Jul 17, 2025 Planning Commission

[00:00:01]

JULY 17TH, AND WE'RE GOING TO START THE REDONDO BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND LET'S START OFF.

[A. CALL TO ORDER]

LET'S DO A ROLL CALL FIRST. COMMISSIONER LIGHT.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER YOUNG.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GADDIS. LATE [LAUGHTER].

COMMISSIONER CONROY. HERE. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE.

HERE. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. HERE. SEEING WE'RE ALL HERE LET'S STAND AND IF WE COULD HAVE MR. CONROY LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? READY? BEGIN. 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.

VERY GOOD. I LIKED IT ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT ON OUR LIST IS APPROVING THE ORDER OF AGENDA.

[D. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA]

WE HAVE OUR BLUE FOLDER WE RECEIVED THAT THIS AFTERNOON.

[E. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS - ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS]

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. VERY GOOD. NOW, BLUE FOLDER IS ACCEPTED.

NEXT ON OUR LIST IS CONSENT CALENDAR. THESE ARE BUSINESS ITEMS, EXCEPT THOSE FORMERLY NOTICED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OR THOSE POLLED FOR DISCUSSION

[F. CONSENT CALENDAR]

THOSE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION.

THE CHAIR WILL CALL ON ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PULLED BY THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE, AND COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES.

SO. MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. HEARING NO OBJECTIONS THAT WE WILL PROCEED.

NEXT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. AND I DO HAVE TWO CARDS. FIRST ONE IS FROM RICK MCQUILLIN.

EX PARTE BEFORE WE BEGIN THE MEETING, WE ARE REQUIRED TO NOTE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WE HAVE HAD ON ANY OF THE AGENDA ITEMS WE HAVE BEFORE US TONIGHT.

[I. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION]

COMMISSIONER BOSWELL? NO EX OR OTHERWISE PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANYONE.

COMMISSIONER YOUNG. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ZANE OBAGI AND WITH MELISSA DECHANDT.

PRETTY GOOD COMMISSIONER GADDIS? NONE TO DISCLOSE.

COMMISSIONER CONROY? NOTHING TO REPORT. AND COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE? I HAD CONVERSATION WITH CHAIR CRAIG, AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH COUNCILPERSON SCOTT BEHRENDT AND THE PUBLIC. PRETTY GOOD AND AS COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE MENTIONED, I HAD THE COMMUNICATION WITH HER I ALSO SPOKE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. SOME MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

VERY GOOD. NOW WE CAN CONTINUE ON TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

[H. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS]

I'M RICK MCQUILLIN FROM MANHATTAN BEACH WITH A MID-YEAR UPDATE ON THE SEE ARTESIA IN SOUTHBAYSTREETS.COM I'M TALKING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND YOUTH AND CULTURE ARTS COMMISSION, THE NRBBA, REDONDO CHAMBER, REDONDO TOURISM, REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL AND THE COMMUNITY AND YOU.

I EMAILED YOU THIS MORNING SOME SCREENSHOTS FROM THE BETA SITE.

THERE YOU'LL SEE SOME MAP HUBS AND SOME STARTING SAMPLES OF WHAT I CALL PROJECTS, GOALS, AND NEEDS.

NONE OF IT'S PRETTY OR USABLE, YET IT'S STILL DEEPLY IN CONSTRUCTION.

THIS ISN'T BIG TECH IT'S COMMUNITY TECH. SO YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE FINAL PRODUCT.

I'M INVITING THE COMMUNITY INTO THE PROCESS. BECAUSE I NEED YOU.

G. K. CHESTERTON ONCE SAID, ANYTHING WORTH DOING IS WORTH DOING BADLY.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE SO IT'S ALL MESSY.

NOW, IS IT WORTH DOING? I DON'T SEE HOW LOSING OUR LOCAL MERCHANTS CAN BE GOOD FOR ANYONE.

FOR RESIDENTS, ENTERPRISING RESIDENTS OR THE CITY.

SO THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO DRIVE COMMERCE SHOPPING BACK FROM ONLINE TO LOCAL.

[00:05:02]

SO THIS APP THAT YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT IT HAS TWO MAIN WORKING CONCEPTS MAPS AND TOPS.

THE MAPS ARE REALLY STOREFRONT DIRECTORIES. I'VE BEEN TOLD THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE RESORT MAPS, BUT FOR COMMERCE. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING PUBLIC ART AND HISTORICAL SITES.

THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION'S INQUIRED ABOUT ADDING THE PUBLIC ART.

AND MAYOR LIGHT SAID, WHY DON'T WE PUT HISTORICAL SITES IN THERE? SO WE'RE LOOKING INTO KIND OF MAKING IT A BLENDED THING.

THE ARTESIA BOULEVARD MAP IS THERE NOW. THE GALLERIA WILL BE NEXT, AND WE CAN DO THE WHOLE CITY.

BUT THESE MAPS ARE JUST A PORTAL INTO THE DEEPER CAPABILITY, WHICH IS WHAT I CALL TOPS.

THIS CONCEPT IS NEW. HOW DO WE CREATE ENDURING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND VISITORS, RESIDENTS AND ALSO VISITORS AND LOCAL MERCHANTS? I BELIEVE WE CAN DO THIS BY ELEVATING THE PROCESS FROM BUYING PRODUCTS TO SATISFYING GOALS AND NEEDS.

YOU'LL SEE MORE ABOUT THIS SOON. CALL ME CRAZY, BUT MY VISION HAS LITTLE ANNEXES OR RETAILERS ON ARTESIA, LIKE MAYBE SKECHERS AND TARGET AND MACY'S AND TOTALLY NEW ONES.

AND I'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS APP IS KIND OF LIKE AN ACCESS REDONDO, BUT FOR COMMERCE. I PRESENT THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OUR GOAL IS TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN ASPIRATIONAL, HEALTHY BUSINESSES THAT HELP OUR RESIDENTS IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND REACH THEIR GOALS.

I BET IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO YOU NOW. AND THAT'S OKAY.

PLEASE ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR SHARE IDEAS. THE COMMUNITY IS STARTING TO SHAPE THIS NOW.

AND BY THE WAY, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS KIND OF PROJECT ALL MY CAREER. SO YOU CAN'T HURT MY FEELINGS WITH ANY TYPE OF FEEDBACK IT'S ALL VALUABLE.

SO LET'S HAVE SOME FUN WITH THIS. THANKS FOR LISTENING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU BET. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. MUELLER. JIM MUELLER. GOOD EVENING I'M JIM MUELLER DISTRICT 5 I HEARD THAT THE SUPER SECRET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WAS SUPPOSED TO UPDATE US ON THEIR DELIBERATIONS.

I LOOKED ALL OVER THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND THE INTERNET AND FOUND NOTHING.

DOES THIS MEAN THEY GOT NOTHING? WE IN DISTRICT 5 THINK A BETTER DEVELOPED ARTESIA BOULEVARD BUSINESS DISTRICT SHOULD BE A CRITICAL CITY GOAL.

BUT THE ONLY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IDEA FOR THE NORTH SO FAR SEEMS TO BE CANNABIS SHOPS.

OH, THEN THERE'S THE AACAP. THE IDEA THE AACAP IS THAT BIGGER BUILDINGS AND LESS PARKING WILL TURN THINGS AROUND.

PLUS A PARKETTE OR TWO AND NOBODY KNOWS WHEN EVEN THOSE WILL BECOME A REALITY.

I GUESS WE SHOULDN'T EXPECT MORE FROM THE CITY'S PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SINCE THE DIRECTOR'S EXPERIENCES IN CARMEL AND LAGUNA, WHICH ARE HARDLY HOTBEDS OF DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE CITIES IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE SUCCESSFULLY REVITALIZED SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO, PASADENA, AND REDWOOD CITY. THESE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS HAVE TWO COMMON FEATURES BROAD CITIZEN INPUT AND MIXED USE.

TWO THINGS THAT REDONDO BEACH CITY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T SEEM TO LIKE.

PEOPLE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

BUSINESS FOLLOWS PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AROUND ARTESIA BOULEVARD ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, MIDDLE AND UPPER INCOME FAMILIES. HAS ANYONE ASKED THE FAMILIES WHY THEY WOULD RATHER SPEND TIME AND SHOP AT DEL AMO, MANHATTAN VILLAGE OR HERMOSA? HAS ANYONE WONDERED WHY MANY OF THE BUSINESSES ON ARTESIA AREN'T FAMILY ORIENTED? THE CITIES THAT SUCCESSFULLY REVITALIZE DID ASK THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS.

MY FRIEND RICK MCQUILLIN IS WORKING ON A MARKETING SURVEY APP.

WHY NOT HELP HIM PROMOTE IT? THERE ARE SIMPLE THINGS TO GET PEOPLE ON TO ARTESIA.

SPONSOR A PUBLIC MARKET ON THE GREENWAY. HELP PROMOTE NRBBA'S DINE AROUND COMING UP IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER.

ARTESIA DEVELOPMENT WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITHOUT AN UNDERSTANDING OF AND ACTION TO SATISFY THE NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE SURROUNDING POPULATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTESIA REVENUE BASE IS CRITICAL TO CITY FINANCES, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY HANDS RAISED OR ANY COMMENTARY ONLINE WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING? WE HAVE NO HAND RAISE AT THIS TIME. GREAT VERY GOOD.

NEXT WE ARE THE SECTION OF SECTION J, OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AND BEFORE I'D LIKE TO GO ON THIS, I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THE NEXT SECTION.

AND SO BEFORE WE BEGIN TONIGHT, I WANT TO ADDRESS A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT FEW PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA CONTINUE TO PUSH, AND THAT THIS COMMISSION IS NOT BUSINESS FRIENDLY.

THAT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. IN FACT, THIS COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED LOCAL BUSINESSES.

JUST LOOK AT OUR TRACK RECORD. WE'VE APPROVED NEARLY EVERY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT HAS COME BEFORE US.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE HAVEN'T JUST APPROVED THEM, WE'VE IMPROVED THEM.

MANY APPLICANTS HAVE COME HERE WITH CUPS THAT INCLUDED LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION OR A SMALLER NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES,

[00:10:02]

BUT WE SAW THOSE LIMITATIONS AS POTENTIAL OBSTACLES TO SUCCESS.

INSTEAD, WE ENCOURAGE BROADER ALLOWANCES SUCH AS MORE HOURS, MORE STAFFING.

SO BUSINESS OWNERS WOULDN'T HAVE TO RETURN LATER AND COME IN FRONT OF US FOR ANOTHER TIME CONSUMING REVISION TO THEIR CUP.

THAT KIND OF FORWARD THINKING GIVES BUSINESSES A STRONGER START AND A BETTER CHANCE TO THRIVE IN OUR CITY.

THIS CREATIVE APPROACH IS WHAT SETS THIS COMMISSION APART, AND IS ONE OF THE REASONS I'M PROUD TO SERVE ALONGSIDE EACH OF YOU HERE.

FOR SIX YEARS, FROM 2017 TO 2023. MAYOR BRAND PUBLICLY EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO TRY TO GET ME ON THIS COMMISSION.

UNFORTUNATELY, POLITICS AND OPPOSITION FROM THREE FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING.

THAT'S WHY I CONSIDER IT NOT JUST A PRIVILEGE, BUT AN HONOR TO SERVE HERE WITH YOU.

I'M ESPECIALLY PROUD TO SERVE ALONGSIDE A GROUP OF DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS WHO BRING A WIDE RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES AND EXPERIENCES.

WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE, BUT THAT'S A STRENGTH.

TOGETHER, WE REFLECT THE VALUES AND PRIORITIES THAT THIS COMMUNITY HAS CONSISTENTLY VOICED AT THE BALLOT BOX FOR AT LEAST 17 YEARS.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS COMMISSION EXPRESSES, REPRESENTS THE VOTERS, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY THE PUBLIC TRUST THE WORK THAT WE DO.

NOW, I HOPE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS FACT AND ALLOW US TO CONTINUE THIS IMPORTANT WORK THAT WE'RE DOING ON BEHALF OF OUR CITY THAT WE ALL CARE ABOUT.

NOW, THAT SAID, TONIGHT WE'RE BEING ASKED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM OUR USUAL ROLE.

WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

SO I WANT TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. THIS PROPOSAL DID NOT COME FROM US.

THIS DISTINCTION MATTERS BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AS WE BEGIN TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION.

ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST WHY I WANTED TO START IT OFF WITH.

THANK YOU WAYNE. THANK YOU YOU MAY SIR. REALLY QUICKLY IF AS WELL AS I'M ABLE.

I'D LIKE THE LIST OF THOSE THREE PEOPLE THAT THINK WE'RE NOT BUSINESS FRIENDLY [LAUGHTER].

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, ANYBODY WHO WATCHES THESE AND GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH A PROCESS WILL OFTEN SEE THE BUSINESS OWNERS, ARCHITECT, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEY, WHATEVER STANDING UP AT THE END, THRILLED THAT THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED AND SAYING, I HAD BEEN TOLD YOU WERE NOT BUSINESS FRIENDLY, BUT I CAN SEE IT'S JUST NOT THE CASE.

WE HAVE AS CHAIRMAN. CRAIG THAT'S OKAY. CRAIG'S THE LAST NAME, ISN'T IT? THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

CHAIRMAN CRAIG HAS SAID WE ARE. WELL, AS HE IMPLIED, WE ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND HOW BUSINESSES WORK, AND WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES FOR A BUSINESS TO BE ESTABLISHED HERE SUCCESSFULLY.

AND WE DON'T JUST TAKE WHAT THEY'RE GIVING US IN THEIR PROPOSAL.

WE LOOK AT THE BUSINESS AND WE ADVISE THEM ON HOW TO MAKE IT EVEN BETTER.

AND IN ALMOST ALL CASES, WE HAVE APPROVED THE FINAL RESULTS.

I COULDN'T BE MORE PROUD TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION.

IT'S AN ALL STAR TEAM AND I HOPE WE STICK TOGETHER.

INDEED AND I MENTIONED THAT NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FEW PEOPLE, BUT EVEN SOME ELECTEDS RECENTLY A PERSON WHO WAS ELECTED AT A COUNTY COUNCIL SEATS ACTUALLY, THE FIRST THING THEY SAID TO A FORMER MEMBER OF OUR COMMISSION HERE IS THAT, YOU GUYS ARE JUST SO UN BUSINESS FRIENDLY.

YOU'RE SO BUSINESS. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T SUPPORT BUSINESSES AT ALL.

AND THEN THE PERSON SAID, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT [LAUGHTER]? AND I GUESS THEY FINALLY STARTED WATCHING THE MEETINGS TO LEARN THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. WE WORK REALLY HARD FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS.

YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DON'T ALWAYS MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS OR THE MOST PERFECT ONES. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WE MAKE THEM VERY THOUGHTFUL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING TO WORK BEST FOR THE CITY. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? OUR JOB IS TO ADVISE AND COUNSEL, AND I THINK WE DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF IT.

AND AGAIN, EVERYONE HERE, WE ALL HAVE DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS.

I THINK WE ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON WE ALL CARE ABOUT THE CITY. AND WE WANT TO DO THE BEST JOB WE CAN AND I THINK WE DO A DAMN GOOD JOB AT IT.

ANYWAY, MARC SITTING THERE WAITING PATIENTLY FOR THE START OF THE MEETING [LAUGHTER].

SO ANYWAY, WE'RE GOING TO START SECTION J. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I GUESS I HAVE TO READ THIS PART FIRST.

[J. PUBLIC HEARINGS]

MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. HEARING NO OBJECTION, WE SHALL PROCEED. ALL RIGHT WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I BELIEVE YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL US [LAUGHTER]. PLANNING COMMISSION I HAVE A FEW SLIDES TO SHARE. I'M JOINED BY OUR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CHERYL PARK, TONIGHT.

SO WHAT'S BEFORE YOU AS AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REGULATE SMOKE SHOPS.

AS YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE, ZONING ORDINANCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO ADOPTIONS.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE.

THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 15 TO 17 SMOKE SHOPS IN REDONDO BEACH.

I PUT APPROXIMATE BECAUSE A FEW MAY HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS RECENTLY, AND WE LAST CHECKED IT WAS AT 16.

[00:15:05]

IT'S UNIQUELY RISK PRONE TO MINORS. THERE'S A HIGH TENDENCY FOR MINORS TO USE TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

AND THAT'S WHY THE STATE IS TAKING PROACTIVE MEASURES TO LOOK TO CURB TOBACCO USE AND FURTHER REGULATE IT.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S ALSO COMPLIANCE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SMOKE SHOPS.

WE CITED FRESNO AND MODESTO TO CALIFORNIA CITIES WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY, UPON INSPECTION, WERE FOUND TO BE SELLING EITHER CANNABIS OR ILLEGAL TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

WE HAD TWO RECENTLY REDONDO BEACH THAT WERE ALSO CITED FOR SELLING ILLEGAL PRODUCTS.

AND ACTUALLY TWO MORE THAT ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION AND PENDING SOME CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT THE CHIEF INFORMED ME OF.

SO ENFORCEMENT COMPLIANCE IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE WITH THESE BUSINESSES.

CURRENTLY, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY REGULATIONS UNIQUE TO TOBACCO STORES OR SMOKE SHOPS.

THEY'RE JUST CLASSIFIED AS A GENERAL RETAIL USE.

IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO OPEN ONE, THEY CAN SIMPLY COME IN AND GET A BUSINESS LICENSE AS OPPOSED TO THE LENGTHIER PROCESS OF GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEMONSTRATE ON HOW THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATE.

SO BECAUSE OF THIS AND THIS ORIGINATED FROM A CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL THEY DIRECTED STAFF TO DEVELOP THESE SMOKE SHOP REGULATIONS. ON APRIL 15TH STAFF PRESENTED A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED INPUT ON IT. THAT INPUT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCES BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

THEY ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO ADOPT OR TO PREPARE URGENCY ORDINANCE TO A PLACE OF MORATORIUM ON SMOKE SHOPS.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THE MORATORIUM IS TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH TIME TO DEVELOP A PERMANENT ORDINANCE AND NOT ALLOW ANY NEW BUSINESSES TO COME IN UNTIL WE DO SO. SO, PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW, THE INITIAL URGENCY ORDINANCE WAS FOR 45 DAYS.

WE THEN BROUGHT IT BACK AND EXTENDED IT. SO IT'S VALID UNTIL JUNE 2025.

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE UNDER A YEAR UNTIL THIS MORATORIUM GOES AWAY OR UNTIL THE PERMANENT ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED.

SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME AT THIS POINT. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

FIRST, IT CREATES A DEFINITION OF SMOKE SHOP OR TOBACCO RETAILER.

WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO CLASSIFYING IT. IT ALSO IDENTIFIES WHEN AND THAT'S CONSIDERED AN ANCILLARY USE WITHIN A BUSINESS AND PUT SOME PARAMETERS BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROPOSE TO OUTLAW TOBACCO SALES WITHIN THE CITY.

IT PROPOSES TO REGULATE STORES THAT PRIMARILY SELL TOBACCO, SUCH AS SMOKE SHOPS.

IT WOULD REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY EXISTING OR NEW SMOKE SHOP MOVING FORWARD, SO IT WOULD NO LONGER BE JUST A BUSINESS LICENSE.

THEY WOULD COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT REQUIRES THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS THAT ARE OPEN LEGALLY NONCONFORMING OR LEGAL TO OBTAIN A CUP WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE. AND THE REASON THERE IT'S PROVIDED THEY'RE PROVIDED WITH THAT AMOUNT OF TIME IT'S BASED ON ESTABLISHED KATE LAW AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN SPEAK TO THIS. AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE A BUSINESS REASONABLE TIME IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADVERTISE IT OUT TO GET A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT INTO THAT BUSINESS. SO THAT'S WHY THE FIVE YEARS IS RECOMMENDED.

IT ESTABLISHES AN INITIAL CAP OF 10 SMOKE SHOPS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND THAT WOULD REALLY ENCOMPASS THE EXISTING ONES.

AND THEN EVENTUALLY TO GET DOWN TO A CAP OF 5 IS WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO REALLY IT GOES FROM LET'S JUST SAY IT'S 16 RIGHT NOW DOWN TO 10 WITHIN FIVE YEARS.

AND THEN AS WE MOVE TO 5, IT WOULD BE THROUGH ATTRITION OVER TIME, IT WOULD NOT BE ON A SET SCHEDULE.

IT WOULD JUST BE AS BUSINESSES ABANDON THEIR USE.

CHANGE WILL NOT BE THE PRIMARY WAY. AND OTHER THINGS, THEY DON'T RENEW THEIR LICENSE.

THEN THOSE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST AND THE CAP WOULD BE REDUCED.

SO WE DID MAKE SOME REAL MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION, AND WE PROVIDE THAT AS A BLUE FOLDER ITEM.

THIS IS THE SECTION THAT IDENTIFIES THAT ANY NEW SMOKE SHOP WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THERE WITHIN 5 YEARS THAT WAS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING ONES.

[00:20:02]

THIS IS THE SECTION THAT ADDRESSES THE HOW WE HANDLE THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS, WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING ONCE THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SO IT REQUIRES THOSE BUSINESSES TO OBTAIN A USE PERMIT WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. IT'S GOING TO BE LIMITED TO 10, SO SOME OF THE 17 OR 16 WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A USE PERMIT.

AND AFTER THOSE 5 YEARS, THOSE ONES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHUT DOWN AND THE USE PERMITS WILL BE PROCESSED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE FAIREST WAY OF SORTING THROUGH WHO GETS TO THE TOP OF THE LIST.

AND I'VE ALREADY STATED THIS. EVENTUALLY THE CAP WOULD GO DOWN TO 5 OVER TIME THROUGH ATTRITION, AND THAT'S IDENTIFIED HERE AS WELL. AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED THIS LANGUAGE SHOWN AND UNDERLINED, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE EXISTING SMOKE SHOPS THAT ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE CUP HAVE TO CEASE OPERATIONS WITHIN 5 YEARS.

SO WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT.

THERE ARE ALSO CONCENTRATION AND LOCATION STANDARDS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

THIS WAS ACTUALLY MODELED AFTER THE RECENTLY ADOPTED CANNABIS ORDINANCE, WHERE IT'S 600 FEET FROM SENSITIVE USES SUCH AS SCHOOLS AND DAYCARE. AND THERE'S A DEFINITION OF THAT THAT WE REFER TO IN THE CANNABIS THAT WAS CROSS-LINKED TO THIS.

THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE 1000 FEET FROM EACH OTHER.

AND THAT'S JUST CONSISTENT WITH THE CANNABIS.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DALE PAGE PARK SINCE IT WAS A COMMERCIAL USE, REALLY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL NORTH REDONDO BEACH.

AND THEN IT WAS APPLIED FOR THE CANNABIS STANDARDS AND WE APPLIED IT HERE.

THERE'S BUSINESS STANDARDS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE, BUT BASICALLY IT'S OPERATIONAL STANDARDS ABOUT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITING THE SALE OF ILLEGAL PRODUCTS AND OTHER OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

THERE'S ALSO THE CUP STANDARDS. SO ANYTIME A CUP COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THESE WOULD BE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE PERMITS, AND THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OR MODIFY THESE AS WELL.

BUT THESE ARE THE BASE STANDARDS. AND THE BUSINESSES WOULD BE LIMITED IN HOURS BETWEEN 08:00 AM TO 9:00 PM, UNLESS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THERE'S LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF THE DISPLAY AND THE MARKETING OF PRODUCTS.

AND THEY'RE VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STORE. SO THERE WOULD BE SOME CONTROL OVER THE ESTHETIC OF THE BUSINESSES AS WELL.

ENFORCEMENT AND THE ORDINANCE INCLUDES DETAILS UNDER ALL THESE HEADINGS, BUT BASICALLY IT CREATES A PROCESS TO ALLOW THE CITY TO INSPECT THE BUSINESSES. IT'S CLEAR ABOUT THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND BEING AT THE LEVEL OF MISDEMEANOR, IT PROVIDES A CITY WITH THE AUTHORITY TO CITE FOR EACH DAY THAT THE OFFENSE IS OCCURRING IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE IN CONTINUED NONCOMPLIANCE.

IT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS ANY ACTIVITY THAT'S PROHIBITED BY THE STATES, AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES REVOCATION PROCEDURES FOR THE CUP OR BUSINESS LICENSE. SO IT WOULD BE EITHER WE DID WORK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THIS.

AND ACCORDING TO THE POLICE CHIEF, RIGHT NOW, MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT IS REALLY STRICTLY BASED ON STATE LAW.

SO BY HAVING LOCAL ORDINANCE, LOCAL REGULATIONS, IT GIVES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MORE TEETH TO ENFORCE THIS, MORE STANDARDS TO ENFORCE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEFER SOLELY TO STATE LAW AND GET STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED.

HOWEVER, THEY DO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE.

AND THAT'S HOW I MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE TWO BUSINESSES THAT WERE RECENTLY CITED AND THAT WAS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE.

BUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS REVIEWED THIS AS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS AND IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THESE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

AND WITH THAT, IT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.

THAT SAID, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH THIS, IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE MADE.

WE COULD CONTINUE THIS TO ANOTHER MEETING. LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE A YEAR FOR THE URGENCY ORDINANCE, SO ACTION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT. IF THERE'S ANYTHING REAL SUBSTANTIVE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE TO.

BUT THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION. AND I WILL NOTE THAT FOLLOWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THIS IF YOU DO DECIDE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL,

[00:25:07]

WITH THIS MORATORIUM IN PLACE, WE'VE IDENTIFIED SOME POTENTIAL LOOPHOLES THAT PROSPECTIVE BUSINESSES ARE LOOKING TO UTILIZE TO OPEN UP.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE CODE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE URGENCY ORDINANCE.

IT'S ALLOWS THE CITY TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THIS AND TAKE SOME TIME.

SO WE GET IT RIGHT. SO BUT AS OF NOW, THERE'S NOTHING REAL SUBSTANTIVE PLANNED.

AND THOSE SUBSTANTIVE PLANS CHANGES PLAN FOR THE ORDINANCE.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

VERY GOOD. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.

I DID SPEAK TO MR. WIENER ABOUT THIS AS WELL, TOO [LAUGHTER] SO EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

IN THE ONE INTERESTING THING THAT YOU MENTIONED TOO IS THAT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THAT ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT HAPPENED, AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS AGENCY EVEN EXISTED, BUT I GUESS THERE WAS SOME PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, WHICH I GUESS IS LIKE THE ATF FOR STATE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS SO THE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO DO INSPECTIONS.

AND I NOTICED IN THE ENFORCEMENT END TO JUMP RIGHT IN WAS JUST BASICALLY IT SAYS HERE ABOUT THEY CAN COME IN AND INSPECT ANY TIME.

IF THEY WANTED TO WALK IN, THE POLICE WANTED TO WALK INTO A PREMISES.

THEY DON'T NEED A SEARCH WARRANT. THEY COULD JUST WALK IN, INSPECT AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, YOU SAID THERE'S A PROGRESSIVE PROCESS BY WHICH A BUSINESS THAT'S NOT A COMPLIANCE CAN BE HAVE THEIR LICENSE REPLICATED.

BUT I WAS LOOKING TO SEE WHERE THAT WAS, BECAUSE I SAW THAT THERE'S A SERIES OF THINGS THAT SAYS MULTIPLE EVENTS AND HOW OFTEN THEY HAPPEN, BUT HOW MANY EVENTS WOULD HAPPEN HAVE TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE SOMETHING WOULD BE ESCALATED TO A POTENTIAL REVOCATION? SO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T SPECIFY A NUMBER OF EVENTS IN THE ORDINANCE.

IT WOULD BE AND THAT COULD BE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I THINK IT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY, OF STAFF, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS TO WHEN IT REACHES THAT LEVEL. IT COULD BE THE FIRST VIOLATION BASED ON THE SEVERITY OF THE VIOLATION.

SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY ARE SELLING CANNABIS FROM THE BUSINESS.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE PRETTY THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE WELL BEYOND THEIR CUP AND THAT WOULD BE A MUCH MORE SERIOUS OFFENSE. I GUESS I'M JUST LOOKING AT YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, THERE'S A POINT SYSTEM. I GUESS IF YOU GET ONE, TWO, THREE POINTS, YOUR LICENSE IS SUSPENDED OR SOMETHING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE, LIKE YOU SAID, IS SOMETHING WE COULD TALK ABOUT, I GUESS. SO THAT WAS I DIDN'T SEE A CLEAR BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WERE ASKING ME LIKE, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY GET CAUGHT 4 TIMES VIOLATION? DOES THAT MEAN THEY'RE SHUT DOWN? OR DOES THAT MEAN THEY JUST GET ANOTHER TICKET? AND SO THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT THE PUBLIC HAD. ANYWAY, WITH THAT, I'LL LET MR. BOSWELL START I WAS TALKING TOO LONG COULD THESE SITUATIONS WHERE A SMOKE SHOP IS SITED FOR A VIOLATION OR PERHAPS THEY ALREADY DO.

BUT CAN THEY BE ACCOMPANIED BY VERY LARGE FINES? PENALTY FINES FOR INFRACTIONS? SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BIG MOTIVATOR TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE RUNNING YOUR BUSINESS ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE.

ARE YOU ABLE CHERYL? SO WE COULD MAKE VIOLATIONS AND INFRACTIONS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SO WE COULD MAKE IT A VIOLATION SO A VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE SELLING, YOU KNOW, FLAVORED TOBACCO? CORRECT. OR SOME ILLEGAL DEVICE. COULD THAT. WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IS FINE, BUT A VIOLATION COMES WITH A FINE AND A LARGE ENOUGH FINE THAT A BUSINESS WILL DECIDE FOR ITS OWN PROFITABILITY TO AVOID GETTING IN THAT SITUATION.

IS THAT POSSIBLE TO ADD THAT'S PRETTY TYPICAL WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND CITATIONS, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT IS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND REDONDO BEACH MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR PROCESS HERE CURRENTLY IS THAT IT EITHER MOVES TO BEING A CRIMINAL PENALTY, OR WE CAN SCHEDULE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR LICENSE FOR REVOCATION. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE LIKE A FINE SYSTEM.

THAT SAID, IT'S SOMETHING I'VE BEEN INTENDING TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND WORK ON.

[00:30:04]

SO IT'S ON THE RADAR, BUT UNIQUE TO THIS ORDINANCE? NO. WELL. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE LIKE A CIVIL PENALTY SECTION.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT IN OUR CODE.

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CODE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IN THE PROPOSED CODE.

OKAY. DEFINITELY WE DON'T HAVE IT OR WITHIN OUR EXISTING MUNI CODE.

WHAT WE DO HAVE ARE, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE REFERRING TO, ARE INFRACTIONS.

BUT THOSE ARE, THOSE WOULD BE CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

SO, LIKE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SAID YOU COULD GO THE CRIMINAL ROUTE, WHICH IS CODE ENFORCEMENT ROUTE, AND THEN THEY WOULD INITIATE A CASE, AND THEN THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY PROSECUTOR AND GO CRIMINALLY, OR YOU WOULD GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE CUP ROUTE AND REVOKE THEIR PERMIT.

ALL SOUNDS VERY TIME CONSUMING AND PAPERWORK INTENSIVE.

WHEN I GET A PARKING TICKET, I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY OF THAT.

BUT APPARENTLY I STILL HAVE TO PAY THE FINE AND I'M A CRIMINAL, ACCORDING TO THAT INTERPRETATION.

IF YOU WANT BUSINESSES TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT EXPENSIVE FOR THEM TO CONTINUE THAT BEHAVIOR, AND THEN THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF IT THEMSELVES.

SO WHATEVER LEGALESE WE NEED TO THROW AT THIS TO GET TO THE ENDPOINT OF IF YOU VIOLATE THESE ORDINANCES, YOU PAY A BIG FINE. YOU VIOLATE MORE THAN THREE TIMES YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS AT SERIOUS RISK OR AUTOMATICALLY PULLED. I MEAN, THESE ARE SMOKE SHOPS. WE REALLY DON'T EVEN WANT THEM HERE.

WE ARE OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO SCALE THIS BACK TO A POINT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAYBE EVEN GET RID OF THEM.

YOU KNOW PUSSYFOOTING AROUND WITH THEM IS JUST GOING TO MAKE IT TAKE LONGER AND BE LESS SUCCESSFUL.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO INVITE BUSINESSES WHO THINK THEY CAN OUTSMART US.

SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEN YOU VOTE ON THIS WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE CREATE A FINE SYSTEM WITH IT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL AND TAKE A LOOK AT.

I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE AT SOME POINT TO DO IT FOR ALL CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS BECAUSE THE LONGER I'VE BEEN HERE, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE HOW THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

AND I'VE HAD THE THOUGHT IF WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO DO IT FOR THIS ONE AND JUST TRY TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE RATHER THAN TRY AT THIS POINT, TRYING TO TACKLE THE BROADER CODE, WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.

WE HAVE A YEAR, I GUESS, RIGHT? YEAH [LAUGHTER]. SO WE HAVE NO EXCUSE.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE YOU GOT YOUR HAND UP? YEAH THANK YOU. SO A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT ARE, MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT ONE IS THAT IT SAYS THEM OPENING AT 8:00 AM? THAT'S LIKE. THAT'S EARLY, I THINK. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE 10:00 AM TO 9:00 PM.

IF THEY OPEN AT 8:00 AM, THE HIGH SCHOOLERS CAN GO BEFORE SCHOOL STARTS JUST MAKES MORE SENSE THE OTHER CHANGES, I TALKED WITH COUNCILMAN BEHRENDT FROM DISTRICT 5 REGARDING THE 150FT FROM THE.

WHAT'S THAT PARK CALLED? DALE PAGE? YES AND I ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW? WHY THAT PARK AND THEN. AND WHAT'S THE REASON FOR IT? IT'S BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

RIGHT? SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, RATHER THAN JUST THAT PARK ADDED TO ALL PARKS.

SO I WAS GIVING HIM AN EXAMPLE OF VETERAN'S PARK HAS COMMERCIAL ALL THE WAY AROUND IT, AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL ALL THE WAY AROUND IT.

AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED RESIDENTIAL WAS ONE OF THE REASONS ABOUT THAT PARK WHY IT WAS 150FT.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE ALL PARKS, SCHOOLS, BLAH, BLAH BLAH IN THAT SAME PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND DAYCARE? PARDON ME. AND DAYCARE CENTERS? IT'S IN THERE.

THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. SO JUST ADD THE PARKS.

ZONING. SO WE DON'T HAVE A SHOP RIGHT NEXT TO SOMEBODY'S HOME.

OKAY MR. GADDIS [LAUGHTER] YEAH. I DIDN'T SEE HOOKAH SHOPS REALLY SPECIFIED IN THIS.

[00:35:04]

WELL, IT SAYS [LAUGHTER]. BUT YOU KNOW? AS IN DOES ANYBODY HAVE FAMILIARITY WITH HOOKAH [LAUGHTER] SHOPS? I THINK PEOPLE TORRANCE BOULEVARD. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YEAH. TORRANCE SO. THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKE A SMOKE NOT WELL, I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED HOOKAH SHOPS I'VE ACTUALLY NEVER BEEN THE ONE [LAUGHTER]. BUT IT SAYS IT PLACES THE PROHIBITION OR NOT PROHIBITION, BUT IT DEFINES A SMOKE SHOP AS A STORE SELLS TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND IT'S PRETTY BROAD IN THE DEFINITION OF THAT.

SO IF TOBACCO IS IN HOOKAH AND I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT PRODUCT [LAUGHTER], THEN I WOULD SAY IT WOULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY.

I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE A CIGAR STORE OR SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW? WHERE YOU, YOU GO IN AND GUYS SMOKE SO, YEAH, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE A GENTLEMAN'S CLUB.

THEY GO AND DRINK TEA, SMOKE HOOKAH, I THINK.

WELL, IF THAT FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY SOMEHOW, SOME PART OF THIS DEFINITION.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS. IF YOU WALK IN AND THEY SEE YOU AND THEN YOU PAY FOR.

AGAIN I DON'T KNOW HOW THE BUSINESS MODEL WORKS, BUT I KNOW IT INVOLVES SMOKING IN ON THE PREMISES.

RIGHT? AND SO BUT YOU KNOW WE GIVE THEM A PASS ON ALL THIS, WHICH I DOUBT WAS THE INTENTION HERE.

RIGHT? WELL, APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO THE INTERNET, HOOKAH TOBACCO IS TOBACCO THAT'S SMOKED USING WATER PIPE CONTAINS A MIXTURE OF TOBACCO SWEETENERS AND FLAVORS. OKAY. FLAVORS? YEAH SO YEAH BUT I MEAN IF YEAH AGAIN I MEAN THEY WOULD THEY'D BE OUT OF BUSINESS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT [LAUGHTER] THOUGH ROB I THINK WE NEED TO FIND THAT OUT.

DRINK TEA. I'M JUST TRYING TO VERIFY YOU SUGGESTING A FIELD TRIP NOW TO GO AND CHECK IT OUT? [LAUGHTER] IT'S THAT WHAT, YOU'RE SAYING A FIELD TRIP TO GO CHECK IT OUT? JUST DOWN THE STREET [LAUGHTER] YEAH. IT ALSO BRINGS UP THE POINT, THOUGH. WHAT ABOUT CIGAR LOUNGES? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN EFFECT ON THAT? IS OUR CIGAR LOUNGES? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE CIGAR LOUNGES.

THERE ARE IN THE VILLAGE YEAH. OKAY IT DOES NOT THESE ARE AS I WAS LOOKING IN THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE AT ONE POINT, I THINK WE DID HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT OF HOOKAH, BUT IT'S SELLING HOOKAH YEAH. WHO WROTE THIS? LOUNGES WHERE IT'S MORE OF A BUT I HAVE COME ACROSS THAT, AND THAT WAS CLEAR IF WHEN I RAN IT BEFORE, IT WAS RETAILERS. SO THESE CIGAR SHOPS. THEY DO SELL CIGARS AT THESE CIGAR SHOPS RIGHT? RIGHT, DEFINITION. BUT IN TERMS OF THE LOUNGE, THIS WASN'T INTENDED TO CAPTURE A LOUNGE OR SOME TYPE OF USE WHERE MAYBE SMOKING MAY OCCUR. IT'S MORE ABOUT THE SALES OF HIGHER VOLUMES OF PRODUCTS.

RIGHT SO PERHAPS THE HOOKAH AND THE CIGAR LOUNGES HAVE OTHER RESTRICTIONS WHERE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL ANY TOBACCO FOR USE OFF SITE.

SO THAT'S A RETAIL OPERATION

[00:40:04]

OH, YEAH THESE ARE DIFFERENT YEAH TO BE LOOKED INTO.

MAKE THE LANGUAGE TIGHT ENOUGH THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T COME IN AND TRY TO DO A SMOKE SHOP AND JUST CALL IT A LOUNGE DEFINED ALSO [LAUGHTER]. WELL, WE'VE ALREADY HAD CANNABIS SHOPS OPEN SAYING THAT THERE WERE CHURCHES, SO [LAUGHTER]. I GUESS YEAH. BECAUSE I MEAN, IN SOME CIGAR LOUNGES THEY DO RETAIL.

YOU CAN BUY CIGARS THERE SOME LANGUAGE. YEAH THEY'RE EITHER IN OR OUT AND IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM TO ME ANYWAY.

YEAH I THINK THAT'S WORTH DEFINING. SO DO WE WANT.

COMMISSIONER LIGHT. YEAH THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO STOP CVS FROM SELLING CIGARETTES.

NOT THAT I KNOW IF THEY SELL CIGARETTES, BUT SO THAT'S NOT IN THIS ORDINANCE.

STORE THAT'S PRIMARILY SELLS OTHER THINGS, BUT ALSO SELLS CIGARETTES OR IS THAT ALSO? WHICH WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THE SMOKE SHOP CATEGORY.

AND LET'S SEE OCCUPIES NO MORE THAN 2% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OR 200FT², WHICHEVER IS LESS. WE COULD HAVE YOU MADE A REALLY BIG PLACE AND JUST DID IT TOBACCO AND 2% OF IT THAT WOULD CIRCUMVENT THAT LAW? AND THE REST WOULD USE THE REST OF THE SPACE TO NOT SELL ANYTHING? [LAUGHTER]. THE REST OF THE SPACE IS A HOOKAH LOUNGE [LAUGHTER]. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW YEAH, RIGHT. HOOKAH? YEAH, IN A HOOKAH LOUNGE IN THE BACK.

AND LIKE I WAS SAYING, SINCE THE URGENCY ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PROPOSALS WHERE IT'S CLEAR THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE TIGHTENING UP OF THE LOOPHOLES. I THINK THESE ARE GOOD POINTS THAT YOU'RE RAISING.

AND WE SHOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT. BUT IN THE DEFINITION IT DOES SAY ANCILLARY SALE SHALL MEAN WHERE A GROCERY STORE, SUPERMARKET, CONVENIENCE STORE, OR SIMILAR MARKET USES NO MORE THAN 2%.

SO YOU COULDN'T JUST OPEN UP AREA IT'S ESPECIALLY SHOPS THE WHOLE FLOOR IT'S A GROSS FLOOR AREA OR 200FT², WHICHEVER IS LESS.

SO THINK OF IT AS A FAR FOR CIGARETTES [LAUGHTER].

OH, NOW IT'S GETTING REALLY COMPLICATED. COMMISSIONER CONROY.

SO WE'RE AT 15 TO 17 AND WE WANT TO GET DOWN TO 10.

THAT WOULD BE 2 PER DISTRICT AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO 5.

WOULD THAT THEN BE ONE PER DISTRICT? ALL IN DISTRICT 3 SO IT'S THERE NOT. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL HAD A LIMITED BY DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL SEEMED LIKE THEY WANTED TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

SO IT'S JUST A GENERAL CAP CITYWIDE. SO 5 CITYWIDE IS WHERE YOU WANT TO END UP ULTIMATELY? YEAH SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IT'S THE ALONG ARTESIA THAT'S. OKAY.

I GUESS THAT'S A TWO DISTRICTS 4 AND 5 RIGHT? RIGHT. CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? SO YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S TWO SMOKE SHOPS THAT ARE CURRENTLY, I GUESS, FOUND GUILTY OF SELLING ILLEGAL PRODUCTS, RIGHT? YES. AND HOW ARE THEY CURRENTLY BEING PUNISHED OR DISINCENTIVIZE TO DO IT AGAIN? YEAH IF THEY'RE PENDING CASES THEN. OH IT'S AN ON GOING? YEAH I WOULD NOT DISCUSS THOSE I UNDERSTAND I THOUGHT THERE WAS TWO THAT WAS COMPLETE AND TWO THAT WERE PENDING, BUT OKAY.

IS THE CITY CURRENTLY ACCEPTING ANY CUP APPLICATIONS UNDER THE MORATORIUM OR NO? WE ARE NOT BECAUSE DUE TO THE MORATORIUM. OKAY.

AND THEN LAST QUESTION BE FUNDED AND STAFFED? THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FUND [LAUGHTER].

[00:45:06]

I KNOW THEY HAD SOME INTERESTING LOOKING AROUND. DO YOU WANT TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC? COMMISSIONER YOUNG I WON'T MAKE YOU DO THAT. ALL RIGHT.

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD RESTRICTING THE SALE OF SYNTHETIC AND TOBACCO FREE PRODUCTS INTO THE DEFINITION OF SMOKE SHOP AND TOBACCO STORE? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? TOBACCO FREE PRODUCTS? TOBACCO FREE SO THERE ARE A LOT OF.

LIKE NICOTINE BASED? YEAH, LIKE [LAUGHTER]. ON NICOTINE? [LAUGHTER]. LIKE WHAT? LIKE E-CIGARETTES? LIKE YEAH.

YEAH WHERE YOU HAVE OILS OR SOMETHING BUT IT' NO TOBACCO. WHERE IT'S CONSIDERED TOBACCO FREE, BUT IT STILL SYNTHETIC NICOTINE. I ASSUME THAT WHEN YOU HAD ALL THOSE PICTURES IN THE BEGINNING OF WHAT IS IN A SMOKE SHOP THAT WAS IN THERE, BUT. YEAH SO THE E-CIGARETTES ARE IDENTIFIED.

WHEN IT COMES TO SYNTHETIC. E-CIGARETTES CAN USE ANYTHING SYNTHETIC, ETC SO.

NAMES ARE NOT PERMITTED SO THIS CAME UP AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ALSO.

AND THE DEFINITION SEEMS BROAD ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS THAT AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL ANYTHING THAT VIOLATES STATE LAW.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SYNTHETIC IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW IF I RECALL THAT CORRECTLY SO IT'S THE FLAVORED THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW.

YEAH E-CIGARETTE BLAH, BLAH USES A HEATING ELEMENT TO VAPORIZE A LIQUID SOLUTION POPULARLY REFERRED TO AS JUICE.

IT CAUSES USER EXHALE ANY SMOKE VAPOR OR SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN THAT PRODUCED BY AN ENHANCED HUMAN EXHALATION.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD COVER WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? I THINK THERE'S SO MUCH FOCUS ON THE WORD TOBACCO.

YEAH. SO IF YOU LOOK FURTHER ON, IT SAYS THE USE USED IN E-CIGARETTES TYPICALLY CONTAINS NICOTINE.

AND FOR THIS REASON, E-CIGARETTES AND THEIR JUICE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS BOTH TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA.

AND THOSE THINGS ARE PROHIBITED. I MEAN, OKAY. THE DEFINITION OF TOBACCO. OKAY SO IF IT DOESN'T CONTAIN NICOTINE, THEN IS IT NOT OR IS IT? IS IT PROHIBITED OR IS IT NOT? IF IT DOESN'T CONTAIN NICOTINE.

DIDN'T HAVE THC, FOR INSTANCE? OR DO I TEACH YOU THE SAME THING.

THAT WOULD FALL UNDER DIFFERENT REGULATION UNDER OUR CANNABIS REGULATION.

SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED E-CIGARETTES, AND I'M ASSUMING YOU NEED. YOU MEAN LIKE VAPING, E-CIGARETTES TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA. EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TOBACCO FREE? NICOTINE FREE. NO TOBACCO FREE CORRECT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TOBACCO. NICOTINE FREE IS ALSO? TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU. YES. BASED ON THAT LANGUAGE THAT I READ.

CORRECT. OKAY. THAT WRAPS IT UP INTO THAT. OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KEEP AWAY FROM KIDS.

SO IS NICOTINE SPECIFICALLY. IT IS THERE AS A PRODUCT THAT CANNOT BE IN THESE E-CIGARETTES.

SO JAMAL, CAN YOU BRING UP MY SCREEN? SO IT'S THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE UNDER E-CIGARETTE.

[00:50:07]

THERE YOU GO. I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO ELIMINATE THAT WHOLE SENTENCE, THIS THE JUICE USED IN THE E-CIGARETTES TYPICALLY CONTAINS NICOTINE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. IF YOU JUST ELIMINATED THAT SENTENCE.

BECAUSE IT SAYS TO ME, IT SAYS THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE NICOTINE, YOU CAN THEN PUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S PROBLEM.

RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THING YOU WANT TO AVOID, BUT.

IT KIND OF NARROWS RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW. ABOUT COCAINE SO REFERRING TO A SUPERSET THAT INCLUDES NICOTINE, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

YEAH. IT'S AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE. YEAH. SO IS THE INTENTION TO INCLUDE NICOTINE PLUS ANYTHING ELSE BY SAYING TYPICALLY? AS OPPOSED TO YEAH SO GIVE AN EXAMPLE TO SAY THAT THIS IS CONTAINED IN IT BUT I'M GOING TO STICK WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN PUT IN THERE BESIDES NICOTINE THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC.

SO I THINK SAYING TYPICALLY CONTAINS NICOTINE COULD MAKE A LOOPHOLE THAT PEOPLE COULD USE TO GET AROUND THIS SO EITHER YOU WANT TO LIST EVERYTHING YOU CAN'T PUT IN THERE, WHICH IS REALLY DIFFICULT. OR YOU SAY JUICE IS A TOBACCO PRODUCT IF IT'S THROUGH AN E-CIGARETTE.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS BOTH TOBACCO PRODUCT, TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA RIGHT? SO THE INTENT IS TO KEEP KIDS FROM NOT STARTING TO BE ADDICTED TO SMOKING.

IT WOULD BE THESE CIGARETTES SHOULD COUNT NO MATTER WHAT THEY'RE USING, REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S BEING.

WHATEVER THE JUICE IS IT SHOULD. YOU CAN'T BUY CIGARETTES.

WHAT WAS THAT? CLOVE YEAH, BUT ISN'T IT? OH, IT IS TOBACCO? IT'S NOT TOBACCO.

RIGHT. I THOUGHT I THINK IT'S SERVED WITH THOSE LITTLE CANDY CIGARETTES, WITH THE DUST ON THEM THAT YOU BLOW ON. YOU KNOW, THE BUBBLE GUM? THAT'S SPEAKERS] A GOOD [LAUGHTER]. IT'S A GATEWAY DRUG CANDY CIGARETTES.

I DO REMEMBER A PUFF THAT COMES OUT BAD, BAD STUFF. OKAY. SO IS THE CONCERN THAT THIS DEFINITION IS TOO BROAD OR TOO NARROW? IT'S TOO NARROW YEAH IT DOES. IF I DON'T USE JUICE WITH NICOTINE, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU COULD MANIPULATE.

MAKE YOUR WAY AWAY AROUND THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY THE WORD TYPICALLY IS INSERTED THERE SO THAT IT IS NOT NARROW IT, IT KEEPS IT BROAD. OKAY SO. IF YOU HAD I MEAN, THE JUICE USED IN E-CIGARETTES CONTAIN NICOTINE.

THEN YOU'RE MAKING IT MORE NARROW. BUT IF YOU SAY THE JUICE USED IN E-CIGARETTES TYPICALLY CONTAIN NICOTINE.

AND FOR THAT REASON, THEY'RE CONSIDERED CLASSIFIED AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA.

AND SUBJECT TO THIS, THIS SET OF REGULATIONS, THEN I THINK YOU'RE MAKING IT BROADER.

I WOULD ADD ONE PART TO THAT. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT TYPICALLY CONTAINS NICOTINE OR OTHER PROBLEMATIC SUBSTANCE OR ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE.

OR YOU KNOW? IF YOU HAD THAT IN THERE, I COULD SEE THAT THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER WAY TO INTERPRET THAT.

OKAY. THAT'S FAIR. PROBLEMATIC SUBSTANCE IS PROBABLY EVEN BETTER BECAUSE IT.

[00:55:02]

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT KIND OF DESCRIBING, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GOING TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT IT'S PROBLEMATIC OR NOT JUST SAY OTHER SUBSTANCE COMMISSIONER GADDIS HAS A QUESTION, GO AHEAD. JUST ANOTHER JUST A FOLLOW UP.

THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS THE SMOKE SHOP AND TOBACCO STORES SHALL MEAN ANY PREMISES DEDICATED TO THE DISPLAY, SALE, DISTRIBUTION, DELIVERY, OFFERING, FURNISHING, MARKETING OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA.

AND THEN IT GOES ON TO OTHER THINGS, BUT THAT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO TOBACCO.

WHEREAS WE HAD JUST TALKED ABOUT E-CIGARETTES, WHICH MAY NOT CONTAIN EITHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR EVEN NICOTINE BEING PROHIBITED.

AND SO I THINK WE PROBABLY WANT TO REFER MAYBE JUST ADD E-CIGARETTE TO THAT LISTING TOBACCO, RIGHT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE E-CIGARETTE DEFINITION.

IT SAYS THAT E-CIGARETTES ARE CLASSIFIED AS BOTH TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA.

OKAY SO THAT LOOPS E-CIGARETTES INTO THAT? ALL RIGHT, MR. BOSWELL. SO IS THERE A REASON WHY, IN THIS ORDINANCE, WE NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY WE DON'T. WHY WE WANT THESE THINGS INCLUDED OR NOT? CAN'T WE JUST SAY TOBACCO AND NICOTINE PRODUCTS, BOTH NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC, ARE NOT ALLOWED, PERIOD. WHY DO WE HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE OF THIS OR BECAUSE OF THAT? WHY DO WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY? WHY CAN'T WE JUST SAY ALL OF THESE TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS AND NICOTINE RELATED PRODUCTS ARE NOT ALLOWED? WELL, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED.

WE'RE SAYING THAT TOBACCO SMOKE SHOPS AND TOBACCO STORES THAT SELL THESE PRODUCTS ARE BEING REGULATED.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED. THEY ACTUALLY ARE ALLOWED, BUT THEY'RE I HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN THINKING OF THIS IN TERMS OF THE E-CIGARETTES.

SO TOBACCO AND NICOTINE PRODUCTS, BOTH NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC, FOR USE IN E-CIGARETTES AND OTHER DEVICES, ARE NOT ALLOWED? NO, THEY ARE ALLOWED.

THEY ARE ALLOWED. BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE CAN YOU KIND OF ADDRESS THAT? I THINK THEY CAN'T BE FLAVORED FOR KIDS OR SOMETHING IN CALIFORNIA? IN CALIFORNIA SINCE DECEMBER 2022, CALIFORNIA HAS PROHIBITED THE RETAIL SALE, OFFER FOR SALE OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SALE OR OFFER FOR SALE MOST FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR TOBACCO PRODUCT FLAVOR ENHANCERS AND THAT'S UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 104559.5B1. AND IT APPLIES TO WHOLESALERS, DELIVERY AND ONLINE SELLERS.

YEAH ANOTHER QUESTION MR. GADDIS. OKAY, SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR.

SO WE HAVE LET'S SAY LET'S THROW OUT OUR NUMBER 12 SHOPS NOW.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE, APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.

AND YOU KNOW? A NUMBER OF THOSE ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS.

THEY'RE X NUMBER OF FEET FROM A SCHOOL, OR THEY'RE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER AND SUCH, BUT THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE IN A LOCATION THEY'RE BASICALLY GRANDFATHERED IN THAT LOCATION. AM I CORRECT? THAT THEY'RE STAYING THERE. THIS IS NOW A. WELL THEY ARE FOR 5 YEARS.

FOR 5 YEARS AND THEN. THEY GO BUT THEY'LL HAVE TO MOVE TO A NEW LOCATION AT THAT POINT IF THEY WANT TO STAY IN BUSINESS BUT.

POTENTIALLY, YES. OKAY. IF THEY VIOLATE THE LOCATION STANDARDS.

I MEAN, THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION RIGHT? NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY CODE. RIGHT. YEAH.

SO THEY'LL HAVE TO START FOLLOWING THOSE AND THAT.

RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE GRANDFATHERING WAS.

[01:00:01]

AND THEN JUST GRADUALLY SOME GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

AND AT THE FIVE YEAR POINT, THE ONES THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE HAVE TO MOVE AND OR GO CLOSE, ESSENTIALLY? THOS LEGAL NON-CONFORMING WITH THE TIME, WITH THE 5 YEAR.

5 YEAR. YEAH SO TO OBTAIN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THEY MAY HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND SOME WON'T BE ABLE TO MEET IT.

AND THAT COULD THAT IS ANTICIPATED THAT COULD HELP US GET FROM THE 16 DOWN TO THE 10 INITIALLY.

AND GETTING DOWN TO 5 IS ANOTHER 5 YEAR PERIOD IS THAT RIGHT? NO IT'S NOT A SET IT'S NOT A SCHEDULE. IT'S JUST AS BUSINESSES AS THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS AS USES CHANGE.

RIGHT. WE WOULD NOT APPROVE ANY NEW CUPS UNTIL WE'RE AT OR BELOW 5 BUT THE CUP IS VALID FOR THREE YEARS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING.

SO EVERY THREE YEARS THEY WILL EITHER THE CUP WILL EXPIRE AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OPERATE OR THEY HAVE TO FILE FOR RENEWAL AND THAT WOULD COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO YOU WILL HAVE A LOOK AT THESE BUSINESSES AT LEAST EVERY THREE YEARS.

I'M CONFUSED HERE THOUGH. IF YOU CAN'T GET 10 CUPS RIGHT? YOU CAN ONLY GET 5 AND THERE'S 10 PLUS STORES, RIGHT? SO THE WAY IT'S CRAFTED AND THE EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING BUSINESSES CAN OBTAIN THE 10 CUPS SO THEY.

WE CAN'T GET 10 CUPS AND IT'S SPECIFIC IN THE ORDINANCE THAT'S FOR THOSE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT ARE PERMITTED CURRENTLY.

IS IT A GOAL OR A REQUIREMENT OF THOSE 10? IT WILL BE NO MORE THAN TWO PER DISTRICT.

THERE'S NO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT.

THAT WAS SOMETHING ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE FIRST DRAFT AND WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT THEN THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO REMOVE THAT.

RIGHT. SO IT'S A WISH LIST ON THAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE? MR. BOSWELL. JUST TO GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THE CUPS.

SO IF YOU HAVE 15 SHOPS AND THEY ALL WANT TO JUMP RIGHT ON THIS AND GET CUPS, ONLY 10 WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM? ONLY THE FIRST 10 WOULD BE GRANTED? THAT'S CORRECT AND THEN THE REMAINING WOULD STILL HAVE 5 YEARS.

OUT THEIR LEASE OR THEY COULD GO 5 YEARS AT THE MOST? YES. AND IF THEY'VE RUN OUT THEIR LEASE OR GOTTEN TO THE END OF THAT 5 YEARS AND THERE ARE STILL FIVE OR MORE CUPS IN THE CITY, THEN THEY COULDN'T EVEN APPLY FOR ONE, RIGHT? ONLY ONE YEAH OKAY AND THEY NOW WANT TO GET ONE, BUT THERE ARE ALREADY FIVE IN PLACE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO EVEN APPLY FOR ONE RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO AT SOME POINT, THE HOPE IS THAT THE 10 THAT GET THEM UP FRONT AMONG THE EXISTING SHOPS, SOME WILL JUST FADE AWAY AFTER A WHILE. THAT'S THE INTENT AND IT WAS THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTIVE THAT WE TRY TO GET DOWN ULTIMATELY TO A NUMBER OF 5 IN TIME. IS 5 THE MAGIC NUMBER BASED ON SOME STUDY? [LAUGHTER] HOPE AND A PRAYER ROUGHLY ONE PER DISTRICT, I GUESS. YEAH, BUT THEN IT'S NOT TIED TO DISTRICT.

THEY COULD ALL BE IN DISTRICT 1 AND IT WOULD BE LEGAL, RIGHT? PROBABLY HOW THEY CAME UP WITH FIVE OF THEM I THINK THAT NUMBER WAS BASED OFF OF THE RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF SMOKE SHOPS PER PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY.

YEAH. AND THEY WERE PIGGYBACKING OFF OF WHAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH WITH THE CANNABIS ORDINANCE AS FAR AS APPLYING CERTAIN WAY. AND THERE ARE NOT GOING TO BE 5 CANNABIS SHOPS? RIGHT, THERE'S NOT.

BUT THERE WAS KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA THEY WERE SAYING LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO LIMIT ONE FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

THEY WERE GOING TO LIMIT SMOKE SHOPS TO ONE PER DISTRICT. BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST A WISH LIST. WHAT WE COULD DO IS HAVE NO SMOKE SHOPS, AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T MAKE THE CUT ON THE CANNABIS SHOP CAN BE OFFERED A SMOKE SHOP AS A CONSOLATION [LAUGHTER].

OKAY. RELATED QUESTION. OKAY PLEASE GO AHEAD.

SO FOR THESE TENANTS LOOKING THROUGH IT, IT LOOKED LIKE THE ONLY QUALIFICATION WAS FIRST COME FIRST SERVE.

IT SAID THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO DO IT THEY MIGHT BE THE FIRST ONE TO APPLY, BUT WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE IN FIVE YEARS.

[01:05:07]

AND THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE JUST ADDRESSES HOW THEY'RE PROCESSED.

THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THEY'RE GOING TO GET APPROVED.

SO IF SOMEBODY APPLIES FIRST, THEN THEIRS GETS DENIED FOR SOME REASON WE WOULD MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE IN THE QUEUE.

PERFECT THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

PLEASE GO AHEAD SIR. SO OKAY THAT WAS THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK TOO [LAUGHTER].

BUT SO THESE APPLICATIONS COME IN LET'S SAY FROM 15 EXISTING ONES, IF THEY EXIST AT FOR THE 10 SLOTS.

AND EACH ONE OF THOSE IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY.

SO THIS IS NOT A MINISTERIAL THING. IT'S, YOU KNOW, ON THEIR OWN MERITS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING UP IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IF THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF ONE OF THESE ORDINANCES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE WHEN IT'S PERMANENT, THEY WOULDN'T GET A CUP SOON. YES THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR DENIAL.

THERE COULD BE A BASIS YEAH. ALL RIGHT ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SIMPSON OUT OF MY HEAD. I GUESS WE CAN NOW OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OR COMMENT? MOTION TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SECOND I SEE A FAMILIAR FACE COMING TO THE PODIUM. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, EUGENE SOLOMON REDONDO BEACH, DISTRICT 1. I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE DETAILS SPECIFIC AREAS WITHIN A SHOP FOR LIMITATIONS.

WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS WHEN ORDINANCES ARE CREATED LIKE THIS, THE SMOKE SHOPS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE OTHER PRODUCTS, WILL RECLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS GROCERY STORES OR OTHER.

SO THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING THOSE LIMITATIONS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.

THE ENFORCEMENT ARM FOR THIS, THE PREVIOUS I'LL CALL THEM RAIDS WERE CONDUCTED BY A STATE AGENCY, THE FTA. SO THAT'S WHO WOULD BE DOING SOME ENFORCEMENT OF OUR SHOPS THAT STILL EXISTED WITHIN THE CITY.

COMMISSIONER CONROY DIRECTED HIS COMMENTS TO WHAT I WANTED TO DIRECT.

WHEN FRESNO DID THIS, WHEN THEY CRACKED DOWN ON THEIR SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY.

THEY WENT TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THEY OFFER A TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM FUNDED BY PROPOSITION 56.

THIS PROGRAM ALLOCATES A PORTION OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM INCREASED TOBACCO TAXES TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

IN OCTOBER 2024 THE CITY OF FRESNO RECEIVED $1.4 MILLION GRANT THROUGH THIS PROGRAM TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ILLEGAL TOBACCO SALES AT SMOKE SHOPS. SO WHAT I CAME HERE TO SAY AND ASK IS THAT IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, AS PART OF YOUR DIRECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND A WAY TO SEEK THESE GRANT FUNDS, IF STILL AVAILABLE UNDER PROPOSITION 56 FOR OUR REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT OF ILLEGAL TOBACCO SALES, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU YES I USUALLY TRY TO SQUEEZE TO WRITE EVERYTHING SO, FIRST OF ALL, HOOKAH.

HOOKAH IS SMOKING DEFINITELY. AND IN THE HOOKAH SHOP, THEY SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS THAT ARE CONSUMED ON SITE.

SO THERE ARE DANGERS TO HOOKAH. IT CAN YOU CAN HAVE HALLUCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES IN THE HOOKAH POT AND SO I SEE NO REASON TO EXEMPT THEM. ALSO I WAS ASKED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF REDONDO PTA TO INFORM YOU ABOUT THE RESOLUTION BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE PTA AT THEIR CONVENTION IN APRIL 2023 REGARDING SYNTHETIC AND TOBACCO FREE NICOTINE PRODUCTS.

AND I THINK THE REASON THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE MANUFACTURERS AND PROMOTERS OF THESE PRODUCTS TARGET THEM AT CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY KNOW CHILDREN CAN'T BUY TOBACCO. SO THEY MARKET AND DESIGN THEIR PRODUCTS TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN AND TO AVOID ANY ASSOCIATION WITH TOBACCO. HOWEVER, THE SYNTHETIC NICOTINE IS AS POWERFUL AS TOBACCO.

[01:10:02]

THE MANUFACTURERS OF THESE PRODUCTS USE MARKETING SPECIFICALLY TARGETED TO YOU, SUGGESTING THAT THESE PRODUCTS ARE SAFE, HEALTHY, NON-ADDICTIVE AND DO NOT CONTAIN NICOTINE.

WHICH IS TRUE, THEY DON'T CONTAIN NICOTINE. THEY CONTAIN A SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL THAT MOCK THAT.

MIMICS. IMITATES THE EFFECTS OF NICOTINE. LET'S SEE DO NOT CONTAIN NICOTINE, LEADING TO A RAPID, ONGOING INCREASE IN YOUTH USE AND ADDICTION.

AN ESTIMATED 42% OF YOUTH CANNOT CORRECTLY IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF NICOTINE.

INTERPRET TOBACCO FREE NICOTINE OR UNDERSTAND NICOTINE CONCENTRATION LANGUAGE.

SALES OCCUR VIA E-COMMERCE AND IN STOREFRONTS NOT ALLOWED TO SELL NICOTINE BASED PRODUCTS WITH NO AGE RESTRICTIONS.

IN OTHER WORDS, ANY STORE COULD HAVE THESE PRODUCTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TOBACCO.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LIKE CANDY SO ANYWAY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RECEIVE.

MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. PLEASE ACCEPT THANK YOU SIR. ARE THERE ANY PERSONS ONLINE WHO WISH TO COMMENT? WE HAVE ONE E-ATTENDEE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS MY NAME IS LEE MARTIN AND I REPRESENT THE CALIFORNIA FUEL AND CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE.

AND I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE AND ITS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR CONVENIENCE STORES AND GAS STATIONS.

WHILE, WE SUPPORT PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS, THIS ORDINANCE CREATES UNFAIR BURDENS FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT THE COMPLIANCE PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SOLVE.

THE REAL ISSUE IS WITH SMOKE SHOPS SELLING ILLEGAL PRODUCTS AND NOT WITH CONVENIENCE STORES SELLING LAWFUL TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

THERE ARE THREE CRITICAL PROBLEMS. FIRSTLY, ANCILLARY SALES RESTRICTIONS ARE UNWORKABLE.

LIMITING STORES TO 200FT², OR 2% OF FLOOR AREA IS INSUFFICIENT FOR NORMAL INVENTORY.

SECOND, THE VAPOR PRODUCT PROHIBITION IS INEQUITABLE.

CONVENIENCE STORES CANNOT SELL VAPOR PRODUCTS WITHOUT BEING RECLASSIFIED AS SMOKE SHOPS SUBJECT TO YOUR 5 STORE CITYWIDE CAP.

THIS FORCES CUSTOMERS TO NEIGHBORING CITIES, HURTING LOCAL BUSINESSES AND CITY TAX REVENUE.

THIRD, THERE'S NO GRANDFATHERING PROTECTIONS FOR EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORES THAT MIGHT BE RECLASSIFIED.

AND NO PROVISIONS FOR LICENSE TRANSFERS WHEN BUSINESSES ARE SOLD.

THIS THREATENS BUSINESS VALUES AND INVESTMENTS.

WE REQUESTED THE COUNCIL EXEMPTS CONVENIENCE STORES AND GAS STATIONS USING THEIR CORRESPONDING NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CODES.

THIS WILL HELP TARGET ACTUAL SMOKE SHOPS WHILE PROTECTING LEGITIMATE RETAILERS WHO SERVE THE COMMUNITY'S BROADER NEEDS.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS THAT ACHIEVE PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS WITHOUT HURTING LOCAL BUSINESSES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEE THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS DO WE WANT TO GET A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT OR? SURE MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. NOW, DO WE DISCUSS ANY ITEMS OR, YOU KNOW, ANY SUGGESTIONS ON SOME OF THE ITEMS WE BROUGHT UP THAT WE WANT TO HAVE STAFF INCORPORATE IN A FUTURE DRAFT OR? YEAH, I THOUGHT THERE'S GREAT SUGGESTIONS.

YEAH I MEAN, I DID A QUICK LIST OF SOME REALLY GOOD ONES, OBVIOUSLY RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF OPERATION.

I THOUGHT THAT COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE BROUGHT UP WAS REALLY GOOD BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT'S 10:00 TO 8:00 AND YOU WANTED TO GO OR 8:00 TO 10:00 PM, YOU WANTED TO CHANGE IT TO 10:00 AM TO 8:00 PM? END AT 9:00.

10:00 TO 9:00 THAT OBVIOUSLY SOUNDS VERY GOOD.

ALSO ABOUT EXCLUDING HAVE AN EXCLUSION ZONE AROUND ALL PARKS, NOT JUST SOME [LAUGHTER].

ALL PARKS. AND WE ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT PROGRESSIVE PENALTIES IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO FLUSH OUT NOW OR PERHAPS BRING UP MORE DETAILS LATER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD DO THAT. AND THEN THE ADVICE THAT THE CITY TREASURER SOLOMON BROUGHT UP ABOUT SEEKING TO COUNSEL LOSE AND OUR RECOMMENDATION TO SEEK SOME AID FROM PROP 56 FUNDING SO WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER CONROY BROUGHT UP ABOUT USING SOME OF THE FUNDS TO EITHER EDUCATION OR CRACK DOWN ON SOME OTHER THINGS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT PEOPLE WANT? RIGHT. IN ADDITION TO PUTTING THE CUP IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE THAT'S.

YOU KNOW? IT'S EITHER TAKE AWAY THEIR CUP OR THEY DON'T GET PUNISHED, WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, THE VIOLATION MAY NOT BE OF THE MAGNITUDE THAT YOU WANT TO YANK

[01:15:10]

CRIMINAL. YEAH VIOLATIONS THAT. WOULDN'T JUST TAKE IN THEIR CUP THOUGH BE EVEN WORSE? IT IS WORSE, RIGHT. BUT WHAT IF WELL, WHY NOT JUST, I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED, JUST THE VIOLATION.

THEY WOULD JUST LOSE THEIR CUP FOR BREAKING THE LAW.

AT FIRST OFFENSE? HOW ABOUT CONSIDERING A SUSPENSION? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY SUSPENSION OF THE CUP OR? YOU COULD CONSIDER SUSPENSION. YOU CAN CONSIDER ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

BUT YOU THIS BODY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HEAR THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES.

SO IF THERE WAS AN INCIDENT AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT STAFF WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THIS BODY.

AND SO THIS BODY WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

YOU COULD DETERMINE, WELL, YOU KNOW, SELLING, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL, LIKE CANNABIS IS SERIOUS ENOUGH WHERE WE'RE JUST GOING TO REVOKE YOUR CUP.

OKAY. IF IT'S A VIOLATION THAT THEY OPENED TILL 9:30 ON ONE NIGHT, THEN YOU MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE INSPECTIONS I DON'T KNOW, FOR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS.

YOU KNOW? YOU CAN CALIBRATE YOUR RESPONSE BASED ON THE VIOLATION AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR DECISION.

SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO IMPOSE A FINE? WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO UNLESS IT IS INCLUDED EITHER IN THE ORDINANCE OR WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

THAT SEEMS REALLY COMPLICATED. YEAH, IT CAN SOME OPEN LANGUAGE JUST BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS WHATEVER BODY IS CONSIDERING THIS, WHETHER IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN ALSO IMPOSE FINES FOR DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT? OKAY. YEAH. THE ORDINANCE COULD REFER LIKE AS ESTABLISHED BY A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR THE FINE AMOUNT.

YES. YEAH. BECAUSE I THINK THE THING I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE THIS KIND OF ARBITRARY APPLICATION AND YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, THIS PERSON GETS A $100 FINE, THIS ONE GETS $1,000 FINE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR SCHEDULE ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING OR LESS YOU'RE GOING TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY. AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THAT COULD SET UP THE CITY FOR POTENTIAL LIABILITY. YEAH. THE REASON I LIKE SUSPENSION OVER FINE IS BECAUSE A $1,000 FINE TO A LARGE OPERATOR DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME IMPACT THAT IT DOES ON A SMALL OPERATOR. BUT IF YOU LOSE YOUR IF YOUR LICENSE IS SUSPENDED FOR 30 DAYS, IT'S MORE EQUITABLE SO WITH THE FINES THEY CAN BE APPLIED FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION IS OCCURRING PER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S WHERE IT COULD ADD UP TO BEING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT.

WELL THAT'S BUT IF YOU WANTED TO IMPOSE A FINE YOU COULD.

MY SUGGESTION IS IF YOU GO DOWN THAT ROAD, YOU BE VERY CLEAR AS TO THE FINE AMOUNT.

LIKE CHAIR CRAIG MENTIONED, I WOULDN'T WANT TO JUST SAY, OH, YOU'RE SUBJECT TO A FINE.

YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE DISCRETION OF, YOU KNOW, EITHER THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL OR STAFF.

I WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE, BUT COMMISSIONER CONROY'S COMMENT IS, I THINK, MORE, MAYBE MORE EQUITABLE IN THE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE CLOSING DOWN A BUSINESS SO YOU HAVE A VIOLATION, YOU'RE CLOSED DOWN FOR 30 DAYS UNTIL, YOU KNOW.

ALSO A $1,000 FINE TODAY IS NOT THE SAME AS A $1,000 FINE 10 YEARS FROM NOW.

THAT'S TRUE COMMISSIONER. IS MY TURN? GO AHEAD

[01:20:03]

YEAH PAY THE FINE AND YEAH, I'M MAKING MORE MONEY ON THIS THAN THE FINES, SO, OR THE PENALTIES OR THE SHUTDOWN.

ALSO, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF UNNECESSARY WORK FOR EVERYTHING TO HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE US TO DISCUSS AND SPEND A WHOLE HALF A EVENING, YOU KNOW, FIGURING OUT HOW TO DING THEM. WE SHOULD I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE.

REMOVAL OF CUP IF THEY'RE SELLING ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

SO CANNABIS OR FLAVORED TOBACCO OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER KIND OF JUICE THEY GOT IN THERE.

IF IT'S ILLEGAL, IT'S AUTOMATIC. YOU LOSE YOUR LICENSE, YOU SHUT DOWN AND YOU'RE OUT.

FOR OTHER KINDS OF INFRACTIONS THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC FINES THAT THEY WILL KNOW UP FRONT.

AND WHEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OR WHOEVER PERSON GOES IN THERE AND SAYS AHA FLAVORED TOBACCO, YOU'RE OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT THEN GOES OVER TO ANOTHER SHOP AND SAYS YOU'RE STAYING OPEN YOU'RE OPENING AN HOUR EARLY AND CLOSING AN HOUR LATE.

THAT'S A $5,000 FINE AND YOU'RE CLOSED UNTIL YOU PAY IT.

I MEAN, THIS WAY IT'S NOT COMING BACK TO US. EVERYBODY WHO'S IN THIS BUSINESS KNOWS WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR RISK TAKING IS.

AND IT ALL WORKS SO MUCH SMOOTHER. THERE'S LESS BUREAUCRACY INVOLVED, AND WE ACHIEVE THE SAME ENDS.

WE MAKE THE FINES SERIOUS ENOUGH SO THEY'RE NOT JUST CONSIDERED THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS AND FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT'S YOU JUST LOST YOUR BUSINESS ONE TIME YOU'RE OUT. SO FOR THE FINE SUGGESTION I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT. WHAT LEVEL OF VIOLATION WOULD CONSTITUTE WHAT LEVEL OF FINE.

BUT AS FAR AS AUTOMATIC REVOKING OF A CUP, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

YOU NEED TO GIVE THAT PERSON DUE PROCESS. SO THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION.

THEY NEED TO BE GIVEN. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

YOU CAN'T JUST REVOKE. SO, SO KIND OF THE SAME THING.

THEY GET CAUGHT SELLING CANNABIS, THEY GO BEFORE THE JUDGE, THE WITNESSES.

YOU KNOW, THE JURY SAYS YOU ARE THE GUILTY YEAH WHATEVER PROCESS HAS TO HAPPEN TO MAKE IT LEGAL, OF COURSE WE NEED TO DO THAT.

RIGHT SO IT WOULD HAVE TO COME MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. AND THEN WHATEVER DECISION THAT THIS BODY RENDERS THE BUSINESS OWNER COULD APPEAL THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THEY WOULD. AND THEN THEY COULD ULTIMATELY SUE.

IF A SMOKE SHOP IS SELLING CANNABIS, GETS CAUGHT, EVIDENCE IS SEIZED.

THEY COME BEFORE US FOR JUDGMENT? I DON'T GET THAT.

IT'S THE SAME PROCESS. IT WOULD YOU COULD TAKE THE CRIMINAL ROUTE, BUT THAT'S SEPARATE.

THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES. WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST DO THAT IF IT'S A CRIME? BUT THEY WOULD STILL YOU WERE GOING FIRST. THAT'S OUR JOB AS A PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO EITHER WAY, IT ALWAYS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO US IF IT'S A BUSINESS IN THE CITY THIS.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE CRIMINAL.

CORRECT. SO THEY COULDN'T BE A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY WOULD REVOKE THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE AND THEY COULDN'T OPERATE? THERE COULD BE SO.

I MEAN WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM A DUE PROCESS ON THAT. CORRECT.

AND CAN THAT DUE PROCESS BE SET UP SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE? THE POINT OF THIS IS ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES WHERE THE PENALTY IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

I MEAN, WHAT YOU CAN DO IS SAY, YOU KNOW, A SERIOUS VIOLATION SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, SELLING CANNABIS COULD RESULT IN SEVERE PENALTIES, INCLUDING SUSPENSION AND EVEN REVOCATION.

BUT YOU CANNOT PREJUDGE A DECISION FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL, A FUTURE COMMISSION.

BUT IT'S NOT PREJUDGING

[01:25:02]

IT'S SAYING IF YOU DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

NOW THEY DECIDE, WELL, I'M GOING TO TRY IT ANYWAY AND SEE IF I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

NOTHING IS JUDGE.

DO IT IN THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT. CORRECT YEAH WE HAVE TO HEAR THEM OUT AND MAKE A DECISION AT THAT POINT.

BUT THAT'S THE JUDGING PART, RIGHT? WHICH WHETHER IT'S US OR THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM. WHAT I'M GETTING WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT THEY SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S VERY THAT IT'S VERY SERIOUS AND THEY NEED TO NOT CONSIDER IT THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. SO THE DIFFERENTIATION IS THAT WE'RE NOT A CRIMINAL BODY, WE'RE JUST DOING A CIVIL AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO JUDGE THIS APPLYING OR GRANTING A CUP OR REVOKING IT AND THAT'S ALL WE COULD DO WE CAN'T PROSECUTE.

THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES TWO POTENTIAL OPTIONS.

ONE IS CRIMINAL PENALTIES, AND IT SAYS IT'S SUBJECT TO TITLE 1 CHAPTER 2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, OR THE REVOCATION, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 10-2.2506, WHICH PROVIDES THE PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING IT FOR A REVOCATION HEARING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IT GIVES TWO OPTIONS TO THE CITY.

AND I WILL SAY WITH AS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTERS, USUALLY THE CITY DOES UTILIZE BOTH OF THOSE, AND WE HAVE ONE RIGHT NOW. IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF MAYBE HEADING TOWARDS REVOCATION.

SO IT'S THE EITHER OR. BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THERE ISN'T WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A SYSTEM FOR THE LESSER INFRACTIONS IN DEALING WITH THOSE. AND THAT'S WHERE MAYBE A FINE SYSTEM WOULD COME INTO PLAY.

IT'D BE LIKE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETHING MINOR LIKE HOURS.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO AS FAR AS SCHEDULING A FULL HEARING.

I THINK THAT GOES BEYOND JUST THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACROSS THE BOARD.

BUT THAT SAID, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO RECOMMEND THAT WE CONSIDER FOR THIS, IT MAY BE A GOOD WAY OF OPENING THE DOOR TO DISCUSSING IT MORE BROADLY.

AND REVOCATION WOULD INCLUDE SUSPENSION OR A TEMPORARY SET TERM? THANK YOU. OKAY THAT WE REALLY, IN REDONDO BEACH DON'T HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES IN PLACE FOR ANY OF THE CODES.

IS THAT WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY? WELL, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVOKE, AND THEN WE HAVE.

RIGHT BUT WE DON'T HAVE CIVIL PENALTIES. WE DON'T HAVE CIVIL PENALTIES. CORRECT. I'D BE VERY CAUTIOUS FOR THIS BODY TO RECOMMEND THAT WE OPEN UP CIVIL PENALTIES TO ALL VIOLATIONS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THERE. I THINK THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC WITH LIKE PERMITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, CAN IT BE SPECIFIC TO SMOKE SHOPS AND CANNABIS? I GUESS BECAUSE THAT'S A POPULAR TOPIC AS WELL, THAT WE START THERE AND THEN SEE HOW THAT GOES AND IF YOU WANT TO THEN OPEN IT MORE BROADLY? ONE CONCEPT AND I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED THIS, SO THIS IS SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT.

AND MAYBE MARC HAS EXPERIENCE IN THIS. BUT ONE THING WE CAN DO MAYBE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CUP, IS HAVE THE BUSINESS OWNER POST A BOND. SO LIKE POST A BOND FOR, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE $5,000 RIGHT.

AND SO IF THERE ARE VIOLATIONS THEN WE JUST DRAW ON THAT BOND.

I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THE IDEA. AND I WOULD HAVE TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.

BUT THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE SETTING UP A CIVIL PENALTY SYSTEM, WHICH IS GOING TO BE INTENSE.

LIKE MARC SAID, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE IT KIND OF APPLY ACROSS BUT THEN THIS WOULD, YOU KNOW, FOCUS ON JUST THE BUSINESS OWNER, WHICH ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERN.

SO I CAN LOOK INTO THAT. THAT COULD DEFINITELY BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS BODY MAKES TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND DURING THAT INTERIM PERIOD, I WILL RESEARCH IT AND PRESENT THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SEE IF THAT'S VIABLE. THAT'S A REAL GOOD THING THAT PEOPLE DO VIOLATE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE BRINGING, [LAUGHTER] WE'RE MAKING WE ALL SEE THAT THAT'S A HIGH RISK.

[01:30:01]

OKAY YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL CHARGES, YOU KNOW, BASED ON A VIOLATION, I THINK YOU USE THE WORD OR AND I DON'T SEE IT IN THE LANGUAGE ON HERE MAYBE YOU MEANT AND OR A REVOCATION OF THE CUP. IT WOULD BE AND OR IT'S BOTH OPTIONS YEAH AND I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE LANGUAGE ANYWAY, BUT JUST IN CASE I MISSED IT THE OTHER THING WE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT WAS SPECIFICALLY NAMING OR CALLING OUT THE HOOKAH LOUNGES. RIGHT. AND SO IF WE COULD ADD IN THERE SOMETHING LIKE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORDING WOULD BE [LAUGHTER].

WHAT WAS IT, A SMOKERS LOUNGE? IS THAT A CIGAR? DO WE WANT TO ROPE IN CIGARS, TOO? IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION.

THEY'RE BOTH TOBACCO BUSINESS THAT ALLOWS SMOKING INSIDE OF THE BUSINESS.

I MEAN, BASICALLY, THAT'S IT RIGHT? AND SALES LOUNGES WELL, THEY SELL FOR ON SITE CONSUMPTION ONLY.

MAKE THAT LOUNGES, BUT FOR HOOKAH LOUNGES, IT SHOULD BE CONSUMED ON SITE.

AND FOR CIGAR LOUNGES IT'S A BIT BROADER BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELL CIGARS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT'S THE ISSUE. ABSOLUTELY AND UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, THESE TOBACCO SHOPS CANNOT SELL TOBACCO TO BE USED ON SITE.

WELL, RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T WE'RE TRYING TO LOOP IN HOOKAH LOUNGES AND CIGAR LOUNGES AS WELL.

IT HAS TO BE SO IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD INCLUDE IN THE DEFINITIONS AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED WITH THE DEFINITION OF TOBACCO RETAILER.

SO WE COULD DEFINE THAT USE. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED AS A LOOPHOLE FOR A SMOKE SHOP TO OPEN AND CALL THEMSELVES. SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON, THAT DEFINITION OH, WE'RE A TOBACCO LOUNGE NOW [LAUGHTER]. OH THAT'S GOOD.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE ADDED SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE, BUT THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD BE ENCOMPASSING OF BOTH CIGAR SHOPS AND HOOKAH LOUNGES WOULD BE A BUSINESS THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS SMOKING TO OCCUR ON THE PREMISES.

YEAH, IT'S A COMMONALITY ALL RIGHT. SO I KNOW WHERE I'LL GO TO LOOK FOR IT FOLLOWING THIS MEETING.

OKAY. WELL, JUST TO MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED, I DID LOOK UP IN REDONDO BEACH THERE IS A HOUSE OF CIGAR AND LIQUOR.

SO YOU CAN BUY CIGARS AND LIQUOR AT THIS PLACE [LAUGHTER].

LET'S DOES THIS REALLY AFFECT CONVENIENCE STORES? I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD POINT TO THE POTENTIAL OF AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT APPLIES.

I THOUGHT IT DIDN'T FROM THE DEFINITION OF GROCERY STORES.

MAYBE CONVENIENCE STORES WE TOOK THAT BASED ON WHAT SOME OTHER CITIES HAVE USED AND ASSUMED THAT WAS INDUSTRY STANDARD.

WE COULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK INTO THAT MATTER.

AND I'D BE HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO THAT INDIVIDUAL.

I THINK SHE ACTUALLY CONTACTED ME THIS WEEK. JUST GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WITH THAT, THAT THE INTENT IS THAT WE ARE ALLOWING MARKETS AND CONVENIENCE STORES TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS, BUT THAT IT BE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ENSURE THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM WITHIN THAT 2% OR 200FT².

SO HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS A SMALL GAS STATION IN TERMS OF THEIR RETAIL OPERATIONS? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT I MEAN, IS THE DEFINITION OF RETAIL OPERATIONS, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT SO I MEAN, IS IT 100FT² WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING TWO SQUARE FEET OF CIGARETTES? THEY'RE TYPICALLY LARGER AND IT IS

[01:35:02]

SO 5 SQUARE FEET IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT CIGARETTES LOOK LIKE IN A SMALL CONVENIENCE STORE.

THEY'RE NARROW AND THEY'RE HIGH SO 5 SQUARE FEET.

5 BY 5 YEAH CONVENIENCE STORE. SO I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO HAVE A BASELINE, AND COMMON SENSE APPLY IT ALSO. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

YES SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A ONE SQUARE FOOT ITEM THAT'S EIGHT FEET TALL WITH CIGARETTES ON IT RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] SO WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT? SOMEBODY APPLYING, TRYING TO GET A BACK DOOR TO A SMOKE SHOP AND ALLOWS US TO ADDRESS IT IF IT DOES BECOME A PROBLEM AT A STORE.

RIGHT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS ITEMS OR DO WE WANT TO GET A SUMMARY OF THAT OR? PLEASE GO AHEAD. I HAD ONE MORE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED OR OTHER SUBSTANCES WAS GOING TO BE ADDED IN THAT SENTENCE ABOUT THE NICOTINE PRODUCTS. OKAY. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CONROY. IN ADDITION TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE SAID REGARDING THE 150 BUFFER ON THE PARKS, I WOULD WANT TO I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDING TO HAVE THE 150 FOOT BUFFER AROUND ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEN WE SPOKE ABOUT THE FUNDS THAT WE COULD SEEK FROM THE STATE.

BUT WE ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER, AS FAR AS SHOULD WE ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE SOME SORT OF COST THAT ARE REQUIRED THAT WOULD OFFSET THE CITY'S COST FOR THE INSPECTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM? YOU MEAN LIKE THE YOU WERE SAYING IN ADDITION TO THAT? YES. OKAY.

A CUP APPLICATION FEE? YES. $1 MILLION DO YOU HAVE A CUP APPLICATION FEE? WELL, YEAH. BUT THAT WAS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION THERE IS A COST TO US AND THERE YEAH LIKE IN THE CANNABIS ONE IT WAS GOOD TO GO TOWARD EDUCATION AND INSPECTION.

I THINK WE GOT TO HEAR THE WORD ON THIS. YEAH.

MAYBE YOU COULD AMEND THAT FEE TO ADD MORE MONEY. INCREASE THE FEE TO COVER LIKE IF WE WERE TO REQUIRE A BOND IN ORDER TO KIND OF ADMINISTER THAT BOND, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, ADD ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THAT. YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FEE COVERS THE ACTUAL COSTS.

LIKE, YOU CAN'T, YEAH. THERE'S A COST AND NOT EVERY COMPANY THAT COMES BEFORE US LOOKING FOR A CUP HAS POLICE DOING IMPROMPTU INSPECTIONS OF THEIR BUSINESS.

CORRECT. THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIAL COST.

RIGHT. SO WE CAN LOOK INTO INCREASING THE COST FOR PROCESSING THESE TYPES OF CUPS.

SO WE CAN PUT THAT INTO OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL? YOU COULD AND COINCIDENTALLY WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN A FEW MONTHS.

SO THAT COULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO AND IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO APPLY IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT FOR THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS POTENTIALLY BARS.

PROBABLY LIKELY DRAW MORE RESOURCES FROM THE CITY AND MAYBE SOME OTHER USES WE MAY WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TIME.

WHICH WE CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA [LAUGHTER]. BUT PLACE? CORRECT YES MR. BOSWELL, YOU HAD A QUESTION? OH, I JUST MY HAND WAS STUCK UP THERE WE HAD A CRAMP [LAUGHTER] FROM BEING UP THERE TOO LONG.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS EVEN POSSIBLE, BUT JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, SPITBALLING, I GUESS.

[01:40:01]

WELL, I THINK THAT'D BE ALONG THE LINES OF THERE BEING AN IMPACT FEE.

AS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, AND MAYBE THERE WOULD BE A FORMULA WHERE IT'S APPLIED TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN TERMS OF ASSESSING OUT THE COST OF ENFORCING AGAINST SMOKE SHOPS. I DON'T I WOULD NEED TO SPEAK TO THE POLICE CHIEF ABOUT IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT LEVEL OF BREAK DOWN AND REALLY THEY HAVE COMPUTERS, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] THEY HAVE EXCEL, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY COULD PROBABLY GIVE JUST SOMETHING I'D WANT TO SPEAK TO THE CHIEF ABOUT AND GET A SENSE AS TO WHETHER AIN'T GOING TO WORK YEAH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE ONLINE AT ALL REGARDING OUR DISCUSSION? WE HAVE THREE ECOMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS. OKAY OF THIS WHAT? OF THE ORDINANCE? YES OKAY OKAY SO WHAT NEXT AT THIS POINT? MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION CARRIES THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

OKAY I'D LIKE TO LET'S SEE. MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT J.1 PC 25 1025 THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 2 ZONING AND LAND USE AND TITLE 10 CHAPTER 5 COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR THE SMOKE SHOP WITH THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE MADE TONIGHT. SO THE RESOLUTION CORRECT? YES COUNCIL, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE HOURS, A POSSIBLE BOND RECOUPING OF INSPECTIONS AND VIOLATIONS, PROP 56 FUNDING, 150 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN PARKS AND RESIDENTIAL AND THE ACTUAL BUSINESS, CLEARING UP THE DEFINITION REGARDING HOOKAH OR CIGAR LOUNGES.

I THINK THAT'S SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR? WELL, IT SHOULD BE A OH I'M SORRY. WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE YOU'RE CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER LIGHT. AYE. COMMISSIONER BOSWELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER YOUNG. AYE. COMMISSIONER GADDIS.

AYE. COMMISSIONER CONROY. AYE. COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE.

YES. CHAIRPERSON CRAIG. YES. AND SO THE MOTION CARRIES.

GAVEL OKAY, SO I GUESS WE'RE ON ITEM K NOW AT THIS POINT.

ANY ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY.

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION AND THEN ANY ITEMS FROM STAFF THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TONIGHT.

[M. ITEMS FROM STAFF]

AND A LOT OF THE STUFF, THE GOALS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES IN THAT PLAN ARE UNDERWAY.

SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, JUST GO ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEBPAGE AND YOU CAN CLICK ON IT.

IN FACT, I'VE BEEN EMAILED OUT TO THE COMMISSION JUST SO YOU CAN BE AWARE.

[01:45:01]

AND IN THAT WE HAVE OUR MISSION STATEMENT AND VISION STATEMENT.

AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR OPERATING PRINCIPLES AND THE PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING TO ACHIEVE.

SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT THAT. ALONG THOSE LINES, WE IMPLEMENTED OUR NEW PERMITTING SYSTEM BACK IN APRIL IT'S CALLED IWORQ.

ON THE FIRST FEW MONTHS WE WERE A LITTLE BUMPY, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY COMING ALONG REALLY NICELY.

AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAS GOTTEN TO, THEY'RE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'VE LEARNED IT PRETTY WELL AND KNOW HOW TO WORK WITH IT.

I DO ANTICIPATE STARTING PROBABLY IN AUGUST WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE POSTING ON THE WEBSITE, AND I'LL BE SHARING THOSE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT'S GOING TO GIVE THE PROVIDE THE VOLUMES OF APPLICATIONS AND THE TYPES THAT ARE COMING IN AND ALSO GIVE THE AVERAGE REVIEW TIME.

SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT STRATEGIC PLAN.

BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS I WANTED THE SYSTEM AND IT'S REALLY EFFECTIVE IN PREPARING THOSE REPORTS AND ASSESSING WHAT'S COMING IN AND WHAT'S GOING OUT.

BUT ALSO IT HAS THE ONLINE PERMITTING OPTION AND A LOT OF OTHER FEATURES SO THAT'S BEEN REALLY HELPFUL.

IN THE ORDER, AND I MENTIONED THE FACT THAT WE HAVE METRICS ON REVIEW TIMES.

THE CITY COUNCIL EARLIER THIS WEEK DID APPROVE AN AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE OUTSOURCING MOST OF OUR BUILDING PLAN CHECKS TO THIRD PARTY CONSULTANTS AND THE BUILDING PLAN THAT'S FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE THAT OCCURS AFTER THE PROJECT IS APPROVED THROUGH PLANNING OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THEN THEY REALLY THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ARE PRETTY THICK IN TERMS OF DETAILS AND ENGINEERING.

IT'S A PRETTY INTENSIVE REVIEW PROCESS. SO THAT'S REALLY BEEN A BOTTLENECK IN THE DEPARTMENT, I WOULD SAY, IN TERMS OF GETTING THINGS THROUGH THE PROCESS.

AND IT COULD SOMETIMES TAKE A YEAR TO GET YOUR BUILDING PERMIT FROM WHEN YOU SUBMIT.

SO THIS IS REALLY GOING TO EXPEDITE THAT IN THE AGREEMENTS.

WE HAVE CERTAIN PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT WE'RE ASKING OF THE CONSULTANTS.

WE'RE PAYING THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE TO ACHIEVE THAT.

BUT BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET OUR AVERAGE REVIEW TIME DOWN TO TWO WEEKS.

WOW SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF CONSULTANTS DOING VERY WELL, I THINK [LAUGHTER].

YEAH SO I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY A MODEL CITIES ARE GOING TO AS THE BUILDING CODE JUST CONTINUES TO GROW AND GROW IS BECOMING IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING FOR DEPARTMENTS TO WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE WORKLOAD. WE ONLY HAVE TWO IN-HOUSE PLAN CHECKERS RIGHT NOW.

AND WHEN I GOT HERE, I QUICKLY IDENTIFIED THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY OVERWORKED AND IT'S NOT DUE TO THEIR FAULT.

AND THAT'S WHY SOME OF THE PLAN REVIEW TIMES WERE TAKING EIGHT, TEN WEEKS BECAUSE OF THAT.

SO IT WAS TAKEN AND THAT'S JUST FOR THE FIRST CHECK THAT SOMEBODY WOULD RESUBMIT.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER EIGHT WEEKS AND IT JUST ENDS UP YOU CAN SEE HOW IT ADDS UP TO BEING A YEAR OR MORE SO.

SO MARC, ARE THE CONSULTANTS USING THE AI PROGRAMS? BECAUSE I WAS JUST TALKING WITH ONE OF THE SOMEBODY PACIFIC PALISADES.

AND I GUESS THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT USING THE CONSULTANTS AND THE AI PROGRAM AND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO IN LA BE REALLY QUICK WITH THESE PLANS LIKE. YEAH SO WE ARE GOING TO USE A COMBINATION OF BOTH.

WE ACTUALLY MET WITH TWO SOFTWARE PROVIDERS JUST THIS WEEK TO RECEIVE DEMOS, AND IT'S REALLY EXCITING AND SCARY WHAT AI CAN DO [LAUGHTER].

BUT I THINK YOU'RE STILL THE HUMAN ELEMENT, AT LEAST FOR NOW, IS STILL GOING TO BE NECESSARY IN TERMS OF LIKE FINDING SOLUTIONS AND BEING THE QUALITY CONTROL. RIGHT. BUT THAT IT WILL DEFINITELY HELP WITH SOME OF THE BUSY WORK OF JUST GETTING THROUGH THE INITIAL CHECK.

AND I WAS PRETTY WE WERE PRETTY IMPRESSED BY WHAT WE SAW WITH THOSE DEMOS.

SO YEAH, THAT'S YOU KNOW, UTILIZE AI AND EXCELLENT. SO THE DELAYED TIMES ARE ALWAYS HARD TO DEAL WITH.

THAT SAID, REDONDO HAS USUALLY BEEN ONE OF THE BETTER CITIES.

IF YOU GO TO HERMOSA BEACH, YOU'RE GOING TO BE A YEAR AND A HALF [LAUGHTER]. IT TAKES THAT LONG.

THE QUESTION, THOUGH, WITH THE COMPANIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DOING THIS OTHER PLAN CHECKING, I WAS TOLD THAT DID MANHATTAN BEACH ADOPT A SIMILAR PROCESS OR WITH SOME OF THE SAME COMPANIES THAT WERE LOOKING AT TO TAKE ON THIS WORK? I BELIEVE SO, YES. THE ONLY MY ONLY [INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE THAT FROM A BUILDER'S COMMENTS I'VE BEEN HEARING WHEN MANHATTAN BEACH MADE THE CHANGE.

WHICHEVER COMPANY THEY'RE USING, THEY'VE EXPERIENCED AN INCREDIBLE BACKLOG, A BIG PROBLEM.

[01:50:01]

BUT JUST KNOW THAT MAYBE CHECK WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS IN MANHATTAN BEACH TO SEE HOW THAT'S WORKING.

IF THEY'RE USING THE SAME VENDOR, BECAUSE I'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK THAT THAT PARTICULAR ONE HAS NOT BEEN THE BEST.

I LIKE THE CONCERN WITH WHAT I WAS TOLD IS THAT ONE BUILDER TOLD ME IS GOING IN THAT PROCESS WITH THAT PARTICULAR VENDOR ADDED EIGHT WEEKS ON THEIR TIME PLAN.

SO WE ENTERED IN THE FIVE AGREEMENTS. WE HAVE ONE MORE AND OUR INTENT IS TO JUST BASE IT ON PERFORMANCE AS WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE SIX LONG TERM, BUT WE'LL END UP GRAVITATING TOWARDS THE ONES THAT PERFORM BETTER AND CAN MEET OUR STANDARDS. GOOD YEAH, THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TRYING IT OUT AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO WORK GREAT. YEAH AND THEN WE'VE ACTUALLY KIND OF STARTED LEANING START GOING THIS DIRECTION IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS AND ACHIEVED MUCH BETTER RESULTS. SO NOW WE'RE JUST GOING ALL IN ON IT.

AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY GOOD IN TERMS OF THE RESPONSIVENESS.

AND THEN FINALLY THE LAST THING. SO ON AUGUST 5TH, THE PLAN, NOT THE PLAN, THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE REVIEWING THE PHASE 2 OF THE GENERAL PLAN THAT'S GOING TO BE BACK ON THE TABLE OR REINTRODUCING IT.

AND REALLY IT'S GOING TO BE A FOCUS ON THE AACAP AREA AND THE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS THAT LOOK TO INCENTIVIZE REDEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE A NARROW FOCUS ON THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE SPA8, FAR OR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION.

I'M ANTICIPATING WE DID A SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG ARTESIA AND AVIATION, JUST TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE BARRIERS ARE TO REDEVELOPMENT.

AND QUITE A FEW OF THEM IDENTIFIED THAT IT IS SOME OF THE CITY'S REGULATIONS.

SOME OF IT IS THE COST OF DOING THE WORK. SO WE'RE GOING TO ATTACH THAT SURVEY TO THE PACKET THAT WILL BE IN THERE.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE WE COMMISSIONED SOME STUDIES TO BE DONE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDS THE 1.5 FLOOR AREA RATIO. AND THESE VISUALS THAT WE'VE PRODUCED SHOW THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVING THAT WHILE PROVIDING THE REQUIRED PARKING. IT'S PRETTY MUCH INFEASIBLE ON A LOT OF THESE LOTS, UNLESS YOU GO 3 OR 4 LEVELS DEEP WITH THE PARKING STRUCTURE.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE SOLUTION IS GOING TO BE FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST GOOD TO KNOW THAT JUST SETTING THE FAR 1.5 MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME OTHER PROPOSALS PUT OUT THERE ALSO.

BUT REALLY IT'S KIND OF A IT'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE TAKING ANYTHING FOR FINAL ADOPTION.

I DO ANTICIPATE THAT THE COUNCIL PROVIDES DIRECTION ON THIS.

IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AT LEAST THE ZONING ORDINANCES THAT WOULD EFFECTUATE SOME OF THIS POLICY DIRECTION.

EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE GENERAL PLAN A YEAR AGO.

SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT'S IN THE WORKS, AND I'LL TRY TO REMEMBER TO SEND THE COMMISSION A LINK TO THAT STAFF REPORT WHEN IT GOES OUT. BUT JUST BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR AUGUST 5TH, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A REALLY INTERESTING ONE.

AND AS YOU SAID, THAT'S PRIMARILY WITH THE AACAP AREAS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT FOR THE AACAP AREA. IT'S GOING TO BE A NARROW FOCUS TO THAT AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BROADEN IT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE SPA8 FAR.

THAT'S GOING TO BE ITS OWN MEETING. AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO A FEW OTHER THINGS LIKE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF THAT CAME UP WHEN WE FIRST PRESENTED THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL LAST OCTOBER. OKAY. THANK YOU THAT'S IT FOR MY UPDATES. VERY GOOD A LOT OF GOOD THINGS COMING OUR WAY.

AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT, I GUESS, REGARDING THE FUTURE ITEMS. WE ALL RECEIVED AN EMAIL RECENTLY FROM THE ONE OF THE PROPONENTS FROM THE GALLERIA PROJECT.

IS THAT GOING TO BE COMING UP IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OR WHAT'S THE THOUGHTS? INTO THE ITEM THAT IT'S NOT AGENDIZED BUT THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST.

OKAY. WE HAVE ANOTHER ORDINANCE COMING, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE THAT NIGHT.

SO IT COULD BE A BIT OF A LENGTHIER NIGHT. SO JUST, YOU KNOW, BE PREPARED FOR THAT.

BUT YEAH, IT'S. OKAY. WE HAVE THE GALLERIA SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST.

OKAY VERY GOOD YEAH I JUST ASK BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT WE'VE BEEN IS GOING TO IT'S COMING SOON.

WE'VE BEEN HEARING IT FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF [LAUGHTER] SO I JUST KEEP GOING TO GO. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR.

I JUST WANT TO NEEDS OF YOUR TEAM, AS WELL AS THE CITIZENS OF REDONDO BEACH.

OH WELL, THANK YOU JUST TRY MY BEST. QUESTION SO IN YOUR IN THE SURVEY OF ARTESIA PROPERTY OWNERS MENTIONING THAT PART OF THEIR RELUCTANCE TO REDEVELOP IS OUR

[01:55:07]

WELL, IS IT? WHAT KIND OF REGULATIONS ARE KEEPING THEM FROM.

YEAH SO THE SURVEY PROVIDED IDENTIFIED A FEW OPTIONS LIKE PARKING FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWED USES, AND THEY HAD THE OPTION OF SELECTING ALL OF THEM OR JUST ONE LIKE IT WAS.

THEY COULD SELECT ANY OF THEM. IT WAS A PRETTY EVEN DISTRIBUTION, ALTHOUGH THE PARKING REGULATIONS WERE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST IN TERMS OF BEING ONE OF THE BIGGEST BARRIERS. AND THERE WAS A GOOD PERCENTAGE, 70% OF THE RESPONDENTS AND WE HAD LIKE, I THINK IT WAS 27 RESPONDENTS. PEOPLE WHO RESPONDED TO IT INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN REDEVELOPING THE PROPERTY IF THERE WAS A MODIFICATION OF THE REGULATIONS.

PARKING IN PARTICULAR BEING AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST.

BUT WHAT WAS SECOND? IF YOU. THINK IT WAS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, IT WAS PRETTY EVEN ACTUALLY AMONGST.

SO MAYBE THEY JUST CLICKED THEM ALL [LAUGHTER]. BUT I KNOW PARKING WAS AT THE TOP WHERE IT WAS LIKE NOTICEABLE.

SO THE AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BUSINESS IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXPANDING OR REDEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE CAN GET THERE TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT SORT OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES THE CITY CAN PROVIDE ON ARTESIA, LIKE A TRAM. PARK AT THE GALLERIA TAKE THE TRAM DOWN, GET OFF WHERE YOU WANT.

IT JUST GOES BACK AND FORTH ON ONE STREET A COUPLE OF MILES.

YOU'RE NEVER MORE THAN A FEW MINUTES FROM GETTING ON OR OFF OF ONE AT ANY INTERSECTION.

I MEAN, WE COULD SOLVE THE PARKING ISSUE BY HAVING A COUPLE OF TRAMS THAT JUST GO BACK AND FORTH ON ARTESIA.

YEAH, IT CAN'T JUST BE REDUCED PARKING AND HAVE NOTHING TO REPLACE IT.

AND MAYBE SOME OF IT IS THE CITY LEASING OUT SOME LOTS TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, OR EVEN BUILDING A PARKING STRUCTURE IN OR TWO IN THE AREA SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. PERHAPS THE BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO OPEN OR REDEVELOP CAN PAY INTO A PARKING IN LIEU FEE THAT WOULD GO INTO THE FUND TO HELP FUND SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. BUT I THINK IT'S AND I EVEN WENT TO BUSINESS ON ARTESIA RECENTLY AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT DID HAVE PARKING.

AND IT MADE ME THINK, MAYBE I WON'T STOP THERE BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE HARD TO STOP AND GET OUT OF MY CAR.

AND SO I THINK IT'S THIS BALANCE BETWEEN IN ORDER FOR THE BUSINESS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IT DOES NEED TO HAVE SOME PARKING, BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME IT'S, YOU KNOW, OCCUPYING THE MAJORITY.

THE REQUIREMENTS TAKE UP MOST OF THE LOT. SO YOU HAVE TO FIND, I GUESS, THE SWEET SPOT WITH ALL THAT.

SO THOSE ARE ALL GOOD SUGGESTIONS SEEMS TO BE AN EASY SOLUTION. WELL ANYWAY YEAH THOSE ARE THOSE ARE GREAT IDEAS AND I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD BRING UP TO THE COUNCIL. PERHAPS GOING TO THE MEETING ON AUGUST 5TH. MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA WILL INCORPORATE THAT. THE STAFF REPORT IS NOT DONE, BUT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

AND IF THE COMMISSION OFFLINE HAS ANY OTHER IDEAS FOR THE PARKING UP THERE, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT WITH ME.

VERY WELL. WELL THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. WIENER EXCELLENT INFORMATION, AS ALWAYS AND AS I'LL ECHO WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU AND YOU'RE ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

GOOD AND BAD OR DUMB ONES YOU ARE THERE TO ANSWER FOR WE APPRECIATE THAT [LAUGHTER].

OH THANK YOU YEAH GOOD MEETING TONIGHT THANKS.

SO LIKE THIS THAT'S IT. SO WE GOT A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.