STRICTER RULES PASS FOR POT COLLECTIVES

Nine more medical marijuana collectives will be forced to close after
the City Council voted Tuesday in favor of a compromise over further
restrictions proposed.

Ultimately, an additional restriction banning collectives within 1,000
feet of parks passed, meaning that nine currently permitted outlets
would have to close. The measure By First District Councilman Rober
Garcia was a compromise from even more restrictive measures proposed
by Council members Gary DeLong (Third), Patrick O'Donnell (Fourth) and
Gerrie Schipske (Fifth).

Long Beach has spent the last year debating regulation of medical
marijuana dispensaries, and pass an ordinance this spring. DeLong, the
author of the latest proposal, said he had learned neighborhoods were
being unduly impacted by the ordinance that has proven to be too
liberal -- allowing more than 30 marijuana outlets. He said he wanted
to "correct the error" before the original ordinance went into effect.

The main restrictions proposed were:

. Collectives would not be allowed to exist within 1,000 feet of
parks, libraries and daycare centers (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).

. Marijuana cultivation sites would have to be within industrial
zoning (currently allowed on site).

. Collectives could be restricted to a total of 18 within the city
limits and only two per council district.

Seventh District Councilman James Johnson said that he felt adding
more buffer zones would punish those districts that lack those
amenities and that requiring cultivation sites be put in industrial
zones also would unfairly single out certain districts -- Eighth
District Councilwoman Rae Gabelich and Ninth District Councilman
Steven Neal had echoed the industrial zone sentiment during the last
meeting.

Johnson motioned to pass only the limitation of two collectives per
district. That motion did not get seconded.

First District Councilman Robert Garcia then presented his own motion,
which the council would eventually pass. His motion:

. Collectives would 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).

. Collectives must produce audited financial statements.

. Collectives only can operate from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
daily.

. There will be a 45-day public comment period before an application
hearing in front of the City Council.

. There will be a one-year moratorium before any new applications will
be accepted.

. The installation of security cameras on the outside of the
collective will be required as per the police department's
recommendations.

The council passed the motion 7-2, with Johnson and O'Donnell
dissenting. O'Donnell said the compromise was not restrictive enough.

"I don't think it's fair for certain parts of the city to bear the
potential burden of potential nuisance while others don't," Johnson
said, right before the vote.

According DeLong, 17 collectives would have had to close if the
original proposal had passed. DeLong said that with Garcia's motion,
Districts One, Three and Seven would all have one collective closing
while Districts Four and Eight would have two collectives closing and
Districts Two, Six and Nine would be unaffected.

"Obviously this (Garcia's motion) wasn't what my goal was -- we put out
a different proposal -- but I do think what you're recommending gets us
to where we're trying to go, which is to reduce the number of
locations overall," he said, shortly before the vote.

The motion that passed -- aside from the parks buffer zone addition --
mirrors the compromises asked for by lobbyist Carl Kemp in a letter
sent to the mayor and the City Council earlier on Tuesday.

However, a letter sent by attorney Richard Brizendine to the mayor and
the City Council on Monday, still hints that his collective clients
may see any changes as grounds for lawsuits.

"In other words, amending the ordinance would give rise to a claim by
every collective that considered applying prior to the application
cut-off date, except those that survive, to either go back to that
point and re-pick all applicants or to institute civil suits to
recover their costs for things such as to obtain mechanical drawings
and landlord consents which were required by the City in order to
apply," he says in the letter. "The sure way to avoid each and every
one of these claims ripening into litigation is to reject the proposed
amendment."

The council discussed the medical marijuana ordinance, and any
potential legal ramifications from enacting more restrictions to it,
in a closed session before the normal council meeting -- which due to
those discussions started nearly an hour late. However, during the
open session, potential litigation was never discussed.

It also is uncertain how the city will refund the application fees of
the nine collectives that will have to close -- money that was used to
balance the budget. Each collective had to pay $14,742 to apply.

"We couldn't tell you tonight where the money will come from," City
Manager Pat West said.