deliveries almost every other day. One of them might have a medical reason, but the other ones don't. That could Well, has glaucoma, so I understand that that's fine for that. But it is happening in the city. And like I said, I look out my window when I work, see the delivery guys. And I heard one of them because the guy was arguing with the delivery the recipient about the fee of it or something. They were arguing about it in the front yard.

Yeah, something of that nature. But they usually pay online anyway for most of those things. Don't give them cash. Yeah, was just Your question? No, I just want to clarify that. That's all it was.

Okay. I'm going to look on this side. Anyone here?

No? Okay.

Yeah, I have some points.

Okay, go ahead.

Did you want to go first?

Well, I had my hand up first.

Okay,

But go you went first, and then you were going to come to me. And now you're looking over there. If you've got Go ahead. Go ahead. Ahead.

My seatmate here over here basically was asking the same question that I wanted to ask but didn't really get an answer. Is it that these outside shops can deliver to Redondo only if it's medical?

That is my understanding.

Okay. So when we were talking about this previously, that wasn't mentioned. It appeared as though they could just deliver their standard product from their shops to residents in Redondo. But that is not true. What is true is that only if there is a prescription and a delivery of medical marijuana, right? So which is it?

So medicinal cannabis delivery, the city not control or limit. That said when we say we can't stop cannabis delivery or we have to allow it, it's happening. We have no mechanism by which to regulate it right now. So in a way, it's just happening. So even though it's not permitted, know it's very easily can not take because we've

been over it 50 times. The question is, is it only medical, medicinal, whatever you want to call it, marijuana, that can be delivered by an outside shop to residents of Redondo? Is it only the medical, or can they deliver whatever they have? Which one is it?

Well, it's both. Legally, within Redondo Beach, we cannot regulate medicinal unless we want to collect taxes on it and have that in place.

And we would do that by permitting them. But they can still deliver medicinal marijuana without a permit. Correct. So that's the fine point that we're trying to get understand is that anybody delivering medical or medicinal marijuana can deliver it in Redondo Beach without a permit and without limitation.

Well, me correct that though because I had it up on my screen right now because we reported to counsel on it back in December. So we just aren't permitted to say no. However, if we have a permit program in place, can require that they abide by it.

But if they don't, there's nothing we can do about it?

We can regulate it at that point, yes.

In what way?

If you are conducting business in the city without a permit, we can fine you for it.

Business permit?

A permit for cannabis delivery.

Okay, so if you do not have a city issued permit to deliver marijuana in the city of Redondo Beach, you could still deliver in the city of Redondo Beach if it's medicinal, yes or no?

It's my understanding that if we have a permit program in place, they must be permitted. But right now we don't. So we cannot tell them not to deliver here.

I don't know why this is so complicated. Don't think it's right. I'm trying to just understand what can be delivered here.

Right now? Medicinal cannabis.

Right now, you can deliver anything you want because nobody's stopping you. Okay. If this ordinance we get through all these ordinances and we have this in place, can

an

outside marijuana shop deliver see if I can come up with another way of asking the question deliver non medicinal marijuana in Redondo Beach without a permit? Can they?

So, Doug, I want to help you with this.

Well, why can't staff answer these questions? Why is it that you have to answer for them?

I think it's in the question. So you're asking not trying

to narrow I'm down on who can deliver what

legally. She's talking about what can be done legally. And she's talking about both legal and non legal.

Which isn't the question. So that's the point of confusion. The question is simply, what marijuana can be delivered in Redondo Beach without a permit?

It depends on whether you're talking about something that's legal or not.

So the answer would be

only legal marijuana. We have a marijuana operator on the phone. Maybe he knows the answer if nobody else does.

Well, Do you know?

Do I know personally?

Do you know what the answer to the question is? Yes. What exactly can be delivered?

Right now?

But is it

going to be a clear answer?

We can't.

So far I'm not getting that answer.

No, no, no, Now we can't.

You can't speak because public has been closed.

Public hearing is closed.

So,

Doug, Commissioner

Boswell. Google knows.

I'll tell you what Google says.

Okay, say it.

I asked the question, is only medical marijuana allowed to be delivered in California? Did And

Google said, only a handful of states, including California, currently permit the delivery

of you

recreational marijuana. I

I was doing research and that's what I found and there was a court case in 2021 that actually prohibited cities from banning delivery. So I think with regard to the state law, there's been court cases, It's been kind of a moving target. I think we should focus on the zoning ordinance because we're not experts in state cannabis law necessarily at least to this level.

So the other question here is, is this pertinent to our purview this evening? Is this question pertinent to our purview and what we're to decide this evening? And it's not clear, or I think it's fairly clear that it's not pertinent. Our purview here is to review those amendments that are going into the existing ordinance, existing code, and give feedback to the city council. So are there any more questions?

I don't have a question. I have a couple of points I'd like to make.

Yes, you do.

And then my recommendation. Yes. Okay. So Redondo Beach is limiting the total number of dispensaries to two with no more than one per district as part of a measured and cautious approach. Marijuana is already being delivered into our city and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.

By establishing a local cannabis program and ordinance, we gain additional control through permitting and taxing the delivery services from outside of our city, and we get information on these companies from outside agencies. Until the ordinance is passed, we have no control or information regarding who delivers to Redondo Beach. The City Council and this commission will ensure that signage remains discreet and that these dispensaries do not actively promote their cannabis products. If cannabis dispensaries are not profitable, then like any other business, they will cease operations. So like any other business, the profit margin should not be the concern concern of the city and not have anything to do with our recommendations on these amendments.

The voters of California have decided that marijuana should be accessible to the residents of the state. Half of all states now have legal marijuana in some form. And all indications point towards marijuana being legalized federally in the next few years. It's much better to get ahead of this and control how this manifests itself within our city. Therefore, my recommendation is to reject the amendment for a buffer zone around a specific park in Redondo Beach as I feel that all parks within the city should be treated the same.

Additionally, it's my recommendation to accept the amendment to eliminate the buffer zone between dispensaries as there's already a limitation of one dispensary per district and beyond that we should not tell the districts where those specific dispensaries would be. Thank you.

Did you want to make a motion on that? Those two things? Gives us a starting point.

Yes. Is that your motion? So moved. I'd like to make a comment on

Okay, so then, sure.

He can make a motion.

Before you go through the trouble of doing this, I just have a comment about something you said that I don't think is accurate.

Does it relate to my recommendations on the motions?

It's in relation to and your comment that the city I tend to agree, the city should not be concerned with whether a business is well thought out and will be profitable or not. But I think in this case, once we grant a license and a business is established, if it is being whether it's not being run properly or it's being overtaxed or it just can't attract enough business, it's now operating in the red. What is a marijuana store going to do to solve that problem? They're gonna try and cut their costs. So are they gonna then start selling black market marijuana out of their store because that has happened?

Are we going to then look at stores that are having trouble with profitability to test their product to make sure they're not cutting corners on legal product that they're allowed to sell.

So Doug, you can make a comment on this or you can make a resolution.

All I'm saying is that as you go forward to make this resolution, keep that in mind. If this is not a typical kind of business, or we wouldn't be regulating it like this, and that there are serious downsides to a business like this turning out to be untrustworthy. And there's nothing that will make a business owner untrustworthy faster than losing his shirt.

Right. And that's really the purview of the council at this point in time. In my view, it's not the purview of this particular of what we've been tasked to do.

To keep things moving forward, I move that this commission recommends rejecting the amendment for the buffer zone around a specific park because all parks in Redondo Beach should be treated the same. And additionally, that this commission recommends to accept the amendment to eliminate the buffer zone between dispensaries, thereby trusting the judgment and the limitations placed of one dispensary per district.

And I'll second that.

Are you putting that back in? No, I'm As it is. The amendment, as I understand it, is for it to be eliminated. Am I Yes. Okay. I'm in support of that as a of the elimination of the 1,000 foot buffer.