Feb 24, 2026 City Council

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. COULD I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE?

[A. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. HERE. MAYOR LIGHT.

HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT WOULD YOU MIND LEADING US IN THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG? PLACE YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART. 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.

OKAY. AND PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT INVOCATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. OKAY. GOING DOWN TO ITEM D ON THE WRITTEN AGENDA.

ANY PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS?

[D. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ AB 1234 TRAVEL EXPENSE REPORTS]

COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. NOTHING FOR ME TODAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

NOTHING FOR ME TODAY. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC.

NONE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. ANNOUNCEMENTS.

OH, YEAH. AB TRAVEL. YES. TRAVELED TO SANTA BARBARA THIS LAST WEEKEND FOR A INDEPENDENT CITIES ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE. AND IT WAS EXTREMELY ENLIGHTENING.

THE EXPENSE REPORTS ARE ON RECORD WITH THE CLERK.

WE TALKED ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTAL ENFORCEMENT, NEW LAWS THAT THE STATE PASSED WITH REGARD TO THAT, HOW CITIES CAN GENERATE REVENUE OTHER THAN THROUGH TAXATION AS WELL AS DISCUSSION BY TWO COASTAL COMMISSIONERS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON THERE WHAT POWERS THEY HAVE AND WHAT THEIR GOALS ARE ON THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

SO IT WAS ENLIGHTENING AND IT WAS GREAT TO BE THERE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER, WE SAT AT THE FRONT OF THE TABLE AT THE FRONT OF THE CONFERENCE ROOM LIKE GOOD STUDENTS.

THANK YOU. I GUESS I COULD AMEND BY SAYING I ALSO ATTENDED THE ICA WINTER SEMINAR WITH COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, AND I'LL GIVE A MORE FURTHER DETAILED REPORT.

NEXT MEETING MAYBE. OKAY. AND LAST THING. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT FOR THE DELIGHTFUL COMMUNITY MEETING LAST NIGHT FEATURING CHIEF RBPD CHIEF STEPHEN SPRENGEL. AND I KNOW LIEUTENANT LONG WAS THERE AS WELL, AND YEAH, WAS WELL ATTENDED. I HAD A GREAT TIME. BETTER THAN OUR MEETING.

IT WAS IT PROBABLY EXACTLY AS WELL ATTENDED AS OUR MEETING.

WOW. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. NONE. OKAY.

AND NONE FOR ME. WITH THAT GOING DOWN TO ITEM E, COULD I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA.

[E. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA]

ALL FOR IT. AYE. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

DO WE HAVE ANY BLUE FOLDER ITEMS THIS EVENING OR TODAY?

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

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. COULD I GET A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE SECOND? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. ALL FOR IT. AYE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

LET'S SEE. NOW WE GO DOWN TO ITEM G, THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

[G. CONSENT CALENDAR]

I ASSUME NO ONE WANTS TO PULL ANYTHING. SO COULD I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SECOND.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS G1 AND G2 BEFORE WE CAST OUR VOTE.

NOBODY. ANYONE ONLINE. NO ONE ONLINE. AND. OKAY.

ALL FOR IT. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY FOR G1 AND G2.

LET'S SEE. WE HAVE NO EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS, SO WE'RE JUMPING DOWN TO ITEM I.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANY SUBJECT THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION TODAY. THIS SECTION IS LIMITED TO 30 MINUTES.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE AFFORDED THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE AND WILL TAKE WRITTEN REQUESTS.

FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY WRITTEN REQUESTS? OKAY.

ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY. NOBODY IN THE ROOM. ANYONE ONLINE? NO ONE ON ZOOM AND NO ONE ON ONLINE OR ECOMMENTS.

OKAY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, AND ITEM J IS TO FOR EACH OF US TO REVEAL ANY DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD

[J. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS]

[00:05:09]

I HAVE HAD NONE. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. I JUST DISCUSSED IT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND SOME STAFF.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. CITY ATTORNEY, AND THAT'S IT.

OKAY. AND CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT BROAD DISCUSSION WAS THE ONE WAS HOW WE RUN THE MEETING FOR THIS. AND WHAT'S THE LAWS BEHIND AND ORDINANCES BEHIND THE CITY'S POTENTIAL ACTIONS? AND SOME QUESTIONS ON EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT.

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. JUST COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT AND ONE RESIDENT REACHED OUT TO ME AND CITY MANAGER WITZANSKY.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. SPOKEN WITH THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE WILL NOW JUMP TO ITEM K1.

[K. PUBLIC HEARINGS]

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. ALL FOR IT. AYE.

OKAY. WE ARE NOW IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BEFORE WE START, ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE OR LISTENING ONLINE? THIS IS AN APPEAL. SO THERE'S A FORMAL PROCESS TO THAT ON THE CITY COUNCIL.

FIRST, THE CITY IS THE PROPONENT IN THIS CASE.

SO THEY'LL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.

THEN THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE AN HOUR TO REBUT THAT AND MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS.

WE WILL THEN OPEN UP TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHO HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND YOU CAN ONLY SPEAK ONCE. AND THEN ON THE BACK END OF THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS 20 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL AND THE CITY WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

UNLIKE WHAT IT SAYS IN THE STAFF REPORT, I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE ACTUALLY MAKING A RESOLUTION TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE DIRECTING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THE PROCEEDING THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED OR.

NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO OVER TO THE CITY AND YOUR ONE HOUR TO PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

I BELIEVE. YES. OKAY. YOU NEED THE PRESENTATION.

YES. I HAVE A PRESENTATION TO PUBLISH ON POWERPOINT.

THERE YOU GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL AND YOUR CLIENT AND ALL PRESENT HERE TODAY FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REGARDING THE MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP BUSINESS LICENSE.

MY NAME IS STEPHANIE JOHNSON. I'M A SENIOR DEPUTY CITY PROSECUTOR.

ALONG WITH ME TODAY IS LIEUTENANT MICHAEL STROSNIDER, AS WELL AS SERGEANT JOSHUA SPRY IN THE AUDIENCE FROM THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHO WILL ALSO BE PRESENTING IN THE COURSE OF THIS APPEAL HEARING.

WE ARE HERE TODAY IN REGARDS TO A BUSINESS LICENSE THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH TO FERAS ADAMO. THIS IS BUSINESS LICENSE 330177. AND IT WAS ISSUED TO A BUSINESS THAT MR. ADAMO OWNS. IT'S A SMOKE SHOP LOCATED AT 2205 ARTESIA BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.

BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATIONS ARE GOVERNED BY REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE 6-1.26 AND 6-1.27.

THE CITY IS PURSUING REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION B, WHICH STATES THAT ANY BUSINESS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH MAY BE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED, REVOKED, OR HAVE NEW CONDITIONS IMPOSED WHERE THE LICENSEE HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE, ANY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW.

IN THIS CASE, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS CDTFA, ALONG WITH THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION AT THIS LOCATION ON MARCH 18,

[00:10:02]

THIS STATUTE WAS ENACTED IN 2020 AND TOOK EFFECT IN 2022, MEANING SELLING FLAVORED TOBACCO HAS BEEN BANNED SINCE 2022. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 104559.5 B1 STATES A TOBACCO RETAILER OR ANY OF THE TOBACCO RETAILERS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT SELL, OFFER FOR SALE OR POSSESS WITH THE INTENT TO SELL OR OFFER FOR SALE A FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT OR TOBACCO PRODUCT FLAVOR ENHANCER.

THIS HEALTH AND SAFETY SECTION GOES ON TO DEFINE WHAT EACH OF THESE ITEMS ENTAILS.

I WON'T READ THEM TO YOU, BUT I WILL EMPHASIZE THAT A FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS IS ANY TOBACCO PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS A CONSTITUENT THAT IMPARTS A CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR.

CHARACTERIZING THE FLAVOR INCLUDES ANYTHING THAT CHANGES WHAT A NORMAL, ORDINARY PERSON OTHER THAN TOBACCO. SO IT COULD BE FRUIT, CHOCOLATE, VANILLA, ANY OF THESE FLAVORS, AS WELL AS ANY TOBACCO OR NICOTINE ITEM THAT IMPARTS A COOLING SENSATION UPON CONSUMPTION.

IN 2019, REDONDO BEACH ENACTED MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5-9.205, AIMED AT PREVENTING UNDERAGE SMOKING AND PROHIBITS THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS WITHIN THE CITY.

AT THE STATE LEVEL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCREASED BY CDTFA IN JANUARY OF 2025, THREE YEARS AFTER THE STATUTE TOOK EFFECT. THIS ALLOWED SMOKE SHOP BUSINESS OWNERS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS.

REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TASKED WITH ENSURING THAT LICENSED SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY ARE OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. TO WALK THROUGH THE INSPECTION THAT WAS CONDUCTED ON MARCH 18, 2025 AT THE MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP IS SERGEANT JOSHUA SPRY FROM THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HE WILL COME UP AND TALK AND PRESENT REGARDING THE INSPECTION THAT TOOK PLACE ON THAT DATE, TIME AND LOCATION. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JOSH SPRY.

I'M A SERGEANT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON ME.

I'VE BEEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT GOING ON 26 YEARS NOW, 16 OF THEM WITH THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.

I SPENT THE PRIOR TEN WITH LOS ANGELES SCHOOL POLICE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMING HERE.

MY CURRENT ASSIGNMENT IS I SUPERVISE THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT, WHICH IS A BRANCH OR AN ARM OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION.

WE FOCUS ON LONG TERM CASES ON CASES THAT INVOLVE MORE THAN JUST YOU KNOW, A QUICK REVIEW OF SOMETHING AND A FILING THAT REQUIRE A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT IS TO INCLUDE ANY SPECIFIC CITY ENFORCEMENT WE'RE DOING, INCLUDING SMOKE SHOPS AND ALCOHOL LAWS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO THE CATALYST FOR THIS IS THIS IS KIND OF IN OUR WHEELHOUSE OF THINGS WE INVESTIGATE OR THINGS MY UNIT INVESTIGATES.

AGAIN ON MARCH 18TH, IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE WE WENT OUT TO THE MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP ALONG WITH THE CDTFA.

[00:15:07]

I REACHED OUT TO THEM AS THEY WOULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN THIS TYPE OF INVESTIGATION, AND I WAS BASICALLY LEANING ON THEM FOR THEIR EXPERTISE AND TO ASSIST US WITH MAKING SURE OUR INVESTIGATION WENT DOWN THE CORRECT TRACK.

SO ON THAT DATE, IT WAS MYSELF AND TWO OTHER REDONDO BEACH POLICE OFFICERS OR DETECTIVES, ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF AGENTS FROM CDTFA. AND OUR GOAL THERE THAT DAY, AT LEAST FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WAS JUST ENSURE THAT THE PEACE WAS KEPT AND THAT EVERYTHING WAS, YOU KNOW, RAN SMOOTHLY WHILE THE AGENTS FROM CDTFA CONDUCTED THEIR INVESTIGATION.

WHEN WE ENTERED THE SMOKE SHOP, IT WAS I DON'T RECALL THE DAY OF THE WEEK, BUT IT WAS A WEEK DAY AND IT WAS IN THE LATER MORNING HOURS DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. THE SHOP WAS OPEN ON THE DAY WE WENT THERE.

THE FRONT DOOR WAS OPEN, YOU KNOW, PHYSICALLY OPEN.

THEY HAD A SIGN OUT, I BELIEVE IT SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OPEN OR COME IN AND ALL THE LIGHTS WERE ON.

THERE WAS ONE EMPLOYEE WORKING THERE ON THAT DAY.

AND WHEN WE INITIALLY HAD GONE IN I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY CUSTOMERS IN THE STORE AT THE TIME.

WE ENTERED THE STORE, THE CDTFA AGENT, THE AT LEAST THE AGENT THAT WAS LEADING THEIR INVESTIGATION WENT TO THE STORE EMPLOYEE THEY WEAR JACKETS WITH THEIR IDENTIFYING AGENCY.

WE WERE WEARING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TACTICAL VEST THAT SAID POLICE AND HAVE CLOTH BADGES.

THEY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES. THEY EXPLAINED TO THE EMPLOYEE WHAT THEY WERE THERE TO DO, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.

THEY ASKED THE EMPLOYEE IF IT WAS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF IT WAS THEIR STORE, NOT THEY SAID, NO, THEY'RE AN EMPLOYEE, NOT THE OWNER. THEY ASKED IF THEY COULD CALL THE OWNER, WHICH THEY DID.

THE OWNER SHOWED UP SOMETIME LATER AFTER RECEIVING THE CALL.

HOWEVER, THEIR INVESTIGATION HAD ALREADY COMMENCED.

AS FAR AS THE INSIDE OF THE STORE, IT'S RELATIVELY LARGE SALES SPACE.

THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF GLASS DISPLAY CABINETS.

THEY HAVE A CIGAR ROOM IN THE BACK. THEY HAVE A COUNTER WITH A NUMBER OF ITEMS OUT FOR SALE, FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. THEY HAVE SOME REFRIGERATED ITEMS THAT THEY'RE STORED IN COLD STORAGE.

AND THEY HAD AS FAR AS I KNOW, AN OPERATING POINT OF SALE CASH REGISTER, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM FOR IT.

AGAIN, I WENT THROUGH WHAT THE RETAIL SALES FLOOR LOOKED LIKE IN MY TIME THAT I SPENT THERE, I WAS BASICALLY SHADOWING OR WALKING WITH SOME OF THE AGENTS.

AGAIN, THEY'RE MOSTLY TO KEEP THE PEACE. DURING MY TIME WALKING THROUGH THE STORE, I SAW THE POINT OF SALE LOCATION.

I SAW THE ESSENTIALLY THE COUNTER. WE WERE WE WENT TO THE BACK OF THE STORE.

THERE WAS A PRIVATE OFFICE. THERE WAS A LOCKED BACK STORAGE ROOM.

THERE WAS A RESTROOM, AND I BELIEVE ANOTHER UTILITY CLOSET THERE.

THERE WAS ALSO A BLACK OR DARK COLORED METAL STORAGE CONTAINER, SIMILAR TO SOME YOU MIGHT HAVE IN YOUR GARAGE THAT WAS ON THE SALES FLOOR AND CLOSED. HOWEVER IT WAS UNLOCKED, AND IF WE COULD MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THE PICTURES ON THE POWERPOINT IN FRONT OF IN FRONT OF YOU DEPICT WHAT WAS ON THE THE PICTURE ON MY FAR LEFT WITH ALL OF THE ROUND SMALL CANISTERS. THOSE ARE ZYN NICOTINE CANISTERS.

SOME OR MOST OF WHICH ARE FLAVORED. AND THE DIFFERENT COLORS DENOTE THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF PRODUCT AND OBVIOUSLY THE DIFFERENT FLAVORING, THE DISPLAY THAT SAYS OEO IN GREEN OR IN WHITE ON THE GREEN BACKGROUND.

THAT WAS ON THE OUT IN FRONT OF THE DISPLAY COUNTER OR WHERE THE REGISTER WAS.

THOSE ALSO CONTAIN A FLAVORED NICOTINE PRODUCT.

AND THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WAS THERE IN THAT OEO DISPLAY. SO IF I MAY, ALL THESE WERE OUT IN THE CONSUMER PORTION, CONSUMER ACCESSIBLE PORTION OF THE STORE.

YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE ONES ON THE FAR LEFT WERE BEHIND THE COUNTER BUT VISIBLE TO ANYBODY,

[00:20:06]

AND IF I VERY QUICKLY. YES. IN WHICH OF THESE SERGEANT SPRY DID CONTAIN, IN YOUR OPINION, FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT. SO ALL OF THE ZYN CONTAIN TOBACCO OR NICOTINE, THE CERTAIN ONES. AND IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ SPECIFICALLY ON THE PICTURES, BUT CERTAIN ONES, LIKE ON THE PICTURE ON THE FAR LEFT IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER ABOUT WHERE THE MOUSE POINTER IS, THOSE ARE COOL MINT OR LIKE MENTHOL FLAVORED, I BELIEVE THEY CALL THEM CHILL.

AND THEN WHEN WE GET INTO A COUPLE OF OTHER SLIDES, THERE'S SOME BETTER PHOTOS OF SOME OF THE CANISTERS.

OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE LEFT IMAGE AS BEING CHILL.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT ONE IS A FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT? THAT ONE IS. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS ALONG THE LINE OF THE ZYN THAT YOU SEE? YOU'LL SEE BRAND ONE WHERE THE POINTER IS NOW AND THE ZOOMED IN PORTION ON THE RIGHT IS SOME TYPE OF APPLE FLAVOR? IT'S A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO READ IT FROM HERE, AND IT'S SIDEWAYS.

HOWEVER, WHEN ALL OF THE ITEMS WERE COLLECTED AND INVENTORIED, THERE WERE AT SOME POINT LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF CANS OF FLAVORED ZYN PRODUCT. SOME OF.

I'M SORRY. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. GO.

SOME OF WHICH WERE OUT FOR DISPLAY. OTHERS WERE ESSENTIALLY KEPT AS STOCK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

SERGEANT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FLAVORED TOBACCO IS SOMETHING LIKE A MENTHOL CIGARETTE.

IS THAT CONSIDERED FLAVORED TOBACCO? THE AND CORRECT ME IF I DON'T IF I MISSPEAK A LITTLE BIT OR I MISSPOKE.

THE ZYN CONTAINS NICOTINE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT CONTAINS TOBACCO.

I BELIEVE A MENTHOL CIGARETTE ACTUALLY HAS TOBACCO.

THEY'RE BOTH FLAVORED SIMILAR, THOUGH. OKAY, BUT THAT WOULD BE BANNED UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY.

MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR MISS JOHNSON. THAT WOULD BE, A MENTHOL CIGARETTE WOULD BE BANNED UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE INDICATING CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR A FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT ANY TOBACCO PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS A CONSTITUENT THAT IMPARTS A CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR AND MENTHOL IS IS DEFINED AS A CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR. OKAY THANK YOU.

SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THREE SLIDES SIDE BY SIDE.

SO AS I ZOOM IN, IF I LOOK CLOSELY NEXT TO THE CHILL TO THE LEFT, I SEE PEPPERMINT.

NEXT TO THE LEFT OF THAT IS COOL MINT. AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

I'M SURE THERE'S SOME OTHER FLAVORS THERE, BUT OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. AND I WILL SAY THE ZYN AT THE, IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ON, THE LEFT WHEN I SPOKE TO INSPECTOR BENITEZ, SPECIFICALLY THE CHILL ZYN THE NICOTINE POUCHES THAT IMPARTS A COOLING SENSATION, WHICH IS ALSO A BANNED FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT BECAUSE IT IMPARTS A CHILLING SENSATION OR COOLING SENSATION.

COPY. THANK YOU. CAN WE GO TO THE. THANK YOU.

SO I SPOKE ABOUT THE METAL STORAGE CABINET OR CONTAINER THAT IS DEPICTED ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.

THAT'S UP IN AN OPEN CONFIGURATION. IT WAS OPEN OR IT WAS UNLOCKED WHEN WE GOT THERE.

AND THEN THE PACKAGED ITEMS OR THE ITEMIZED ITEMS ON THE RIGHT THAT ARE PLACED OUT ON A TABLE FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES WERE WHAT WAS RECOVERED OUT OF THAT STORAGE CONTAINER THAT WAS OUT ON THE SALES FLOOR.

ALSO IN THIS UNLOCKED STORAGE CABINET WHEN I SPOKE TO INSPECTOR BENITEZ THE FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN ARE THE INVENTORY PRODUCTS THAT WERE FOUND WITHIN THE UNLOCKED STORAGE CABINET. AND THE FLAVORED NICOTINE POUCHES LOCATED IN THE STORAGE CABINET INCLUDED SPEARMINT, CITRUS, COOL MINT, WINTERGREEN, PEPPERMINT, COFFEE, AND CINNAMON FLAVORED NICOTINE POUCHES.

THERE WAS ALSO FLAVORED VAPE THAT CONTAINED FLAVORED PRODUCTS THAT WERE FRUIT IN NATURE, AS WELL AS

[00:25:10]

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOVE ON. AND I SPOKE BRIEFLY EARLIER ABOUT THERE WAS A STORAGE OR A STOCK ROOM IN THE BACK.

ONCE THE OWNER ARRIVED TO THE STORE HE HAD THE KEY OR ALLOWED UNLOCKED THE DOOR AND ALLOWED THE AGENTS, AS WELL AS MYSELF, INTO THE BACK ROOM WHERE A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS WERE COLLECTED THAT WERE MOST OF WHICH WERE BOXED UP, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PHOTOS HERE. THE TOTAL NUMBERS AND THIS IS THE WHAT WAS COLLECTED AND ITEMIZED BY CDTFA AND STORED IN THEIR EVIDENCE WAS 1630 TOTAL SALES UNITS. THAT'S EVERY SINGLE CAN NOT NECESSARILY THE QUANTITY IN THE CAN BUT THAT WOULD BE THE FOR THE ZYN AT LEAST THE CAN OR THE BOX TOTALING A RETAIL VALUE OF $24,644.

THE AT THE COMPLETION OF OUR WORK WITH THE CDTFA AND THE INSPECTION OF THE BUSINESS, THE OWNER WAS ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PRODUCT WAS COLLECTED, DOCUMENTED, AND HE WAS LEFT THERE AT HIS BUSINESS. I CAN TAKE. THAT'S ALL FOR AT LEAST MY PORTION.

AT THE END OF AT THE END OF MY INVESTIGATION, I SPOKE WITH CDTFA EITHER THAT AFTERNOON OR THE FOLLOWING DAY, WE DISCUSSED WHAT THE TOTAL NUMBERS WERE. IT'S MY OPINION, BASED ON MY TRAINING, MY EXPERIENCES WITH MY NARCOTIC INVESTIGATIONS, THAT ALL OF THE ITEMS HERE WERE POSSESSED WITH THE INTENT TO SELL THEM TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WERE WHO COME IN AND HOPEFULLY ARE OF AGE TO PURCHASE THIS.

THERE WAS AN EMPLOYEE WORKING THERE AT THE TIME.

THERE'S A MEANS TO COLLECT REVENUE, EITHER ELECTRONIC OR CASH, AND THERE WAS PLENTY OF QUANTITY OR SUPPLY TO FULFILL ANYBODY'S, ANY REQUEST OF ANY PURCHASER.

THANK YOU, SERGEANT SPRY. YES. SO I THINK WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

SURE. GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. SERGEANT SPRY DO YOU KNOW IF CDTFA IS GOING TO BRING AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION OR ANY SORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AGAINST THE BUSINESS OWNER, SEEING AS THEY HAVE COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE? I BELIEVE THE CDTFA IS THE THEY INDEPENDENTLY DON'T PROSECUTE ANY CRIMINAL SIDE OF THIS. I POSSIBLY I COULD BE MISTAKEN ON HOW THEY DO THEIR BUSINESS, BUT I, THEY ASSIST US WITH HANDLING IT EITHER AT THE CITY LEVEL AND THEN THEIR PROCESS IS SOLELY ADMINISTRATIVE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. OKAY.

THANK YOU SERGEANT. SO YOU OBSERVED FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR SALE ON THE FLOOR, CORRECT.

YES. WERE THESE SAME PRODUCTS ALSO IN THAT UNLOCKED BLACK STORAGE CONTAINER? YES. AND WERE THEY ALSO IN THE BACK ROOM OF THE SAME PRODUCTS IN THAT IN THE LOCKED BACK ROOM.

SIMILAR BRANDS AND TYPES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SERGEANT SPRY? I DO. SERGEANT SPRY YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO NARCOTICS AND DRUG SALES AND RENDERING OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AN ILLICIT ITEM IS POSSESSED FOR SALE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY BACKGROUND IN EXPERIENCE SPECIFIC TO WHETHER OR NOT RETAIL TOBACCO PRODUCT IS POSSESSED FOR SALE OR NOT? I BELIEVE THEY'RE IN THE SAME.

[00:30:05]

IT'S SIMILAR MODE OF OPERATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IF WE'RE JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, INVESTIGATING SOME TYPE OF ILLICIT NARCOTIC SALES, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT THAT SUBSTANCE ISN'T ALLOWED TO BE SOLD AT ALL VERSUS WE'RE NOW SPEAKING ABOUT A SUBSTANCE THAT IN CERTAIN CONFIGURATIONS IS ALLOWED TO BE SOLD AND A FLAVORED CONFIGURATION ISN'T.

I BELIEVE THOSE ARE VERY SIMILAR STYLE INVESTIGATIONS.

I CAN'T SAY THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED DIRECTLY WITH A FLAVORED NICOTINE PRODUCT OR TOBACCO PRODUCT SALES, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR IN THE WAY THAT THEY'RE THAT THE INVESTIGATION OR THE INCIDENT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO.

OKAY, BUT NOTHING SPECIFIC IN YOUR BACKGROUND IN TRAINING AND EXPERTISE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE BEING POSSESSED BY A RETAILER FOR SALE, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC TRAINING, BACKGROUND OR EXPERTISE, CORRECT? NO, SIR. AND THAT'S WHY I REACHED OUT TO A ANOTHER ENTITY.

WHICH WOULD BE THE CDTFA. YES, SIR. CDTFA I BELIEVE, BUT YES.

AND DO YOU KNOW IF THE CDTFA FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE INSPECTOR BENITEZ, WHETHER THEY DO IN FACT HAVE SPECIFIC BACKGROUND TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE WITH RESPECT TO MAKING A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A RETAIL TOBACCO PRODUCT IS POSSESSED FOR SALE.

YES, SIR, I DO. AND I BELIEVE EITHER THE LIEUTENANT OR MISS JOHNSON IS GOING TO PRESENT A DECLARATION OR A DOCUMENT COMPLETED BY THEM THAT EXPLAINS THE LEAD INVESTIGATORS BACKGROUND.

OKAY. DID YOU DURING THIS INVESTIGATION, THIS INSPECTION, SERGEANT SPRY WITNESS ANY ACTUAL SALES OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR OTHER ILLEGAL PRODUCTS FROM THE MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP TO ANYONE? NO, I DID NOT. OKAY. DID YOU WITNESS OR SEE ANY SALES OF ANY TYPE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO ANY MINORS DURING THE TIME OF THIS INVESTIGATION? NO. HAVE YOU OR DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE HAS MADE A DETERMINATION AS TO APPROXIMATELY WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE ENTIRE INVENTORY OF THE MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP WAS DEDICATED TO ILLEGAL PRODUCT? I DO NOT HAVE A PERCENT OR A NUMBER. OKAY. ANY FAIR ESTIMATE AT ALL? WAS IT LESS THAN 1%? WAS IT MORE OR YOU JUST DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LOOK INTO IT? SIR, I WOULD BE I WOULD BE GUESSING IF I GAVE YOU A NUMBER.

THERE WAS A NUMBER OF, LIKE I SAID, A NUMBER OF 1600 OR, I'M SORRY, 16,000 PLUS ITEMS TOTAL THAT WERE COLLECTED, WHATEVER THE TOTAL QUANTITY WAS, I DON'T KNOW, IN RELATIONSHIP TO TOTAL STORE INVENTORY OF OTHER ITEMS WHAT, THAT HOW THOSE NUMBERS WORK OUT. OKAY. HAD YOU HEARD AT ANY TIME THAT IN DECEMBER 2024 THAT THERE WAS AN INSPECTION, AN INVESTIGATION AND A RECORDATION OF ILLEGAL CANNABIS RELATED ACTIVITY THAT OCCURRED AT THIS LOCATION OF THE MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP? WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? I HAD I DID NOT HAVE ANY PERSONAL INTERACTION WITH THAT.

I DID HEAR THAT THERE WAS SOME PRIOR ENFORCEMENT, BUT I WASN'T THERE FOR THAT.

PRIOR ENFORCEMENT WITH RESPECT TO CANNABIS. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT HOW LONG DO YOU INTEND TO GO? BECAUSE WE ARE. 30 SECONDS. OKAY. IF THAT. THANKS FOR CHECKING.

I WAS NOT PRESENT OR PARTICIPANT IN THAT. OKAY.

AND DO YOU KNOW IF YOU OR IF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL BE SPEAKING TO THE CANNABIS PRODUCTS THAT WERE PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE STORE AS PART OF THIS INSPECTION? ON THE IN ON THE? ON YOUR INVESTIGATION. ON THE ONE IN MARCH? YES. MARCH 2025. I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME THERE WAS A PHOTO OR THERE WAS SOMETHING IN ONE OF THE REPORTS DOCUMENTING THAT THERE WERE SOME CANNABIS OR CBD PRODUCTS THAT WERE RECOVERED.

I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE INSPECTOR'S I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED DECLARATION, BUT THEIR REPORT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I CAN FOLLOW UP THEN. THANK YOU SERGEANT. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, QUICK, QUICK QUESTION. REAL QUICK BECAUSE WE'VE GOT.

DID ANYBODY ASK THE SINGLE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THERE IF THEY'VE BEEN SELLING THESE PRODUCTS?

[00:35:05]

COOL. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

DO YOU HAVE MORE? YES, MAYOR. NEXT IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WILL BE SPEAKING IS LIEUTENANT MICHAEL STROSNIDER.

GOOD AFTERNOON. LIKE SERGEANT SPRY SAID LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT MYSELF.

MY NAME IS MICHAEL STROSNIDER. I'M A CURRENT LIEUTENANT WITH THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ASSIGNED TO OUR INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION.

I'VE BEEN A PEACE OFFICER FOR 32 YEARS. THE FIRST SIX YEARS WAS WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND IN THAT TIME, I WORKED A VARIETY OF ASSIGNMENTS SUCH AS HOLLYWOOD VICE NARCOTICS DIVISION AND A FIELD TRAINING OFFICER.

SINCE LADDERING OVER TO THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT IN 2000, I WAS A MAINLINE DETECTIVE FOR EIGHT YEARS.

I WAS A SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS SERGEANT FOR FIVE YEARS.

I WAS THE QUALITY OF LIFE SERGEANT FOR TWO YEARS.

AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M THE CURRENT LIEUTENANT OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION.

SO MOST OF MY CAREER HAS BEEN IN SOME TYPE OF INVESTIGATIVE ASSIGNMENT.

AND THEN DURING MY ENTIRE CAREER, I'VE CONDUCTED HUNDREDS OF INVESTIGATIONS OR THOUSANDS OF REPORTS, ANALYZED EVIDENCE, AND FORMED OPINIONS ON CERTAIN CASES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO ME OR THAT I WAS PART OF.

WHY I'M PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY. BECAUSE PART OF MY JOB OR THIS INVESTIGATION IS TO OVERSEE THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

AND WITH THAT, I COORDINATED WITH CDTFA, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION.

AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS HERE IS INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS WERE COLLECTED FROM THEM TO SUPPORT THIS HEARING, SUCH AS A DECLARATION FROM THE ACTUAL INSPECTOR THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION AT THAT TIME, AND THEN THAT WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT SHORTLY.

AND THEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE CONDUCTED ON THE INSPECTION DATE, AS WELL AS THE INVENTORY OF PRODUCTS THAT WERE CONDUCTED, AFTER WHICH YOU DID TAKE A LOOK AT. WITH THAT SAID, INSPECTOR BENITEZ, WITH THE CDTFA PRODUCED OR SIGNED A THREE PAGE DECLARATION THAT HAS SPECIFIC HIGHLIGHTS IN HERE THAT I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.

ONE IS FOR QUALIFICATION. SHE'S A 24 YEAR MEMBER OF THE CDTFA AND FIVE YEARS AS AN INSPECTOR WITH LIMITED PEACE OFFICER POWERS. AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION ON MARCH 18TH SHE INDICATED THAT THE BUSINESS WAS OPEN.

AND THERE APPEAR TO BE A POINT OF SALE DEVICE WORKING AND THAT WAS OPERATIONAL AS WELL, WHICH IS TWO KEY POINTS TO THIS AS PART OF THE INSPECTION THAT THE BUSINESS WAS OPERATING. THE NEXT PART IS, AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, PRIOR TO ANY ITEMS BEING SEIZED, WHICH YOU SEE ON YOUR POWERPOINT, RIGHT, THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS.

THOSE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN PRIOR TO ANY ITEMS BEING RECOVERED OR SEIZED.

AND AS AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION, SO IT WAS DOCUMENTED THAT IT WAS IN THAT FASHION THAT THE ITEMS WERE DISPLAYED IN THE PUBLIC AREA.

THE NEXT PART IS ALSO WE DISCUSSED AND SERGEANT SPRY WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, SOME FLAVOR BANNED PRODUCTS THAT WERE ALSO IN A LOCKED STORAGE ROOM. THAT'S THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID AS WELL THAT ITEMS WERE FOUND BACK THERE AS WELL.

AND THEN AGAIN, THE FLAVOR BANNED PRODUCTS THAT WERE ALSO ON THE UNLOCKED CABINET THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE CLOSE UP PHOTOS AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, BACK AT THEIR FACILITY, THAT SHOWED ALL THE DIFFERENT ITEMS AND WHAT THEY WERE.

THE SIGNIFICANCE ABOUT THESE, THREE IS THAT HIS HER DECLARATION CORROBORATES SERGEANT SPRY'S TESTIMONY AND SUPPORTS THE VIOLATIONS OF THE TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS WITHIN OUR CITY.

BASED ON THESE VIOLATIONS, THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A NOTICE OF REVOCATION ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025.

A HEARING WAS CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 10, 2025, AND A FINAL DECISION WAS RENDERED ON DECEMBER 19, 2025. AND THEN NOW WE'RE HERE FOR THIS APPEAL.

THE APPEALS STANDARD FOR THIS HEARING IS, IS DE NOVO, MEANING THAT CITY COUNCIL IS HEARING THIS APPEAL AND YOU ARE BEING TASKED WITH MAKING AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND DETERMINING THE OUTCOME OF THIS BUSINESS LICENSE. AS I HAD PREVIOUSLY INDICATED UNDER REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 6-1.26,

[00:40:02]

THIS MEANS THE EVIDENCE MUST SHOW THAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TRUE THAN NOT.

SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS THE 51% STANDARD. THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE PRESENTATION TODAY, SERGEANT SPRY AND LIEUTENANT STROSNIDER HAVE IDENTIFIED UNDERLYING VIOLATIONS OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AS IN THE CITATION THAT WAS ISSUED, AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, IN THAT THESE ITEMS WERE POSSESSED WITH THE INTENT TO SELL AND TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS WERE FOUND DURING THIS INSPECTION.

FURTHER, AS IDENTIFIED IN INSPECTOR BENITEZ'S DECLARATION IN PARAGRAPH IN PARAGRAPH EIGHT SHE ALSO IDENTIFIED THAT VARIOUS CANNABIS PRODUCTS WERE LOCATED IN A LOCKED STORAGE ROOM, AS WELL AS ON DISPLAY IN THE STOREFRONT.

THIS PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE CANNABIS JUICES THAT WERE ON DISPLAY IS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A 13. SHE NOTATES AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH CANNABIS BEVERAGES IN COOLER AT SMOKE SHOP.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS, THERE WERE ALSO VIOLATIONS, POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CANNABIS LAWS.

THOSE WERE NOT THE HIGHLIGHT OF THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE CITY WAS FOCUSING ON THE FLAVOR BANNED TOBACCO PRODUCTS. AND I ALSO WILL ADD THAT MR. ADAMO, WHEN THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING WHAT CONSEQUENCE SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR THE UNDERLYING VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED AT THIS SMOKE SHOP MR. ADAMO HAD ALMOST, IF NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WHEN THE FLAVOR BANNED TOBACCO LAWS WERE ENACTED IN 2022. SO WHETHER PRODUCTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DIFFERENT LOCATION HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO POSSESS, TO STORE OR MAINTAIN AT HIS SMOKE SHOP THESE FLAVOR BANNED TOBACCO PRODUCTS, LET ALONE HAVE THEM ON DISPLAY IN A STOREFRONT AREA OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND AVAILABLE FOR SALE. SO IT IS FOR THESE REASONS AND THE VIOLATIONS OF LAW THAT OCCURRED ON MARCH 18, 2025.

AND I WOULD ARGUE FOR YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, HE JUST HADN'T BEEN CAUGHT.

I WOULD ASK THAT CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE IMPOSE A PERMANENT REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE 330177.

THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR BRIEFING? THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION, AND I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE REMAINING TIME. SO THIS IS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THIS APPEAL DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CANNABIS, BUT THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD ON THIS.

CAN WE CONSIDER THAT IN OUR DELIBERATIONS? YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION? THAT WAS MY QUESTION, TOO.

OKAY. IS THAT IT? YEAH. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC.

[00:45:01]

CAN YOU GO TO THE PHOTO OF THAT? YOU HAVE THAT UP? I CAN, YES. PAGE 55 OF THE DOCUMENT. ONE SECOND.

LET ME FIND IT. PAGE 55 OF THE REPORT HAS IT UP.

DO YOU WANT ME TO PUBLISH IT ON? I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THAT PHOTO WAS THE SAME.

WAS SHOWING THE SAME DISPLAY. IF IT'S THE SAME DISPLAY AS WHEN YOU RIGHT WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE STORE.

SO IN THE MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES THAT I SUBMITTED IT'S PAGE 55 OF MY BRIEF A 13. AND IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU LOOK AT A1 WHICH IS THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, THERE IS A SIGN THAT SAYS OPEN.

O P E N, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT LETTERING, THE E N OF THAT LETTERING IN AN EXTERIOR WINDOW. SO IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT THIS WAS LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE DOOR, THE POINT OF ENTRY FOR THE SMOKE SHOP.

CAN YOU. I THINK IT WAS SHOWING THAT FIRST SLIDE.

WHEN YOU WERE WALKING IN. YES. YOU WANT ME TO GO BACK TO THAT.

YEAH FIRST SLIDE. SURE. AND THEN LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS.

OKAY. THAT HELPS. I SEE YEAH. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO COMPARE THOSE, AND THAT WAS THAT WAS MY QUESTION RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. OR GO FORWARD IN YOUR SLIDE. PLEASE. SURE.

THERE WAS ANOTHER PHOTO JUST AS YOU ENTER. OH, TO THE.

THIS ONE. THIS ONE. SO THAT WASN'T THIS GREEN STACK HERE.

IT WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE. OKAY. OKAY. IT'S. YES, IF YOU WERE TO.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THE REFRIGERATED CANNABIS PRODUCTS WOULD HAVE BEEN TO YOUR RIGHT.

GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. AND THEN CONTINUING UPON THE CANNABIS QUESTIONS IS THAT BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY IN ANY WAY OR IS THAT JUST SORT OF ANCILLARY AND GOT DROPPED BY THIS BECAUSE IT WAS A TOBACCO INVESTIGATION? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY OR. IT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THIS HEARING TODAY.

IT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT'S NOT BEING CONSIDERED IN ANY OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS CURRENTLY.

THANK YOU. AND THAT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS BUSINESS DID NOT HAVE A CANNABIS PERMIT FOR US TO TAKE ACTION ON. SO IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO TAKE ACTION, WE TOOK ACTION ON THE BUSINESS LICENSE WHICH ENCOMPASSED THE TOBACCO RETAIL PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY.

BUT THERE WAS NO PERMIT ISSUED TO THIS BUSINESS REGARDING CANNABIS.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'M PICKING UP WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER'S WALLER, AND KALUDEROVIC WERE.

FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY STEPHANIE. SO NO CANNABIS PERMIT THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF FOR SELLING CANNABIS PRODUCTS AT THIS LOCATION, CORRECT? CORRECT. THE COOLER OF CANNABIS BEVERAGES, WHICH WAS ALSO, I THINK, REFERENCED IN THE DECLARATION OF INSPECTOR INVESTIGATOR BENITEZ.

WOULD THAT THEN BE ILLEGAL CANNABIS RELATED ACTIVITY? IT WOULD BE, YES. AND THOSE ITEMS IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF THE CDTFA INVESTIGATION, WERE SEIZED AND INVENTORIED AND TAKEN FROM THE LOCATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE DO HERE TODAY, DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE THE OPTION OF INCLUDING A FINDING OF ILLEGAL CANNABIS RELATED ACTIVITY AT THIS LOCATION ON THIS DATE?

[00:50:02]

AND WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN, YOU YOU HAD KIND OF MENTIONED THAT, RIGHT? I DID MAKE AN ARGUMENT IN THAT REGARD. YES. OKAY.

DO WE KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN A PRIOR VIOLATION? DID WE HAVE ANY PRIOR TESTIMONY, PHOTOGRAPHS, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THESE FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS WERE EITHER IN THE STORE, IN THE RETAIL AREA OR WERE OTHERWISE BEING SOLD ON ANY OTHER OCCASION OTHER THAN MARCH 2025, WHEN THE INVESTIGATION AND INSPECTION OCCURRED.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS MADE AWARE OF ALLEGATIONS THROUGH CITIZENS OF REDONDO BEACH THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OR ILLEGAL SALES OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

IN LIGHT OF THAT, AND WHEN ENFORCEMENT BEGAN IN JANUARY OF 2025 THAT IS WHEN REDONDO BEACH BEGAN COORDINATING EFFORTS WITH CDTFA. IT TOOK SOME TIME TO EFFECTUATE A DATE, TIME TO COORDINATE THOSE INSPECTION EFFORTS, AND WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF ENFORCEMENT COMMENCING BY CDTFA, THIS INSPECTION OCCURRED, AND THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT HAD COME TO LIGHT THROUGH VARIOUS SITUATIONS WERE DOCUMENTED AND VERIFIED IN THIS INSPECTION. OKAY. THE ALLEGATIONS WERE VERIFIED THROUGH THE INSPECTION, BUT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT THEMSELVES VERIFIED AS OF THAT DATE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

TWO OTHER QUESTIONS VERY QUICKLY, IF I MAY. THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH HAS A FLAVORED TOBACCO ORDINANCE OR TOBACCO ORDINANCE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, IT IS ILLEGAL NOT ALLOWED TO SELL FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A PROVISION OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE THAT ADDRESSES PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THAT ORDINANCE. RIGHT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT'S 5-9.209 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION. SECTION A2.

AND I'M QUOTING THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS.

THE RETAILERS PERMIT PRESUMABLY THE RETAIL TOBACCO PERMIT SHALL BE SUSPENDED FOR 60 DAYS FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND LASTLY MUNICIPAL CODE 6-1.26, WHICH YOU'VE REFERENCED AND IT'S IN THE REPORT, CONCERNS TAKING AWAY A BUSINESS LICENSE EITHER THROUGH A PERMANENT REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN REFERRING TO IN THIS HEARING AND IN THE REPORT.

RIGHT? YES. AND I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT AS PART OF PROCEEDING THROUGH SECTION 6.126 WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE, NEW CONDITIONS CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE BUSINESS OWNER.

IS THAT RIGHT? AS PART OF A DETERMINATION HERE? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN SO A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

OF THOSE NEW CONDITIONS WHAT COULD THAT BE? COULD IT BE HEY, YOUR SIGNAGE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF CONDITIONS, IF YOU KNOW, CAN BE INCLUDED AS PART OF A DETERMINATION HERE WITH RESPECT TO THIS LOCATION.

OUR MUNICIPAL CODE DOES NOT LIMIT THE TYPES OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU CAN IMPOSE IF THERE IS A FINDING THAT THESE VIOLATIONS WERE MADE SO YOU CAN IMPOSE THOSE KINDS OF CONDITIONS.

WE COULD DO THAT. YES. AND THEN LASTLY, THE CITY ATTORNEY, I, WE WERE SPEAKING A MOMENT AGO ABOUT PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE TOBACCO ORDINANCE.

IT'S THE THIRD VIOLATION WHERE THE RETAILERS PERMIT SHALL BE REVOKED FOR A THIRD VIOLATION.

IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THAT AS WELL, WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT? OF THE TOBACCO PERMIT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MAYOR. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? YEAH, I DID, BUT I FORGOT, AND I'M GOOD.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE'LL LET THE APPELLATE COME UP AND GIVE YOUR.

[00:55:05]

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS SAM ZREIK FOR THE APPELLANT.

AND WE'VE HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY. WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT ON MOST OF IT.

BUT WHAT MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO DO IS DISCUSS THE CANNABIS ISSUE THAT SEEMED EVERYBODY'S CONFUSED WITH.

SO PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ISSUE WITH THE CANNABIS BEVERAGE.

HELLO, EVERYONE. NOW THE CANNABIS BEVERAGES, THOSE WERE HEMP DRINKS THAT I PURCHASED FROM A TRADE SHOW FROM LAS VEGAS.

NOW, THE COMPANY TOLD ME THAT THESE BEVERAGES ARE LEGAL IN ALL STATES.

HOWEVER, I DID NOT KNOW. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO CARRY THEM.

SO WHEN THEY GOT CONFISCATED, I CALLED THE COMPANY.

I TOLD THEM WHAT HAPPENED. SO THEY SAID, NO, IT'S STILL LEGAL.

AND THESE ARE HEMP DRINKS THAT ARE LEGAL IN MOST STATES.

SO, ANYHOW THEY WOULDN'T TAKE THEM BACK FROM ME.

SO, I MEAN, BUT WHEN I EXPLAINED THAT TO THE INSPECTOR BENITEZ AND I TOLD HER THAT THESE WERE I MEAN, I GOT FOOLED BY THE COMPANY, PROBABLY. SO SORRY.

IT'S OKAY. JUST SO THE COUNCIL KNOWS IN REGARDS TO PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS, THIS PARTICULAR CLIENT HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS, HAS NEVER BEEN CITED BEFORE FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF TOBACCO.

HE DID OWN A SMOKE SHOP IN MANHATTAN BEACH. MANHATTAN BEACH HAD AN ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY CANCELED ALL SMOKING RELATED AREAS.

HE MOVED FROM MANHATTAN BEACH TO REDONDO BEACH.

HE'S BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OVER 15, 20 YEARS. HE'S NEVER HAD A VIOLATION.

HE DOES. HE DID MAKE A MISTAKE IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE ZYN PACKAGES.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE PICTURE THAT HAD THE ZYN CHILL, THAT ACTUALLY THAT PARTICULAR PRODUCT WASN'T CONFISCATED.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY AN UNKNOWN AREA BECAUSE IT WAS LEGAL AT ONE POINT AND THEN MADE ILLEGAL LATER.

THIS PARTICULAR CLIENT HAS INVESTED WELL OVER $900 TO $1 MILLION INTO THIS LAND.

IF THERE'S ANY CONDITIONS THAT THAT TO MAKE THE SIGN SMALLER, TO MAKE THE LOCATION SMALLER, HE CAN DIVIDE IT UP. BUT HE DOES. HE'S NEVER BEEN IN VIOLATION OF ANY SALE OF TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS.

AND I'LL SUBMIT ON THE PAPERS AND PLEADINGS ON THE RECORD, UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT HAS HIS HAND UP. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

GO AHEAD. SURE. THANK YOU, COUNSEL, FOR BEING HERE.

THE OEO DISPLAY CASE WE SAW THAT EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE PUT IT BACK UP.

BUT WAS THAT PUT OUT THERE WITH THAT NUMBER OF PRODUCTS ON IT, OR IT WAS PUT OUT THERE WITH A GREATER NUMBER OF PRODUCTS AND THEN EVENTUALLY REACHED THAT LEVEL OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, 15% CAPACITY.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IN REGARDS TO THE OEO PRODUCTS IS THERE ARE MANY WHOLESALERS IN LOS ANGELES THAT ACTUALLY TAKE THESE PRODUCTS AND ACTUALLY PUT THEM ON DISPLAY IN THE STORES, EVEN IF THE HOME, EVEN IF THE SHOP OWNER REJECTS THEM.

SO HE WASN'T PRESENT AT THE TIME. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A FEW DAYS.

HE DOESN'T KNOW. HE'S INSTRUCTED HIS EMPLOYEES NOT TO SELL THESE PRODUCTS.

HOWEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A WHOLESALER CAME IN, DROPPED IT OFF AND LEFT.

SO HE DOESN'T. I'VE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THIS WITH HIM.

HE DOESN'T REMEMBER IF THEY WERE MANY PRODUCTS IN THERE, OR IF THAT WAS THE ONLY AMOUNT THAT WAS THERE, BUT THIS IS NOT A PRODUCT THAT HE NORMALLY SELLS.

I MEAN, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE THAT NEW ITEMS GET DROPPED OFF IN A STORE, AND THEN THEY START TO GET SOLD WITHOUT THE OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO SCAN INTO THE POINT OF SALE MACHINE, RIGHT? THERE MAY JUST BE A PRICE FOR THEM. SO DO WE KNOW, BY THE WAY HOW MUCH FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT AND CANNABIS OR HEMP PRODUCT IN VALUE HAS BEEN SOLD FROM THIS LOCATION UNKNOWINGLY.

I UNDERSTAND UNKNOWINGLY BY YOUR CLIENT. DO WE KNOW THE VALUE OF THAT? THE SALES GENERALLY FROM AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S LESS THAN 2%.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT EVEN IT'S NOT EVEN. OKAY. SO IT'S 2% THOUGH, YOU KNOW, $40,000 OR $100,000 OR $10,000. WELL, THERE'S OVERALL SALES. SO I MEAN, HIM GETTING RID OF FLAVORED TOBACCO ANYWHERE DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A DENT.

AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE FLIPPED UPSIDE DOWN.

THEY WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO CUSTOMERS THAT WERE JUST IN NEED OF IT OR WHAT BUT HE WAS NOT REGULARLY SELLING IT TO

[01:00:09]

ALL RIGHT. AND WAS IT NOT THAT PEOPLE COULD COME TO THE STORE AND THE THINGS THAT WEREN'T ON DISPLAY THAT THEY COULD ASK FOR THEM? AND THEN SOMEBODY WHO WAS WORKING THERE WOULD GO TO THE BACK AND GRAB THOSE ITEMS. NO, BECAUSE THEY WERE GENERALLY IN A LOCKED CABINET THAT HE ONLY HAD ACCESS TO, AND HE WASN'T THERE EVERY DAY. SO IF HE WAS THERE EVERY DAY, MAYBE THEN HE'D GO OPEN IT. BUT NOBODY REALLY HAD ACCESS TO THE FLAVORED TOBACCO'S IN THAT LOCKED CABINET.

OKAY. YOU DID HEAR SERGEANT STROSNIDER TALK ABOUT THERE WAS. IT WAS UNLOCKED. THE DOOR WAS UNLOCKED.

SORRY. THE STORAGE AREA. MOST OF THE ITEMS WERE IN THE STORAGE AREA THAT LOCKED CABINET, WHICH ACTUALLY WASN'T ON THE SALES FLOOR.

IT WAS IN THE BACK. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED AND LOCKED, AND IT JUST IT JUST WASN'T AT THAT TIME.

BUT HE'S INSTRUCTED, ALL HIS EMPLOYEES NOT TO SELL THESE PRODUCTS.

ALL RIGHT. ON WHAT DATE WAS YOUR BUSINESS LICENSE REVOKED AND THE BUSINESS SHUT DOWN? I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER OF 2025. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT'S IN THE PAPER.

NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER 25TH. NOVEMBER 25TH. OKAY.

OF COURSE. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING, WOULD YOU LIKE TO.

SORRY I WAS A LITTLE STRESSED BECAUSE I'M NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING IN PUBLIC.

I WAS BETTER LAST TIME. I MEAN, WHEN DURING THAT FIRST HEARING.

I JUST WANT TO FINISH MY COMMENTS ON THE CANNABIS.

THESE PRODUCTS ARE AVAILABLE TO FOR PURCHASING ONLINE RIGHT NOW.

I WENT TWO DAYS AGO ON THE COMPANY'S WEBSITE.

IT'S CALLED CYCLING FROG AND THEY STILL SELL TO CALIFORNIA.

SO THIS IS WHY. THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED. AND I MEAN, YOU GUYS CAN GO ON THE WEBSITE CYCLINGFROG.COM YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THOSE PRODUCTS. AND THIS COMPANY, THEY'RE BASED OUT OF OREGON, SO I KIND OF GOT FOOLED WITH THESE.

THAT'S ALL. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, I DIDN'T KNOW. NO WORRIES.

I MEAN, YOU'RE TECHNICALLY NOT HERE BECAUSE OF CANNABIS OR HEMP, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY CONFISCATED FROM YOUR STORE.

DID YOU KNOW THAT THOSE WERE UNLAWFUL UNDER THE STATE'S LAW AND THE CITY'S LAW? I KNOW THE PRODUCTS ARE UNLAWFUL, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T STORE THEM.

THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I DID NOT KNOW THEY COULD BE.

AND THESE ARE NOT LIKE CHEAP PRODUCTS. AND FIRST OF ALL, AND SECOND OF ALL, THE PRODUCTS THAT WERE CONFISCATED, THEY PROBABLY MAKE UP 1% OF THE ENTIRE STORE INVENTORY.

I MEAN, THIS IS A BIG STORE. WE HAVE A BIG CIGAR ROOM THAT HAS OVER $200,000 WORTH OF CIGARS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ROLLING TOBACCO.

I MEAN, WHAT WAS CONFISCATED MAKES UP 1% OF THE WHOLE STORE.

I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE A STORE THAT'S 3500FT². THAT'S FULL OF PRODUCT.

OKAY, AND LAST COUPLE QUESTIONS. DID YOU BUY THIS SITE WHEN YOU MOVED INTO IT OR ARE YOU LEASING? YES, I OWN THE BUILDING AND I OWN THE SITE. AND DID YOU INVEST IN REPAVING? I KNOW THE PARKING LOT WAS DIRT AT SOME POINT AND IT GOT REPAVED.

EXACTLY. I REINVESTED AND I LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.

I SPENT OUT OF MY OWN POCKET $80,000 ON THE CITY'S SIDEWALK THAT I HAD TO BRING UP TO CODE.

THE CITY MADE ME REDO THE SIDEWALK TO BRING THE BUILDING UP TO CODE.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I MEAN, FOR ME. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO REGARDLESS OF THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INVENTORY, WHY WOULD YOU RISK YOUR BUSINESS OVER AN ILLEGAL PRODUCT? GO FOR IT. SO BASED ON WHAT YOU TOLD ME.

GO AHEAD. SO SOME OF THIS PRODUCT OR MOST OF THIS PRODUCT WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY OFF DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, POLICE SO THEY WOULD ACTUALLY COME INTO HIS STORE, PURCHASE THE PRODUCT.

HE LEFT IT AVAILABLE FOR THEM BECAUSE HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT'S IT WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND HE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO CAUSE ANY ISSUES.

SO THAT THAT PRODUCT THAT WAS BEHIND THAT SHOWCASE THAT WAS TURNED UPSIDE DOWN, MORE OR LESS WAS PURCHASED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SO HE OFF DUTY, THEY WERE OFF DUTY. THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATIONS. THERE WAS NO HE PURCHASED IT TO GIVE IT TO WELL, HE HAD IT. I MEAN, IT WASN'T IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T.

WHY WOULD HE HAVE IT IF IT'S AN ILLEGAL? BECAUSE IT CAME FROM THE OTHER LOCATION.

BUT THAT WAS ILLEGAL AT THAT LOCATION TOO. CORRECT.

NO, IT WAS LEGAL. FLAVORED TOBACCO. YEAH. THIS WAS ALL WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

SO IT'S THREE YEAR OLD. HE DIDN'T BUY THE PRODUCT.

WE. IT'S REMAINING INVENTORY FROM OVER THREE YEARS AGO.

YEP. OKAY. SINCE 2022. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. WE SUBMITTED RECEIPTS TO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

DO WE HAVE THOSE? I HAVE COPIES OF THEM. CAN YOU GIVE THEM TO THE CITY CLERK?

[01:05:04]

AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? SEE THEM. THE STAFF REPORT DID SAY THAT THEY FURNISHED THOSE.

RIGHT? DID. THEY DID SAY THAT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THEM.

IT WASN'T MY EVIDENCE TO TURN OVER. YEAH, IT WAS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

I TURNED IT OVER AT THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE, OF HEARING OFFICER.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OFFICER. MAYBE THAT DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH.

OKAY. IF YOU COULD HAND A COPY TO CITY CLERK.

YOU KNOW ACTUALLY. THANK YOU. ONE MORE QUESTION.

GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. SO IN YOUR BLUE FOLDER REPLY BRIEF YOU STATED THAT IT WAS UNFAIR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OFFICER SOLICITED INFORMATION AFTER THE HEARING, AND YOU SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AFTER THE HEARING. CORRECT? CORRECT. BUT IN FACT, YOU WERE THE ONLY PARTY THAT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE AFTER THE HEARING, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT OUR OFF DUTY POLICE AND FIRE FOLKS WERE GETTING PRODUCT FROM YOU? ILLEGAL PRODUCT? NO. I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW DURING THE LA FIRES YOU KNOW, WE DID A FAVOR FOR A FEW FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL.

YOU KNOW, JUST A LITTLE FAVOR FOR THEM BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW.

FOR REDONDO OR FOR LA, I WAS. WELL, I. I CAN'T RECALL WHAT IT SAID ON THE FIRE TRUCK.

YOU KNOW WHAT CITY IT SAID, BUT SO THE FIRE TRUCK PULLED UP AND GOT ILLEGAL PRODUCT.

YEAH. I MEAN, A LOT OF FIREFIGHTERS USE ZYN. A LOT OF POLICE OFFICERS USE ZYN.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S NOT A SECRET. BUT UNKNOWN TO ME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STORE IN MANHATTAN BEACH.

WHEN DID THAT CLOSE? DECEMBER 31ST OF 2023. 23.

AND THEN HOW LARGE WAS THAT STORE? SO YOU'RE IN 3500FT² NOW.

HOW LARGE WAS THAT STORE? PREVIOUS STORE WAS A 1400 SQUARE FOOT.

OKAY. SO YOU BROUGHT OVER SOME EXCESS INVENTORY FROM MANHATTAN BEACH THAT WENT INTO THE BACK.

RIGHT. THAT WAS SOLD, BUT THERE WAS STILL A LOT OF IT LEFT THREE YEARS LATER.

YES. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT, IS YOUR HAND STILL UP? IT IS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MOST OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD HAVE BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

SO WHAT SAFEGUARDS WOULD YOU IMPLEMENT IF YOUR BUSINESS LICENSE WEREN'T REVOKED? IT CURRENTLY IS REVOKED. TO ENSURE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FUTURE ILLEGAL CANNABIS SALES, ILLEGAL FLAVORED TOBACCO SALES, SALES TO MINORS POSSESSION OF ANY OF THOSE IN THE STORE OR BY THE BUSINESS.

WHAT SAFEGUARDS, IF ANY, WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO ADDRESS THAT? SURE. I'D JUST LIKE TO MENTION AGAIN THAT THIS IS MY FIRST VIOLATION, BEING IN BUSINESS SINCE 2005, IN OTHER CITIES AND ALL THAT. I LIKE THIS. I MEAN, THE CITY CAN COME TO MY STORE AND THEY CAN INSPECT THE STORE AND THEY CAN TELL ME, HEY, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS PRODUCT, YOU CAN HAVE THIS PRODUCT. I AM WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY.

I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY. THAT WAS MY FIRST VIOLATION.

I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE, AND THAT'S ALL I'D LIKE TO DO.

I MEAN, I LIKE TO WORK WITH THE CITY. ALSO, REGARDING, I MEAN, WE'RE VERY STRICT ON SELLING TO UNDERAGE.

I HAVE ON EACH ENTRANCE TO THE STORE, YOU HAVE TO BE A SIGN THAT INDICATES YOU HAVE TO BE 21 TO ENTER THE FACILITY.

I MEAN, I'M EVEN MORE STRICT THAN STATE LAW WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.

WE HAVE NO UNDERAGE SALES OR VIOLATION ANY OF THAT SORT.

OKAY. COUNCIL HAD MENTIONED POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE SIGNAGE.

WHAT? AND THAT WOULD BE THE THE RED BLOCK LETTERS IN FRONT MANHATTAN BEACH SMOKE SHOP.

WHAT DID YOU HAVE IN MIND? WHAT WERE YOU PROPOSING. WHAT I HAD IN MIND IS LIKE, IF THE CITY LIKE ME TO TONE DOWN THE LIGHTING, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT. AND I'M WILLING TO TINT THE WINDOWS IF THEY DON'T WANT ANY OF THE PRODUCT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, I HAD A TINTING COMPANY COME OUT AND MEASURE THE WINDOWS BEFORE THAT, BEFORE THE REVOCATION. I WAS ABOUT TO DO THAT.

I MEAN, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY, WHATEVER THE CITY WANTS US TO DO.

WE'RE WILLING TO WORK. OKAY. AND THEN FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STEPHANIE, DO WE DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO

[01:10:07]

ANYTHING TO CONTRADICT THAT AT ALL? SINCE THIS INSPECTION? SINCE 2005. FOR THE LAST 21 YEARS? A STATEMENT WAS MADE, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, BY MR. ADAMO, A REPRESENTATION THAT HE HAD HAD NO PRIOR VIOLATIONS OF ANY, DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT.

IN MY FAMILY. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN IN ME AND MY FAMILY WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR SINCE 2005.

WE HAD MULTIPLE STORES IN OTHER CITIES IN SAN DIEGO AND ORANGE COUNTY.

AND I'VE. MY FIRST STORE WAS I STARTED IN SAN DIEGO 2007.

SO SINCE THEN I HAVEN'T HAD ANY VIOLATION. 2007 YES.

AND STEPHANIE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO CONTRADICT THAT MR. ADAMO OR ANY OF HIS BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW SINCE 2007? NO. OKAY. FOR MISS CITY ATTORNEY JOY FORD, WITH RESPECT TO THE POTENTIAL CONDITIONS, IF THIS LICENSE WASN'T TO BE PERMANENTLY REVOKED AND WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY THERE.

COULD THOSE CONDITIONS INCLUDE, LIKE A SNAPBACK PROVISION WHERE IF THERE'S ANY VIOLATION OF ANY TOBACCO OR CANNABIS RELATED LAW THAT THE LICENSE, THE BUSINESS LICENSE IMMEDIATELY REVOKED? YES. WE CAN PUT THAT IN AS A CONDITION. AND THE APPELLANT, THEY'VE PROPOSED DOING THINGS WITH WINDOW TINTING AND SIGNAGE.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PUT IN THE CONDITIONS OR? YES. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE? YOU'D AT LEAST. MAYBE OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONS.

THEY HAVE A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL. AND YOU HAVE A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL AT THIS MOMENT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT US TO KEEP IN MIND? YES.

YES. I'D LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING. I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT I OWN THE BUILDING, AND I HAVE A LOAN MATURITY DATE OF APRIL 1ST NEXT MONTH.

AND I WILL BE IN DEFAULT OF MY LOAN IF THE BUSINESS IS CLOSED.

SO I WOULD PROBABLY GO INTO FORECLOSURE. I WOULD LOSE MY BUILDING.

AND THIS IS MY ENTIRE HARD. MY ENTIRE LIFE, I PUT IN THIS BUILDING MY HARD WORK.

IT'S ALL IN THAT REAL ESTATE. AND I ACTUALLY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THE BUILDING.

I BEAUTIFIED THE BLOCK. LIKE I SAID, I DID THE PARKING LOT, I DID THE SIDEWALK FOR THE CITY AND I'D JUST LIKE THE CITY TO RECONSIDER AND REINSTATE IN MY LICENSE. I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMEBODY TRUSTED IN THERE WHO'S NOT DOING WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US. AND THAT'S JUST A COMMENT MORE THAN ANYTHING.

IF THAT IS THE CASE. OKAY. THANK YOU. BEFORE THEY CONCLUDE THE REBUTTAL, PERHAPS WE SHOULD TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

YEAH I WILL. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO DO THAT BEFORE THE REBUTTAL.

YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M AWARE, BUT THANKS FOR REMINDING ME.

ONE LAST QUESTION BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THAT IS DO YOU HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES OR IS THIS YOUR ONLY BUSINESS RIGHT NOW? NO, I DO HAVE ANOTHER LOCATION, AND THEY'RE ALL WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY VIOLATIONS IN THE PAST.

WHERE IS THAT? WE HAVE ANOTHER LOCATION. WE HAVE TWO OTHER LOCATIONS.

YOU HAVE TWO OTHER? THEY ARE SMALLER STORES. NOT AS BIG AS THIS ONE. IN WHICH CITIES? WE HAVE ONE IN TORRANCE. AND WE HAVE ONE IN LOMITA.

OKAY. OKAY. GO AHEAD AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC HAS HER HAND RAISED.

SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE AWARE OR WE'RE FOLLOWING, BUT REDONDO BEACH HAD ENACTED A RIGOROUS SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE THAT WAS GOING TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS AND THEY PUT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SMOKE SHOPS THAT EXIST IN THE CITY TO FIVE.

CORRECT. AND PHASE OUT THOSE SMOKE SHOPS THAT DON'T COMPLY.

AND THEN REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WE CAME UP WITH A WHOLE HOST OF CONDITIONS THAT A SMOKE SHOP WOULD NEED TO ABIDE BY IF THEY WERE ISSUED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SO FOR YOU TO BE IN OPERATION AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT SUBJECT TO THE STATE LAW AND VIOLATE THE STATE LAW, WHETHER IT'S KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY OR BY STAFF OR DIRECTLY.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SITTING, YOU KNOW, WITH, DISCOMFORT IS WE'RE TRYING TO CRACK DOWN ON SMOKE SHOPS, BAD SMOKE SHOPS ESPECIALLY, AND THEN YOU INVEST A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS.

AND I SEE THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT INTO THIS SITE.

BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, FLOUT THE LAW. SO ANY EVENT ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE ON ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR SMOKE SHOPS UNDER OUR NEW SMOKE SHOP REGULATIONS? I MEAN, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YES, THE CITY, FROM WHAT I'VE READ, THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP FIVE STORES. FROM WHAT I READ BUT YOU'RE ASKING ME THAT IF I'M WILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW CONDITIONS.

[01:15:05]

I CAN'T LIST THEM FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. YES. THE ONLY THING IS THAT I READ ABOUT THE ZONING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ZONING WOULD WORK. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE AN EXISTING STORE, AND I READ THAT THE ZONING, YOU HAVE TO BE 100FT FROM ANOTHER STORE. I KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER STORE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

IF I MAY I CAN READ OFF THOSE CONDITIONS FROM THE ORDINANCE.

THAT WOULD BE CLARIFYING. THANK YOU. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10-5.2506 AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE. NO SMOKING SHALL BE PERMITTED ON THE PREMISES AT ANY TIME.

NUMBER TWO NO SALES MAY BE SOLICITED OR CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES TO MINORS.

NUMBER THREE NO SELF-SERVICE TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA DISPLAYS SHALL BE PERMITTED.

NUMBER FOUR NO DISTRIBUTION OF FREE OR LOW COST TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA, AS WELL AS COUPONS FOR SAID ITEMS SHALL BE PERMITTED.

NUMBER FIVE NO ADVERTISING OR SIGNAGE INDICATING THE AVAILABILITY OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS SHALL BE VISIBLE FROM THE EXTERIOR, NOR FROM ENTRY OF THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.

AND NUMBER SIX THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO PARAPHERNALIA ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE TOBACCO RETAIL PERMIT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN TITLE 5, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE TWO OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AS PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION THAT MR. ADAMO REFERENCED, NO SMOKE SHOP SHALL BE ESTABLISHED OR LOCATED WITHIN 600FT FROM ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL CENTERS.

HOWEVER MR. ADAMOS' CURRENT BUSINESS WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.

OKAY. ARE ALL THOSE LOCATIONS, ALL THOSE CONDITIONS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? YES, BUT I JUST NEEDED CLARIFICATION ON THE PARAPHERNALIA SHE MENTIONED AND THE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WHAT'S LIKE, LIKE, NO SMOKE SHOPS ARE ALLOWED TO SELL ANY SMOKING PARAPHERNALIA.

IS THAT WHAT YOU MENTIONED? NO. NO SELF SERVICE.

SELF. NO. YEAH. THAT'S LIKE A CIGARETTE MACHINE.

NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. YEAH. NO, IT DOESN'T OCCUR.

AND YOU DID SAY THAT YOU HAVE A CIGAR ROOM. IS IT A SMOKING CIGAR ROOM WHERE YOU SIT DOWN AND SMOKE A CIGAR.

NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF LICENSE. IT'S A WALKIN. NO SMOKING ONLINE.

SORRY IN THE STORE. YES. IT'S A WALK IN A HUMIDOR.

OKAY. I MEAN, ADULTS DO WALK IN AND GRAB THEIR CIGAR.

BUT THEY'RE NOT SMOKING IT IN THE. NO, NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT.

NO. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN ONE OTHER CONDITION I MIGHT CONSIDER IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO ALLOW YOU TO STAY IN BUSINESS IS REQUIRING YOU TO UPDATE THE FRONT SIGN WHEN WE CHANGE OUR SIGNING REGULATIONS FOR ARTESIA BOULEVARD, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF, YOU KNOW, BUT AFTER YOU INVESTED ALL THAT MONEY IN YOUR SHOP AND PUT UP THAT BRIGHT RED SIGN IT CAUSED US, ME TO WANT TO CHANGE THE SIGNING RULES IN REDONDO BEACH TO REQUIRE HIGHER QUALITY SIGNS, LOOKING AT, FOR EXAMPLE, PLACES LIKE PASADENA AND WHAT THEY HAVE ON COLORADO AND LAKE.

SO IF BUT WE HAVEN'T UPDATED OUR SIGNAGE ORDINANCE YET, SO WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN WE DO THAT WITHIN 60 OR 90 DAYS, YOU TOO WILL UPDATE YOUR SIGN CONSISTENT WITH THE SIGNING REGULATIONS.

YES, I AM WILLING TO DO THAT. OKAY, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, THAT SIGN THAT I CURRENTLY HAVE, IT'S ALL PERMITTED.

IT'S ALL APPROVED. I KNOW, I KNOW. BUT YES, THAT'S A PROBLEM WITH OUR LAW NOT WITH.

IT WAS ALL APPROVED BY THE CITY. SO. YES. BUT I AM WILLING TO ON MY OWN EXPENSE READJUST THE SIGN.

COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME CLARITY BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS.

YOU'VE HAD YOUR FAMILY'S BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS SINCE 2007.

YOU MENTIONED SO THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS. THIS IS YOUR SPECIALTY.

KNOWING THAT THESE ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ARE SUCH A HUGE RISK AND AS YOU STATED, THEY'RE 1 OR 2% OF OF THE SALES THAT YOU HAVE.

COUNCILMAN BEHRENDT ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN? AND WHILE YOU ANSWERED WITH YOU KNOW, YOU ARE VERY STRICT ABOUT SELLING TO MINORS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN MY POSITION, THE CONCERN IS THAT YOU HAVE ILLEGAL PRODUCTS IN YOUR STORE.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN YOUR STORE, LET ALONE BE FOR SALE IN YOUR STORE? YES, WE WILL INVENTORY THE WHOLE STORE. I WILL MAKE SURE EVERY PRODUCT IS COMPLIANT.

AND I WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO COME TO THE STORE.

I MEAN, OUR CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

[01:20:03]

WELL, AND I WOULD SAY THAT I LIKE THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT THERE, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS IS YOUR BUSINESS AND YOUR SPECIALTY, AND I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE WHO.

ABSOLUTELY. TAKES THE OWNERSHIP AND KNOWS WHAT IS ILLEGAL AND WHAT IS NOT RIGHT.

IT CANNOT BE ON THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE LEGAL PRODUCTS IN YOUR STORE.

YES, I DO AGREE WITH YOU. I'M JUST I JUST WANT TO JUST TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THAT I AM WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE STORE AND MAKE SURE EVERY PRODUCT IS COMPLIANT WITH STATE, CITY, AND LOCAL LAWS.

I'M WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE STORE AND AND JUST I WILL DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

BECAUSE THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE SPECIFICALLY, AS WE TALK ABOUT FLAVORED TOBACCO IS THAT IT DOES TARGET YOUTH.

AND WHILE YOU SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME ADULTS DO COME IN FOR THAT PRODUCT, THAT IT IS TARGETING YOUNGER PEOPLE, AND IT'S A HUGE CONCERN OF MINE. SO THE FACT THAT IT EXISTS, WHETHER KNOWINGLY OR NOT IN THE CITY, IS A BIG PROBLEM. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE NO OTHER HANDS UP. I DO HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR OUR STAFF IS WE ACTED ON A COMPLAINT.

CORRECT? YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AND WHAT WAS THE COMPLAINT? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS A COMPLAINT PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL.

ON WHAT? SALES. ON CANNABIS PRODUCTS OR FLAVORED? SALES OF FLAVORED TOBACCO TO MINORS AT SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY.

PUBLIC COMMENT. YEAH. OKAY. AND HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT REGARDING THE MINORS? THAT MIGHT BE OTHER STORES, BUT NOT MY STORE.

I'M VERY STRICT AND THE SIGNS ARE STILL ON THE DOORS.

NO ONE UNDER 21 IS ALLOWED TO ENTER. NOW, THAT'S PROBABLY REFERRING TO OTHER LOCATIONS.

WAS THAT UNDERAGE OR WAS IT THE TYPE OF PRODUCT.

THE TYPE OF PRODUCT IS WHAT I HEARD. YEAH. SO.

SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS AN UNDERAGE COMPLAINT. IT WAS A TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT WAS.

YES. I HAVE NO UNDERAGE VIOLATION. NO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS UNDERAGE.

YOU'RE SAYING YOU WERE SELLING SOMETHING ILLEGAL? YEAH, THEY'RE PROBABLY REFERRING TO THE FLAVORED PRODUCT.

OKAY, SO YOU ADMIT THAT WAS SOLD OUT OF YOUR STORE? WELL, IT WASN'T LIKE THEY MENTIONED THAT THAT THE FEW THINGS, LIKE WE MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE, WE KEPT FOR FEW PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ZYNS THAT WE KEPT, LIKE I SAID, FOR.

WELL, THIS WOULDN'T BE A POLICE OFFICER OR A FIRE DEPARTMENT FIREFIGHTER COMING UP AND TELLING US THIS, THIS WAS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SAYING THEY GOT ILLEGAL PRODUCT FROM YOUR STORE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL NICE FOLKS. I DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM IN THE I DON'T PUT ANYBODY IN THE SPOT.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL IT IS. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO MENTION NAMES, AND THEY'RE ALL NICE PEOPLE.

OKAY, WELL, YOU HAVE A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL IN A FEW MINUTES.

I'M GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. QUICK QUESTION ACTUALLY. OH, HOLD ON ONE.

SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE QUICK QUESTION, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE CONDITIONS AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE HAD ILLEGAL PRODUCT. IF YOU ARE ABLE TO REMAIN OPEN, WOULD YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH BLATANT SIGNAGE THAT SAYS THIS SHOP DOES NOT SELL FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS, NOR DOES IT SELL CANNABIS PRODUCTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WALKING BY EVEN WOULD KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT.

I CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT. YES. IF THE CITY REQUIRES IT, I CAN PUT A SIGN THAT THIS STORE DOES NOT CARRY FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

OKAY, OKAY. I MEAN, AFTER ALL THIS, I WOULDN'T BE. I'M SORRY. I WOULDN'T BE DOING THIS. I MEAN, HAVE THAT OUR BUSINESS WAS SHUT DOWN FOR THREE MONTHS AND WE ALREADY TOOK A BIG LOSS. YEAH I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU. WOULD ANY MEMBER DO WE HAVE ANY WRITTEN REQUESTS? DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WAYNE CRAIG, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE. I CAME DOWN BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT IT, AND I WANTED TO KIND OF SEE HOW THE PROCESS KIND OF WORKED OUT FROM WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND HOW IT'S IMPLEMENTED. A COUPLE OF THINGS ARE A LITTLE CONCERNING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE LAW LIKE IT'S SB 793 AND PROP 31, IT SHOWS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE THIS PRODUCT AT ALL.

AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY THE PRODUCT WAS THERE.

[01:25:02]

IT'S LIKE AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE ON THAT.

HOWEVER THERE'S NO PROOF THAT ANYTHING WAS SOLD.

YOU NORMALLY WHEN YOU DO A CRIMINAL CASE. AGAIN, I KNOW THIS IS A CIVIL CASE.

THERE'S A LOWER PROPENSITY OF PROOF. BUT IT SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD BE AN EASY THING TO HAVE SOMEONE GO IN AND BUY SOMETHING.

THE RECEIPT PRETTY EASY TO PROVE IT RIGHT THERE AT THAT POINT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T DO THAT. BUT THEN WE ACTED TO JUMP AHEAD AND CLOSE THE BUSINESS DOWN RIGHT AWAY.

A LITTLE CONCERNING, BUT ONE THING I WAS GOING TO MENTION WAS THAT, YOU KNOW AND TO THE COMMENT MADE FROM THE PROSECUTOR I ACTUALLY CAME UP IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, ONE MEETING ONE NIGHT BECAUSE I HAD TAKEN MY GRANDDAUGHTER OUT TO WANNA CHILL.

IT'S A LITTLE SHAVED ICE PLACE ON KNOB HILL. AND WHILE I WAS THERE YOU COULD SMELL MARIJUANA COMING OUT THE DOOR IMMENSELY.

NOW, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE DATE WHEN THAT WAS, I ACTUALLY TOOK PICTURES BECAUSE I LOOKED AT MY PHONE. I HAD THE THING. IT WAS ON AUGUST 27TH OF LAST YEAR AND OCTOBER 22ND ON A WEDNESDAY, BECAUSE WEDNESDAY THEY HAVE A LITTLE SPECIAL.

SO I PICK UP MY GRANDDAUGHTER. WE GO DOWN THERE AFTER SCHOOL. SO HOW DOES THAT TIE TO THIS APPEAL? WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE LIKE, A RANDOM COMPLAINT, WHICH IS ALMOST LIKE A YELP REVIEW.

AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE ENFORCE THE LAW BASED ON YELP REVIEWS.

[LAUGHTER] IT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A LEAP.

IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS PRODUCT THERE THAT'S CONCERNING. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT INVENTORY SHOULD BE REMOVED AND SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT. WAS THERE INTENDING TO SELL IT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF IT'S THERE, IT CERTAINLY MAKES IT A HECK OF A LOT EASIER. BUT I ALSO WONDER, WHY DIDN'T THE STATE AGENCY LOOK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE STUFF THAT HAD BEEN SOLD? CAN'T THEY REVIEW THE BOOKS? DON'T THEY HAVE TO PAY TAXES ON THAT? THAT WOULD BE ONE EASY WAY OF DOING THAT AS WELL TOO. AND THE OTHER THERE'S ONE OTHER POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE WITH THAT THAT SEEMED KIND OF INTERESTING WAS THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN OUT. THERE'S NO PRIORS. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THAT WOULD BE AN INDICATION OF YOU KNOW, FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST SEEMS LIKE WE WENT FROM WE HAVE A COMPLAINT ANONYMOUSLY.

THAT KIND OF SORT OF MAYBE HAPPENED. MAY HAVE BEEN RELATED TO SOMETHING ELSE, BUT IT'S IN THE WHOLE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.

NO SPECIFIC LOCATION, AND WERE IMMEDIATELY REVOKING A BUSINESS.

THAT'S LIKE LIKE I SAID, YOU HAVE A BUSINESS AND SOMEONE WRITES A BAD YELP REVIEW. YOU CLOSE YOUR BUSINESS DOWN THE NEXT DAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE IT. I CERTAINLY DON'T LIKE SMOKE SHOPS, I DON'T SMOKE, I HAVEN'T USED TOBACCO.

I DON'T LIKE TAKING MY GRANDDAUGHTER TO A PLACE NEXT DOOR THAT SELLS PRODUCT THAT OBVIOUSLY IS ILLEGAL.

SO IF THE POLICE WANT TO COME DOWN SOMETIME ON A WEDNESDAY, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE THEM OVER THERE. AND THEY COULD SEE SOMEONE IN THE ACT DOING SOMETHING AT A STORE JUST DOWN THE STREET ON KNOB HILL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? OKAY. ANYONE ONLINE? YES, I HAVE MELISSA DECHANT.

GO AHEAD. MELISSA. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION THAT'S TAKEN TO THIS SITUATION.

AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT PROPOSITION 31 WAS A PROPOSITION THAT THE CALIFORNIA STATE PTA HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF ADVOCACY GROUPS WORKED TIRELESSLY FOR OVER THREE YEARS BECAUSE IT WAS APPEALED ONCE IT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW.

WE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, TO BAN THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO NOT JUST FOR CHILDREN, BUT FOR ADULTS, BECAUSE THEY'RE DANGEROUS PRODUCTS.

AND THERE'S A PATTERN THAT WE'VE SEEN THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND IN REDONDO BEACH WHEREBY SMOKE SHOP RETAILERS HAVE THIS PRODUCT SITTING THERE THAT IS ILLEGAL AND IT GOES BACK ON THE SHELVES PRIOR TO OUR ORDINANCE ONCE THEY HAVE A FINE AND IT'S BEEN KIND OF THIS WINK WINK, NUDGE, NUDGE OPEN SECRET THAT EXISTS WITHIN OUR CITY.

AND I AGAIN COMMEND THE CITY. I THINK THE ACTIONS ON THE SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE ARE TREMENDOUS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON OUR YOUTH HEALTH AND SAFETY, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ENFORCED.

AND WHILE I DON'T WISH ILL UPON ANY BUSINESS OWNER OR ANY INDIVIDUAL IN OUR COMMUNITY, CERTAINLY THEY EXIST FOR A REASON AND TO HAVE ILLEGAL PRODUCT FOR OVER THREE YEARS. AND TO SUGGEST TO ME AS A PARENT, AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER, AS A RESIDENT, THAT IT WAS JUST THERE AS INVENTORY SEEMS A LITTLE BIT FAR FETCHED.

SO I WANT TO URGE YOU TO TAKE OUR ORDINANCE SERIOUSLY AND, YOU KNOW, USE IT TO ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO FOR OUR CITY.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YES. LET'S SEE HERE. JONATAN CVETKO.

GO AHEAD. JONATAN. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED HERE TODAY.

I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE AND STRESS THE BUSINESS THAT THIS OWNER IS RUNNING IS A HIGHLY REGULATED BUSINESS.

HE HAS STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE HAS HAD MANY, MANY YEARS IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT SHOPS OF EXPERIENCE AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN

[01:30:05]

ALLOWING A BUSINESS LIKE THIS MORE INTENTLY, ALLOWING AN OPERATOR LIKE THIS TO CONTINUE IN THE CITY DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO UPHOLD HERE AS WE CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THIS.

BASED OFF OF WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY, I WOULD ADVISE OR I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL HERE NOT TO REISSUE A LICENSE FOR THIS OPERATOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THAT'S IT.

THAT CONCLUDES ZOOM. AND THEN NO ECOMMENTS. OKAY, SO NOW IS YOUR YOUR REBUTTAL PERIOD.

IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

NOTHING FURTHER. NOTHING FURTHER. CITY. I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL REBUTTAL EVIDENCE TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.

SO YOU STAND BY YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO REVOKE THE BUSINESS LICENSE? YES, MAYOR. MAINTAINING A BUSINESS LICENSE WITHIN THIS CITY IS A PRIVILEGE.

IT'S NOT A RIGHT. THAT'S WHY THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENACTED AND HAS LICENSE AND SUSPENSION REVOCATION FRAMEWORK HEARINGS AND A PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE EFFORTS THAT THE STATE HAS GONE BY ENACTING PROPOSITION 31 TO LIMIT AND OR BAN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN THE CITY? ONE BECAUSE YES, IT DOES TARGET YOUTH, BUT IT REALLY TARGETS EVERYONE. AND THE BASIS AND THE UNDERLYING VIOLATIONS IN THIS CITY UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF NOT ONLY OUR YOUTH, BUT ALSO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AND BEYOND WHO COME TO TO VISIT THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. THIS BUSINESS OWNER FROM 2007 HAS UNDERSTOOD THE LAWS AND THE REGULATIONS. AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO THOSE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BECAUSE HE HAS RUN A BUSINESS AND WHETHER HE HAS BEEN CITED, INVESTIGATED FOR, ISSUED A CITATION REALLY IS IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PARTICULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWS HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW AT ALL. WHEN HE MOVED THAT PRODUCT FROM HIS MANHATTAN BEACH STORE IN 2022. HE HAD EVERY AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THAT, TO STORE THAT, TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE IN NEVADA, WHERE IT'S LEGAL. HE COULD HAVE DONE SO MANY OTHER THINGS WITH THAT PRODUCT.

INSTEAD, HE PACKED IT UP AND HE BROUGHT IT TO ANOTHER SMOKE SHOP.

THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR POSSESSION, FOR STORAGE OR TO MAINTAIN IT. IN THIS PARTICULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WE'VE GOT ITEMS ON DISPLAY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WE'VE GOT ITEMS AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO EMPLOYEES TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC.

THE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE A SALE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A TRANSACTION OCCURRED.

THE LAW IS VERY, VERY SPECIFIC IN HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 104559.5 B1 IN THAT YOU SHALL NOT SELL, OFFER FOR SALE OR POSSESS WITH THE INTENT TO SELL OR OFFER FOR SALE.

SERGEANT SPRY, IN HIS PRESENTATION OPINED GIVEN THE QUANTITY, GIVEN THE LOCATION, GIVEN THAT IT WAS OPEN, GIVEN THAT THERE WAS AN EMPLOYEE, GIVEN THAT THERE WAS A ACTIVE CASH REGISTER POINT OF SALE DEVICE, GIVEN THAT THERE WAS AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL PRODUCT LOCATED ON THE PREMISES.

ALL IS INDICATIVE IN HIS BACKGROUND, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE.

WHETHER HE'S DONE. WHETHER HE'S DONE AN INVESTIGATION IN REGARDS TO THE SALE OF OF TOBACCO OR NICOTINE PRODUCTS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE HAS CONDUCTED IN HIS

[01:35:03]

THE TESTIMONY AND PRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF INDICATES HE IS SELLING THEM.

HE ADMITTED THAT ON THE RECORD BEFORE COUNCIL, 1 TO 2% OF HIS SALES IS BANNED PRODUCT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS AND THIS BUSINESS TO CONTINUE OPERATING WHEN HE'S HAD YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE.

HE HASN'T DONE IT. I WOULD ARGUE HE'S NOT GOING TO DO IT.

AND ANY SORT OF SAFEGUARDS OR WINDOW TINTING, WHICH I DON'T EVEN THINK IS REALLY LEGAL. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN TINT WINDOWS FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT, FOR THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE INSIDE THE STORE AND FOR OFFICER SAFETY REASONS, BUT THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION. HIS WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE CITY IS FAR GONE.

HIS WILLINGNESS TO WORK AND COMPLY WITH THE LAWS SHOULD HAVE STARTED WHEN THESE LAWS WERE ENACTED IN 2022, AND HE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THAT PRODUCT THEN.

JUST BECAUSE WE HAD ONE INSPECTION IN 2025 DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT'S THE ONLY TIME HE'S EVER HAD THIS PRODUCT ON DISPLAY. IT'S CLEAR HE WAS TRYING TO INVENTORY OFF THE $24,000 OF PRODUCT THAT HE TRANSPORTED OVER, AND HE WAS DOING IT SALE BY SALE, AND HE WAS FILLING THOSE DISPLAY CABINETS WITH THE PRODUCT IN THE UNLOCKED CABINET.

WHEN THE UNLOCKED CABINET WAS GETTING STORED, HE WAS TAKING STUFF FROM THE LOCKED STORAGE AND REFILLING IT.

AND SO, YES, MAYOR, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT ACTION REQUIRED BY COUNCIL SHOULD BE TO PERMANENTLY REVOKE THIS BUSINESS LICENSE AND ENSURE THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF ALL THAT COME INTO THE CITY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I'D ASK FOR A SUCCINCT ANSWER ON THIS.

HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT RECOMMENDATION AGAINST THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE ON FLAVORED TOBACCO THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, FIRST INFRACTION IS 60 DAYS. THAT'S A TOBACCO RETAIL PERMIT, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT REVOCATION PROCEEDING. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT HAVING SINCE THAT SEEMS MORE IN LINE. WHY? WHY THAT? WHY GO SO HARSH SO QUICKLY WITH THAT WITHOUT THE LONG.

JUST A SUCCINCT ANSWER ON THAT, PLEASE. THIS BUSINESS ISN'T WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, IN ADDITION TO TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS AS WELL AS THE SALE OF CANNABIS, AND FOR THOSE REASONS, COLLECTIVELY THE CITY PURSUED BUSINESS REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS AS OPPOSED TO SPECIFICALLY THE TOBACCO RETAIL PERMIT. BUT WE'VE NOT INSPECTED IT BEFORE, SO WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT THAT'S EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME, HE ADMITTED HE BROUGHT THE FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT IN FROM 2022.

SO YES, I WOULD ARGUE THAT HE'S HAD THIS PRODUCT IN HIS POSSESSION, MOVED IT SINCE 2022.

YEAH OKAY. SO HE'S HAD IT THERE FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION.

YEAH I WILL TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS ONE MATTER IF IT'S STORED AND LOCKED BEHIND AND THAT WAS A MISTAKE VERSUS IT WAS PRETTY BLATANTLY DISPLAYED THERE AND I CAN'T I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING IT WASN'T FOR SALE REGULARLY SINCE IT WAS SO EASILY VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO LET'S SEE WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MAYBE THIS IS FOR SERGEANT SPRY.

DO WE SEE ANY OTHER FLAVORS OF TOBACCO OTHER THAN MINT, SPEARMINT AND THOSE ASSOCIATED KIND OF MINT FAMILY FLAVORS, LIKE BUBBLE GUM, STRAWBERRY CANDY CANE. YES. APPLE.

OKAY. APPLE. YEAH, I'M ON THE ONE EXHIBIT. HERE.

YEAH. I'M GOING TO GIVE MY NOTES. I HEARD APPLE FROM COUNCIL.

SO IS THERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN APPLE. PAGE 51.

GOT THE APPLE? THAT'S JUST THE APPLE.

COLORS. SORT OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IN THE STORAGE CABINET ON THE

[01:40:09]

SOME NOTES THAT WERE WRITTEN HERE OF FLAVORED NICOTINE WAS SPEARMINT, CITRUS, COOL MINT, WINTERGREEN, PEPPERMINT, COFFEE AND CINNAMON. AND THEN FOR VAPES OR VAPE CARTRIDGES, THERE WAS BLUEBERRY THAT'S EITHER BLUEBERRY WATERMELON TOGETHER OR SEPARATE JUICY PEACH ICE AND MIAMI MINT.

AND FOR THE TOBACCO JUICES AS DESCRIBED WATERMELON LIME, STRAWBERRY KIWI, GUAVA PEACH AND APPLE WATERMELON.

THANK YOU SERGEANT. YES, SIR. AND FOR ANYBODY ON THE STAFF SIDE WHAT DO WE EXPECT THE COST OF CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION AND BRINGING THIS PROSECUTION WOULD BE TO THE CITY.

DO WE HAVE ANY ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH THAT RUNS? SEVERAL, SEVERAL, SEVERAL MONTHS WE'RE LOOKING AT.

I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT FIGURE ON A NUMBER. I WILL SAY I HAVE WORKED WITH AND COORDINATED IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION WITH AT LEAST FIVE PERSONNEL FROM REDONDO PD. THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF, AS WELL AS NUMEROUS MEETINGS LEADING UP TO THE, NOTICE OF REVOCATION, THE THE AMOUNT OF HOURS I HAVE SPENT HELPING AND ADVISING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DRAFTING THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION, PREPARING FOR THE INITIAL HEARING, AS WELL AS PREPARING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRIEF.

I THINK ALL OF THIS IS SUBSUMED BY OUR OUR SALARIES.

BUT I WOULD IN GENERAL, SAY AT LEAST 50 HOURS? 50 TO 70? 70, 80. FROM BEGINNING TO END COLLECTIVELY BETWEEN 80 AND 100 HOURS OF, OF POLICE TIME AND PROSECUTION TIME.

DO WE KNOW IN A DOLLAR FIGURE WHAT THAT COMES OUT TO ANYBODY APPROXIMATELY? WELL. NO. OKAY. I SEE THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYING NO.

SO. ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. THANK YOU MAYOR. THE QUESTIONS I HAD WERE, WERE ASKED BY OTHERS, INCLUDING YOURSELF. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END OF THIS HEARING, AND IT'S AT SOME POINT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO DELIBERATE. MOTION TO CLOSE.

START WITH A MOTION TO CLOSE. WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE MORE QUESTION AND THEN WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. AND BEFORE I CLOSE, I HAVE ONE A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE.

OKAY. SO WE'LL GO WITH THE LAST COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND THEN. SURE I DID. WELL I VERY QUICKLY AND WITH RESPECT TO RENUMERATION COMPENSATION REIMBURSEMENT RESTITUTION ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WAS KIND OF TOUCHED ON BY COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI CAN ANY OF THAT BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION IN WHATEVER IS DECIDED TODAY? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL HOLD OFF THEN MAYOR.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. GOOD QUESTION.

AND THAT'S THE LAST. OKAY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND EVERYONE HERE.

SO WE'VE HAD CONFIRMATION THAT HE'S HAD INVENTORY SINCE 2022, AT LEAST OF THESE PRODUCTS AND BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THEM.

HE'S RECEIVED NEW INVENTORY FROM THE WHOLESALER BECAUSE THE WHOLESALER CAME AND PUT OUT THE NEW ZYN DISPLAYS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE ALL AGREE THAT HE'S BEEN IN POSSESSION AND THEN ALSO SELLING OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

AND EVEN THOUGH HE WENT FROM A STORE THAT WAS HALF THE SIZE OF THIS, THREE YEARS LATER, HE STILL HAS INVENTORY.

SO PRESUMABLY HE'S HAD ADDITIONAL INVENTORY DELIVERED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT THESE PRODUCTS WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SOLD.

SO, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, WE KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN SINCE 2022 THROUGH THE PRESENT THROUGH NOVEMBER 25TH.

SO AND IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, FLOATED OR PROPOSED SIGNAGE, WINDOW TINT, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO THAT OR NOT.

[01:45:01]

AND REALLY WHAT THIS IS, IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW THAT HE'S BEEN IN A HIGHLY REGULATED TOBACCO BUSINESS SINCE 2007, HAS KNOWN SINCE 2022 THAT HE WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND NONE OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ADDRESSED THAT.

SO JUST SOMETHING FOR US. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THAT WAS I WAS CONFIRMING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THOSE.

I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. OKAY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. IN TERMS OF THE HOURS, IF THE DECISION IS TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS.

YOU WILL BE DIRECTING ME TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION OF SAID CONDITIONS, AND WE CAN CALCULATE HOW MUCH THOSE HOURS WOULD AMOUNT TO.

AND THAT CAN BE IN A FORM OF A FINE, IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL.

MADAM CLERK, IF I MAY HAVE MY SCREEN. EVEN IF WE DENY THE APPEAL DON'T YOU HAVE TO COME BACK WITH THE.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GIVE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. SO YOU WOULD MAKE THE CONDITIONS TODAY? IF YOU ARE IMPOSING CONDITIONS, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY.

I'M SAYING IF WE WANT DENIED THE APPEAL TOTALLY.

IF YOU DENY THE APPEAL, THEN THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS.

WE WOULD STILL COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION MAKING THOSE FINDINGS.

YEAH SO NO MATTER WHAT WE'RE COMING BACK WITH A RESOLUTION TO A COUNCIL MEETING.

CORRECT. OPEN SESSION? YES. AS A CONSENT ITEM.

YEAH. OKAY. BUT WE HAVE TO BEFORE WE DEPART TODAY, IF WE DO HAVE SOME KIND OF CONDITIONAL CONTINUANCE OF THE BUSINESS THEN WE HAVE TO SPECIFY THE CONDITIONS HERE SO YOU CAN CAPTURE THEM IN THERE.

YES. OKAY. AND WHETHER YOU DECIDE TO SUSPEND, REVOKE OR IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON A BUSINESS LICENSE, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE UNDER WHAT CONDITION OF OUR MUNICIPAL CODE THAT WOULD BE.

AND I JUST WANT TO LIST THE POSSIBLE ONES YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM.

AND YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM MULTIPLE OF THESE. A, WOULD BE THAT YOU FIND AND DETERMINE THAT THE PRESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND PEACE DEMAND REVOCATION OF SUCH LICENSE OR PERMIT WHERE THE LICENSEE OR PERMITTEE HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE, ANY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, OR ANY PROVISION OF LAW.

C, DOES NOT IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE. D, WHERE THE LICENSEE HAS CONDUCTED THE BUSINESS IN AN IMMORAL OR DISORDERLY MANNER, OR HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AMONG THE CUSTOMERS AND PATRONS TO PREVENT VIOLATION OF LAW OR ORDINANCE BY THEM.

E WHERE THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AS TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

F IS NOT APPLICABLE, AND I DID NOT LIST G EITHER, WHICH PERTAINED TO FINES OR FEES.

AND SO FROM HERE WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION EXHIBITS AND WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN YOU CAN DELIBERATE, MAKE FINDINGS AND AND VOTE AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO.

OKAY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION, EXHIBITS AND WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE.

SO MOVED ALONG WITH CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL FOR IT.

AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

AND NOW WE'RE INTO DELIBERATION. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

YOUR HAND IS UP. SORRY. THAT WAS FROM BEFORE.

COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. YES. SO I RESPECT AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT THAT YOU HAVE MADE.

AFTER HEARING ALL OF THIS AND YOUR TESTIMONY IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PRODUCT WAS NOT CONSOLIDATED IN ONE SPACE.

BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY ON DISPLAY IN A RETAIL SPACE IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS.

SO AND IF YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS NOT YOUR DOING I FIND IT A LITTLE MORE CONCERNING AS TO YOUR ABILITY TO CONTROL THE ISSUE IN THE FUTURE.

AND I ALSO, I DON'T WANT TO DAMPEN THE EFFORTS THAT RBPD HAS MADE AND OUR PROSECUTORS HAVE MADE, AND IN FACT, THE EFFORTS THAT WE HAVE MADE AS A COUNCIL TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN THE CITY WE'VE HEARD FROM.

AND I WILL SPEAK FOR MYSELF, MANY RESIDENTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

AND I THINK IT DOES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I DON'T WANT TO SEND THE BUSINESSES, OTHER BUSINESSES A MESSAGE THAT IT'S OKAY TO GET ONE VIOLATION AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER SHOT.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO IMPOSE A PERMANENT REVOCATION OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER 330177 ON THE BASIS

[01:50:04]

THANK YOU. IN REGARDS TO SUBSECTION A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY B A VIOLATION OF RBMC 6-1.26 B AND. WHAT ABOUT D AND D CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN A MORAL MANNER. ONE MORE FAILED TO EXERCISE REASONABLE EFFORT.

AND REASONABLE EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN ORDER. PREVENT VIOLATION OF LAW.

I'M SORRY. IT'S MAINTAIN ORDER AND PREVENT VIOLATION OF LAW OR ORDINANCE BY THEM.

BUT, YEAH. THE BOTTOM OF D. YES. THANK YOU. SO THAT WOULD BE MY 26AB AND D.

AB AND D WOULD BE MY MOTION. YES. AND GOING BACK TO B WERE THERE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW THAT YOU WANTED TO REFER TO? THAT WAS THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, RIGHT? YES. AND THAT THERE WAS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

WAS THAT. THE CANNABIS ORDINANCE. CANNABIS ORDINANCE, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION CODE? THE CITATION THAT WAS ISSUED? NO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY.

THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. 104559.5 B1 THAT INDICATES A TOBACCO RETAILER OR ANY OF THE TOBACCO RETAILERS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT SELL OFFER TO SELL THAT SECTION.

THAT ONE. THAT ONE. SO 104559. 5 B1.

B ONE. OKAY. AND THEN OUR SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? CANNABIS. CANNABIS. CANNABIS ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU. I THINK I MIGHT HAVE ONE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO I BELIEVE IT'S 22974.2 A. 20. SORRY, 22. OH, SORRY. 22974.2 A WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT POSSESSION OF PRODUCTS, NOT JUST THE POSSESSION WITH THE INTENT TO SELL.

THAT'S CORRECT. THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE.

THAT WAS THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION THAT THE CITATION WAS ISSUED BY CDTFA.

OKAY THANK YOU. I'LL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. OKAY.

WE NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. SORRY IF I JUST MAY CLARIFY THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE.

JUST JUST IT REFERS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

IT ALLOWS THEM TO SEIZE THE PRODUCTS. IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A VIOLATION.

BUT THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION CODE 22974.2, SUBDIVISION A PROHIBITS A RETAILER FROM POSSESSING, STORING, OWNING OR MAKING A SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

OKAY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. MOTION AND A SECOND.

COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. THANK YOU. I'M A LITTLE TORN ON THIS.

I GET IT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A A BUSINESS THAT GENERATES REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

AND FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, I CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, LET'S GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY THE SITUATION AND MOVE FORWARD AND DO THINGS.

THAT SAID, I DON'T THINK I'VE HAD ANY COMMENT FROM ANYBODY IN MY HISTORY OF BEING IN THE COUNCIL THAT HAS EVER SAID, I WANT TO KEEP A SMOKE SHOP OPERATING. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE DID FOR THE SMOKE SHOPS.

AND WE HAVE MORE THAN THE CITY CAN HOLD ANYHOW.

ALREADY. I FEEL FOR THE APPELLANT. STRONGLY. I CAN SEE THAT YOU'VE GOT YOUR LIFE INVESTED IN THIS, AND I HATE TO SEE US TAKE AN ACTION THAT, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT TO SOMEBODY.

BUT WE HAVE RULES. I HONESTLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THREE YEARS WORTH OF STORAGE WAS JUST LEFT THERE.

THERE WAS PRODUCT OUT FOR SALE. THERE WAS PRODUCT IN STORAGE AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYEES, AND THERE'S PRODUCT IN THE BACK THAT COULD EASILY REPLENISH THE PRODUCT THAT WAS FOR SALE. THE CANNABIS DRINKS WEREN'T JUST CBD DRINKS, THEY'RE THC, THE WHATEVER,

[01:55:04]

IT SAYS THC ON THE BOTTLE OR ON THE CAN. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT I WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION. IS THAT IT? YES. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I'M A LITTLE TORN MYSELF. FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE SAID NOBODY SAYS, HEY, I WANT A SMOKE SHOP IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IN MY DISTRICT OR MY CITY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AND TO THE CONTRARY, IT'S WHAT WE'VE DRAFTED AGAINST.

YET THERE IS A PART OF ME THAT SAYS A LITTLE BALANCE.

A SECOND CHANCE WITH STRICT CONDITIONS MAY SATISFY BOTH SENDING A STRONG MESSAGE AS WELL AS PUTTING SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE AND DRASTIC MEASURES IN THE EVENT OF AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE.

SO JUST KIND OF TALKING THROUGH WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, I'D WANT TO HEAR FROM OTHERS, INCLUDING THE MAYOR WOULD BE A 90-DAY SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF THIS VIOLATION, WHICH WAS NOVEMBER, WHICH PRESUMABLY WOULD BE A TIME SERVED SUSPENSION, BUT NONETHELESS AN INDICATION THAT IS NOT OKAY.

AS WELL AS A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE IS ANY FUTURE VIOLATION OF A TOBACCO OR CANNABIS LAW BY THIS OPERATOR AT THIS LOCATION, IT WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE REVOCATION. IF WE CAN DO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US, BUT JUST BAM.

OKAY. YOU'RE DONE. IN ADDITION TO THAT I'D WANT TO PUT IN WHAT I'M GOING TO REFER TO AS THE WALLER SIGNAGE, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE IN THE WINDOW FRONT, CLEAR LANGUAGE MAKING IT UNMISTAKABLE THAT THIS SHOP DOES NOT SELL FLAVORED TOBACCO OR CANNABIS PRODUCTS.

PERIOD. KEEP MOVING. GO TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

INCLUDE IN THE CONDITIONS A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE IS IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE CUP CONDITIONS FROM OUR SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE LIKE RIGHT NOW. AND I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI WAS JOTTING THOSE DOWN AND CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED THEM.

AND THERE'S A LONG LIST OF THEM, AND THEY'RE FIRM AND THEY'RE TOUGH, AND THOSE NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH.

AND IF THERE'S A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THOSE, IT'S REVOCATION AS WELL.

LIKE WE'RE DONE. CERTAINLY INCLUDE A FINDING OF ILLEGAL CANNABIS RELATED ACTIVITY AT THIS LOCATION AS OF THE DATE OF THE INSPECTION.

AND THEN I AGREE THAT YOU KNOW THIS. A LOT OF TIME WAS SPENT ON THIS BY STAFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SO IF WE COULD GET RESTITUTION, WHETHER IT'S A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF X THOUSAND OR X TENS OF THOUSANDS, WHATEVER IS WITHIN THE REASONABLE REALM.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE IN THERE. AND MAYBE WE COULD SUBSEQUENTLY DO THAT CALCULATION IF WE COME BACK AND IF WE, IF WE GO TAKE THIS ROUTE. AND YEAH. SO THAT THAT'S IT.

THAT'S MY. RIGHT TO INSPECTION AT ANY TIME. RIGHT TO INSPECTION AT ANY TIME.

IF WE CAN DO THAT, IT'S A GOOD IDEA. OKAY. SO THAT'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE FRIENDLY, SECOND WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? SURE. WHICH IS THAT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE CITY PASSING A REVISED SIGN ORDINANCE FOR ARTESIA BOULEVARD THAT HE'LL BRING THE SHOP INTO COMPLIANCE AND HE WILL NOT BE GRANDFATHERED IN.

AGREED. THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

YEAH. SO FIRST I WANT TO THANK OUR REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THANK YOU, SERGEANT. SPRY. SPRY, FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS AND PROFESSIONAL WORK AND PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION, AS WELL AS QUALITY OF LIFE PROSECUTOR, STEPHANIE JOHNSON.

THIS IS KIND OF THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY REDONDO BEACH IS BEING PERCEIVED SO WELL BY THE RESIDENTS.

RESIDENTS COME FORWARD WITH A COMPLAINT. THEY MAKE IT AN OPEN AT COUNCIL.

AND THEN THE POLICE LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION, GET THE STATE INVOLVED AND INVESTIGATION, COME UP WITH RESULTS, BRING A PROSECUTION, REVOKE A LICENSE AND BRING IT HERE.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT'S SUPERB. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE ANY OF THAT EXCELLENT WORK BY OUR LAW

[02:00:03]

BUT I DO SEE HOW MUCH THAT MONEY WAS PUT INTO THIS SITE AND IMPROVEMENTS.

AND I ALSO HAVE A DISCOMFORT WITH THE FACT THAT WE JUST DREW UP AND PASSED A SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE.

AND THE PROVISIONS, THE PENALTIES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE ARE FOR A 60-DAY PERIOD OF SUSPENSION.

JUST BECAUSE WE CAN ENGAGE IN A COMPLETE REVOCATION WHEN WE HAD LEVEL HEADS AND WEREN'T PASSIONATELY THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE VIOLATIONS OF THE LIKE, WE DETERMINED A 60 DAY SUSPENSION WOULD BE SUFFICIENT AS A FIRST PUNISHMENT HERE THAT IF YOU KNOW AND I DO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS PRESENTED, INSOFAR AS HE HAD AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE, HE WAS SELLING IT. HE KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL. IT WAS YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, IF NOT MORE THAN THAT. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WAS ENGAGED HERE, I DO BELIEVE.

THE BUSINESS OWNER, WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE WASN'T SELLING TO KIDS AND THE LIKE.

SO AND I THINK WE'VE SEEN NO REPORTS OF THAT WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS MUCH MORE EGREGIOUS.

I DO THINK THAT HE HAS, BECAUSE HE'S MADE HIS SHOP TIDY.

I HAVE SOME OPTIMISM THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THESE PROVISIONS AND FURTHER COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE CUP TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO TOBACCO AND CIGARS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO FOR THAT REASON FOR ALL THOSE REASONS AND WITH IMMENSE THANKS TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTOR, I WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT TO IMPOSE THESE RIGOROUS CONDITIONS AND AN EXTENDED 90 DAY SUSPENSION.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER.

IT WAS ABOUT THEIR MOTION, BUT. OKAY. MINE IS ABOUT THE MOTION. OKAY. COMMENT QUESTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

SINCE THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT, YOU KNOW ARTESIA BOULEVARD BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE.

YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, PCH, YOU KNOW, THE AVENUE A, THE SMOKE SHOP THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, LIKE I WOULD HAVE A BETTER FEELING FOR IT.

OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY SMOKE SHOPS IN YOUR DISTRICT, HOW WOULD YOU CATEGORIZE THIS ONE AS TO THE KIND THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE VERSUS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE IN THIS ORDINANCE? IN OUR PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AS YOU SAID, UNDER COOLER HEADS? WELL AS FAR AS THE KIND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE, WE WOULDN'T LIKE TO HAVE THIS KIND BECAUSE THEY'RE VIOLATING THE LAW.

SO I THINK THAT'S ONE. BUT WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT ACTUALLY, AND I DIDN'T SAY IS THINK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF THIS SHUTS DOWN AND VACATES THIS SITE AND HE SELLS THE SITE. WHAT BUSINESS IS GOING TO COME IN? YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVEN'T REGULATED YET IS LIQUOR SHOPS.

AND I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE POPPING UP ALL OVER THE PLACE.

I FEEL LIKE WE GOT ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR ONE.

SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT FILLING THIS VOID RIGHT NOW.

YOU KNOW WHERE THE DAVE'S OLD BOOK SHOP? NOT TOO FAR FROM THERE, WHERE THE DAVE'S OLD BOOK SHOP WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND THE HOOKAH HUT SHUT DOWN.

I THINK WE HAVE A BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER COMING IN THE LIKE.

SO WE JUST, YOU KNOW, I'D RATHER WORK WITH THE DEVIL THAT WE KNOW THAN THE DEVIL THAT WE DON'T KNOW, AND ALSO PUT THEM UNDER A VERY A VERY STRINGENT, YOU KNOW, CUP OR CONDITIONS.

THAT'S IT. IS THERE A TIMELINE THAT YOU WOULD PROPOSE TO HAVE THEM BE COMPLIANT IN ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'RE IMPOSING? I WOULD SAY, ACE, WHAT'S THE SOONEST THAT WE COULD DO THE LIST OF YOU TALK ABOUT THE CUP COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. SO, NO, I THINK IN CITY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS ARE NO SMOKING SHALL BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME.

NO SALES MAY BE SOLICITED OR CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES TO MINORS.

NO SELF-SERVICE, NO DISTRIBUTION. NO. IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF IT CAN BE IMMEDIATE UNLESS THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS OTHERWISE.

WELL THOSE ARE. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY PERMANENT SIGNAGE THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

DISPLAYS. DISPLAYS, EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BEING DISPLAYED THERE CURRENTLY.

30 DAYS SEEMS LIKE LOOKING AT. TEN DAYS. 30 DAYS.

30 DAYS TO GET INTO FULL COMPLIANCE. SOMETHING FASTER.

PRIOR TO OPENING. PRIOR TO OPENING. REOPENING OR WHATEVER.

ABOUT THAT, WAS A CONDITION TO REOPENING. I'M OKAY WITH.

[02:05:03]

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. IS YOUR HAND UP? NO IT'S NOT.

BUT I SEE, LOOKING AT THE PAGE 66 OF THE AGENDA PACKET WE HAVE CIGAR IN THE WINDOW.

YOU HAVE VAPE SHOP IN THE WINDOW. SO THOSE HAVE TO COME OFF.

RIGHT, ANY VISIBLE PRODUCT OR ADVERTISEMENT. YEAH.

ANY VISIBLE, VISIBLE PRODUCT CAN'T BE THERE. SO WOULD THIS BE A RESOLUTION? YES. ALL THESE CONDITIONS WOULD BE IN THE RESOLUTION.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO BE HONEST WITH THE COUNCIL.

I'M A BIT SWAYED BY THE ARGUMENTS BOTH OF STAFF, COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC AND COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

AND I WOULD BE INCLINED TO CONSIDER A VETO OF THIS IF WE GO SOFT ON IT.

I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS PRETTY EGREGIOUS. HE'S BEEN IN THE BUSINESS A LONG TIME, YOU KNOW, HAD TO KNOW HE'S PUTTING HIS BUSINESS AT RISK BY EVEN IF IT'S AT 1% OF THE PRODUCT, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN DO THAT? AND HE GOT UNLUCKY AND GOT CAUGHT. AND I JUST DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE IN BEING SOFT IN THOSE CONDITIONS.

I UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT A SMOKE SHOP ORDINANCE AND MAYBE WE SHOULD REVISIT TO MAKE MORE HARSH, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE USE TO REVOKE THE LICENSE PERMANENTLY.

SO I MEAN, I COULD BE SWAYED, BUT RIGHT NOW I'M INCLINED TO DO THAT.

I HATE TO BRING IT BACK, BUT I JUST I WANT YOU TO KNOW BEFORE YOU VOTE, THAT THAT'S MY INCLINATION.

I HAVEN'T MADE A FINAL DECISION YET. I THINK WE SHARE THE SAME PASSION.

SO. SO SORT OF. YEAH. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

I THINK FASHION IT HERE, WHICH ARE THESE IMMEDIATE CONDITIONS CAN'T EVEN OPEN UNTIL IT HAPPENS.

YOU NEED THE SIGNAGE IN THE FRONT. YOU NEED TO COMPLY, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY BE GRANDFATHERED IN WITHIN 90 DAYS OF OUR NEW SIGNAGE ORDINANCE.

IT'S AN IMMEDIATE SNAPBACK, REVOCATION. NO MORE CHANCES DONE.

IMMEDIATE INSPECTIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING OVER HERE AT SERGEANT SPRY.

HE'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. HE'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

SO I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE THIS AS TOUGH AS WE CAN SHORT OF DOING, YOU KNOW. OKAY, FINE. WE'RE SHUTTING IT DOWN AND THERE'S NOTHING THERE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THAT'S ASSUAGED. MONETARY.

ON THE, YEAH, THE MONETARY THIS WAS NOT A FREE SWING.

AND SO I HOPEFULLY THAT'S ASSUAGED YOUR CONCERNS AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT THAT'S EXACTLY I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FASHION HERE.

LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT HARD OVER, BUT. OKAY. RIGHT NOW I'M LEANING THAT WAY JUST BECAUSE OF THE EGREGIOUSNESS OF THE SITUATION THAT FOR THREE YEARS.

I MEAN, THIS ORDINANCE, I MEAN, THE CALIFORNIA LAW ON FLAVORED TOBACCO DIDN'T JUST POP UP IN THAT.

AND I AGREE. AND THERE'S THREE OTHER STORES THERE.

DO THEY HAVE IT TOO? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT.

YEAH. AND I'M NOT SAYING, HEY, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE ON DAY ONE OF THEIR OPENING IN 2022 INSPECTING, I MEAN, THERE'S SO MUCH GOING ON. LET ME ASK A QUESTION, IF I MAY.

SURE. SO IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECTION THAT WE'RE INCLUDING IN THIS, DO WE STILL HAVE TO BRING IN OUTSIDE AGENCIES TO DO THE OR CAN OUR OWN PD DO THE.

NO. CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN CONDUCT INSPECTIONS AND YOU CAN SPECIFY THAT IN THE RESOLUTION.

SO WE'D HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU CAN.

WOULD YOU TAKE. SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATE, OPEN TO INSPECTIONS.

AND IF YOU LEAVE IT. WE ALREADY ADDED THAT, BUT DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. AND IF YOU LEAVE IT OPEN, ANY AGENCY COULD INSPECT IT. OKAY, GOOD. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER, YOU HAVE, YOU.

DO YOU HAVE. I HAVE NOT. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER? SURE. LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT. I CAME IN TODAY, YOU KNOW, AFTER READING THE EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, I WAS PRETTY STRONGLY I GUESS, IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC FEELINGS ON THIS OR MOTION.

YOU KNOW, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS HEARING, IF WE JUST CAME IN, BASED ON WHAT I READ, I THINK I PROBABLY WOULD EASILY GO FOR THE REVOCATION.

HEARING THE HEARING AND HEARING SOME OF THE OPINIONS, YOU KNOW, SWAYS ME A LITTLE BIT.

I'LL TELL YOU, I WAS PART OF THE GROUP THAT ADVOCATED FOR PROP 31.

I WAS ON THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE FOR CALIFORNIA STATE PTA.

I WAS I WAS LOBBYING ON THAT ONE. SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE FLAVOR OF TOBACCO, THE HARMS OF FLAVORED TOBACCO.

WHEN THIS ALL HAPPENED, BUT FROM A BUSINESS FRIENDLINESS STANDPOINT OF REDONDO BEACH TO HAVE A ONE STRIKE AND

[02:10:03]

LET'S TALK ABOUT A 60-DAY SUSPENSION FOR THE TOBACCO SIDE OF IT, FROM OUR TOBACCO NEW ORDINANCE THAT WE DID. I CAN SEE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A DO THE SUSPENSION WITH STRONG CONDITIONS AND THE COMPENSATION. I, THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT BECOMES MORE COST NEUTRAL TO THE CITY.

WE DIDN'T LOSE THAT 100 PERSON HOURS OF EFFORT.

BUT WE STILL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE, YOU KNOW, OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY ATTORNEY STAFF FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS SHOULD, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE REVOKED. SO I CAN ALSO SEE WHY YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THEM AND AND LOOK AT VETOING IT IF THIS WAS PASSED AS A REINSTATEMENT WITH UNDER CONDITIONS. THIS IS NOT NOT A CUT AND DRY JUST GO FORWARD DECISION.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW.

HARSHNESS OF THE BUSINESS ENFORCEMENT COMPARED TO PUBLIC HEALTH.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE A AND B IN THAT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WERE CITED, IT'S THOSE WERE VIOLATED.

I AGREE. SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO WE CLOSED THE HEARING.

CAN'T ASK STAFF A QUESTION. CORRECT. YOU CAN VOTE TO REOPEN THE HEARING.

I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO DO THAT. OKAY, I GUESS WE'LL CALL THE VOTE THEN.

WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

ALL FOR. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NO. OKAY. THAT'S A THREE.

TWO. WHAT HAPPENS IF I VETO? WELL, FIRST, THE RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO CONSENT, AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE DAYS AFTER THAT TO VETO IN WRITING.

AFTER I GET THE RIGHT. AFTER YOU RECEIVE THE IN WRITING.

BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS? I VETO IT. THEN WHAT? IT WOULD COME BACK FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU DO IT, YOU CAN LET ME LET US KNOW SO I CAN REOPEN.

SO I TOLD YOU I'M INCLINED, BUT I HAVEN'T MADE A FINAL DECISION.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE IT EASIER ON ME, BUT I'M NOT SAYING RIGHT NOW I'M GOING TO VETO.

I WANT TO WELL, I'M GOING TO GO BACK. AND YOU HAVE TIME, YOU'VE GOT DAYS AND YOU COULD EXPLORE.

AND SO IF THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE. I'M TORN, BUT.

I AM TORN. I'M MORE SWAYED BY STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC AND COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE STATEMENTS HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, FIRST VIOLATION AND ALL THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON THE MONETARY IMPACT OF THE CITY.

I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE CASE IN FRONT OF US, AND WE SHOULDN'T LET MONEY.

WHAT IF IT WAS THE BIGGEST PERSON, YOU KNOW, BRINGING IN THE MOST REVENUE TO THE CITY AND THEY DID SOMETHING EGREGIOUS? WE WE'D SOFT PEDAL IT BECAUSE THEY. WE WOULD NOT AND I IN A LOT OF MONEY.

WELL YEAH. THE MONETARY COMPONENT IS NOT THE DRIVER.

I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE TIME. I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT A NUMBER OF DAYS AND, AND WE HAVE THE WE'LL COME BACK IF WE NEED TO.

SO. YEAH. AND IF I DO, DO THEY HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS WITH THIS? I ASSUME THE FINDINGS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC STATED THE SAME FINDINGS, EXCEPT FOR UNLESS YOU AND YOU DID MENTION THE ILLEGAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY AS WELL. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD? IT WAS EVERYTHING COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC LISTED EXCEPT FOR A, WHICH IS FOR THE REVOCATION, UNLESS WE THERE'S SOME REASON TO INCLUDE THAT.

SO IT WOULD BE FOR THE SAME BASIS. SAME BASES, EXCEPT FOR A, WHICH WAS, I THINK ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A REVOCATION.

OR WAS IT REVOCATION. AND PUBLIC HEALTH. REVOCATION.

IS PUBLIC HEALTH. A WAS PUBLIC HEALTH. PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

I THINK. CAN YOU DISPLAY THAT AGAIN PLEASE. MINE.

OH SORRY.

I'M FINE WITH A, I WOULD SAY DEMAND. WE VOTED ON IT.

YEAH, AS LONG AS THAT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, I'M FINE WITH IT.

I THINK A AND B APPLY. OKAY. IF I VETO RIGHT NOW, CAN THEY AFFIX IT OR DO I HAVE TO DO FINDINGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE?

[02:15:04]

THEY STILL NEED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS. BUT IF YOU WANT TO REOPEN I'M TALKING ABOUT IF I INDICATE THAT I'M INCLINED TO VETO, THEN WE CAN BRING IT. THEN WE CAN OPEN IT UP RIGHT NOW AND THEY CAN REOPEN IT.

I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE WRITTEN OUT WIDE.

VETO IT. NO. PROCEDURALLY, NO. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT USE THE FIVE DAYS AND IF YOU KNOW.

WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI WOULD LIKE ME TO JUST. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE TO BRING THIS BACK.

PUT THE PUT THE BUSINESS OWNER THROUGH TORMENT.

I MEAN, HE COULD ALSO, BEFORE HE GETS FORECLOSED UPON, HE COULD SELL THIS PROPERTY AND GET A PRETTY PENNY AFTER HE APPROVED IT.

I'M SURE ON IT. SO THERE ARE EASIER WAYS OUT OF THIS FOR HIM THAN GOING THROUGH A.

BANKRUPTCY. YEAH. OR THINKING THAT HE'S GOING TO GET HIS LICENSE BACK.

THEN IT GETS VETOED AND THEN COME BACK HERE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AND ATTORNEY TIME.

SO I THINK FINALITY IS HELPFUL. OKAY. SO WAS THAT A MOTION TO REOPEN OR ARE YOU GOING TO VETO IT. HE'S GOT FIVE DAYS.

THAT'S WHY HE GETS FIVE TO. I'M NOT. OKAY. SO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

SECOND. ALL FOR IT? AYE. AYE. OKAY. DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE.

WHAT ARE WE. WHAT ARE WE. WHAT ARE WE. TO CHANGE THE MOTION? CHANGE IT TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION. WE'RE REOPENING THE DELIBERATION.

SO THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER HAS VOIDED THE MOTION AND THE VOTE.

SO CURRENTLY, AS YOU STAND, THERE IS NO MOTION.

OKAY. AND THAT WAS A 4 TO 1, RIGHT? YOU DIDN'T.

4 TO 1. I DID NOT VOTE TO JUST. YEAH. OKAY. SO DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? SO THERE'S, SO WE DON'T HAVE THE FIRST MOTION ON THE FLOOR EITHER.

CORRECT. CORRECT. CORRECT. SO YOU COULD BRING IT BACK.

SO YOU COULD BRING IT. BRING BACK. CAN I JUST MAKE THE SAME MOTION AGAIN.

BEFORE WE DO? GO AHEAD.

THE, YOU KNOW, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. IF THERE'S A VETO TO THAT MOTION, THEN THE NEXT STEP WAS TO COME BACK AND DO WHAT FROM THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

I'M SORRY. WE HAD A SUBSTITUTE MOTION SECOND AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

YES. IF THAT HAD BEEN VETOED, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NEXT STEP? WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A NEW VOTE.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE COME BACK AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP DOING THAT UNTIL THERE IS A.

THERE A 4 TO 1 VOTE OR A DIFFERENT VOTE THAT'S NOT VETOED.

SO IF THERE WAS A VETO, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE REVERTED BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING OF A REVOCATION? YOU. SO. AS TO KNOW. IS THIS JUST. OH, YEAH. FROM SCRATCH. NO, SO IF THE DENIAL OF THE HEARING IS VETOED. THERE IS NO, IT DOES NOT REVERT BACK.

IT'S ONLY THE DENIAL OF AN APPROVAL THAT IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICERS.

SO CURRENTLY, AS OUR CHARTER IS DRAFTED, A VETO OF A DENIAL DOES NOT REVERT BACK.

VETO OF A DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.

THIS WAS A GRANT OF APPEAL, RIGHT? WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF THAT? YOUR VOTE DENIED THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION, SO A VETO OF THAT WOULD NOT THEREBY APPROVE THE OR SUSTAIN THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION.

OKAY. SO THAT WOULD THE. IT WOULD NOT REVERT BACK.

IT WOULD NOT REVERT BACK. INSTEAD WOULD, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THAT.

WOULD IT BE THAT THERE IS NO FINDING AND THAT THERE IS NO REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT OF THE APPLICANT OF THE APPELLEE? CORRECT. SO IF THERE HAD BEEN A VETO, THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND RE DELIBERATE.

[02:20:02]

WE MAY GET THERE AGAIN, THOUGH IS WHY I'M ASKING.

WE MAY GET THERE AGAIN. WORK THAT OUTSIDE THE MEETING.

WELL WE IT'S GOING TO IT MAY FASHION. HOW WE PUT A MOTION TOGETHER IS WHY I'M ASKING.

SO IF YOU DENIED THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO.

AND THAT WAS VETOED. THERE'S JUST NO DECISION MADE.

BY ANYONE. AND THEREFORE, THERE'S NO REVOCATION IN THE BUSINESSES BACK IN BUSINESS WITH NO RESTRICTIONS.

NO, NO. WHAT ABOUT THAT REVOCATION OCCURRED? I DON'T KNOW EITHER.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY. WELL, IT'S THE WAY OUR CHARTER IS DRAFTED.

IT'S WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO SOME LEGAL RESEARCH TO DETERMINE THAT.

OKAY. HE PROBABLY HE. OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE AWAY.

BUT THAT'S A MOOT POINT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE REOPENED THE.

WE'VE RECONSIDERED. RECONSIDERED. ITS RECONSIDERED.

SO IF YOU TAKE A NEW MOTION. IF WE COME TO. AND IF IT'S VETOED, THEN.

WELL, IF IT'S VETOED, IF WE'RE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE OR SOMEWHERE SIMILAR.

BUT WE AREN'T THERE YET. OKAY. DO YOU MIND WAITING UNTIL COUNCIL MEMBER.

I DON'T MIND. DO I TAKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK? SURE.

WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK IF YOU WANT. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? WELL, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT SHE WOULD PROBABLY SECOND IT, SO I GUESS WE'LL MAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

SO WE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? SURE. OKAY. SECOND. SECOND. ALL FOR IT? AYE. OKAY.

IT'S TWO, 3:23. LET'S BE BACK HERE AT 3:28. CAN I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER? PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI? AND COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT? MAYOR LIGHT? HERE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATES FROM OUR BREAK? YES. SO IF THE VOTE REMAINS OR IF IT IF THAT VOTE WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME VOTE AS IT WAS BEFORE THE RECONSIDERATION AND THE MAYOR VETOES, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A REVOCATION OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE.

SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BACK. OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP OR IS THAT FROM BEFORE? SO WE'RE BACK TO WE. NO MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.

WE'RE WAITING FOR A MOTION FROM. THE MICROPHONES OFF.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK. YOU'RE NOT MOTION. I MEAN, YOUR MICS ARE BACK.

JUST VERY SUCCINCTLY. I'M TORN AS WELL. YET A FIRST-TIME PERMANENT REVOCATION OF A BUSINESS FOR A FIRST-TIME VIOLATION SEEMS OVERLY HARSH AND UNNECESSARY IF WE PUT THE RIGHT CONDITIONS IN PLACE.

IT'S OVERLY HARSH IN THAT IT'S ONE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT OUR TOBACCO ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN SAYS, WHICH IS FIRST VIOLATION 60 DAY, WHICH WAS POINTED OUT BY COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER, 60-DAY SUSPENSION.

I BELIEVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY, STEPHANIE WAS OVER THERE FROM HER OFFICE.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION THAT GOVERNS VIOLATIONS FOR TOBACCO THAT WAS SPOKEN TO.

CALLS FOR A $250 FINE UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

104559.5, TOBACCO SALE PROHIBITION. YOU MIGHT BE A QUESTION.

I JUST YEAH ASKED, DO YOU KNOW? YES, THE PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES FOR A FIRST VIOLATION IS $250 FINE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO EVEN THE STATE LAW, WHICH WAS THE PROPONENT OF THIS, SAYS IT'S A $250 FINE.

WHAT WE, THE MOTION THAT I PRESENTED THAT WE PRESENTED IS WAY MORE STRICT THAN THAT.

AND HAS THE AUTOMATIC REVOCATION. IF THIS IS A BAD APPLE AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT, WE'RE GOING TO KNOW REAL SOON.

[02:25:09]

YOU KNOW WHO'S STILL HERE? SERGEANT SPRY, BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE, HE'S GOING TO BE BIRD DOGGING THIS THING.

AND LIEUTENANT STROSNIDER, AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

SO IF THIS IS NOT A ONE TIME SITUATION, WE'RE GOING TO KNOW VERY QUICKLY.

AND IT'S AN AUTOMATIC REVOCATION. I THINK AN UPSIDE, AND THE MAYOR MADE THE POINT.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, AND IT'S NOT THE UPSIDE OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD, AS IT INCLUDES A FINE.

CALL IT RESTITUTION, WHATEVER WOULD BE CORRECT AND APPROPRIATE.

WE WOULDN'T GET THAT IF IT'S JUST AUTOMATIC REVOCATION.

AND YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI'S POINT, THIS IS IN HIS DISTRICT.

IT'S A STONE'S THROW AWAY FROM MINE. THIS BUILDING GOES DARK.

IT'S JUST BLIGHT. OR MAYBE, IF WE'RE LUCKY, A LIQUOR STORE GOES IN THERE.

YEAH, EXACTLY, IF WE'RE LUCKY. WHICH IS NOT LUCKY.

SO THE REMOVAL OF THE GAUDY SIGNAGE, THE IMMEDIATE A COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUP PROVISIONS BEFORE EVEN TURNING ON THE LIGHTS AGAIN, AND ANY VIOLATION OF THAT BEING AN AUTOMATIC REVOCATION, TOGETHER WITH WHAT'S BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE WALLER SIGNAGE.

I THINK IT'S A FAIR OUTCOME. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, CANDIDLY, IT'S ARTESIA BOULEVARD, AND I DON'T LIKE THAT THING BEING THERE.

AND I WISH I COULD SNAP MY FINGERS AND MAKE IT GO AWAY.

I CAN'T. THAT BUILDING IS GOING TO BE THERE. AND SO THAT'S WHY I PUT FORWARD THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT IT BE CONSIDERED AND SUPPORTED IN LIEU OF THE KIND OF THE I WON'T CALL IT THE DEATH PENALTY, BUT SORT OF THE DEATH PENALTY, WHICH IS WHAT THE OTHER ONE IS.

SO YOU'RE MAKING THE SAME MOTION. I'LL MAKE THE SAME MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION, ADDING, IF I MAY MAYOR, THAT I MIGHT, THE, IN THE SHORT CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE CITY MANAGER HE TOLD ME THIS IS THE FIRST REVOCATION HEARING THAT THE CITY HAS HAD IN 20 YEARS.

IT'S NOT TO SAY I DON'T LIKE THAT. I'M HAPPY TO DO IT WHEN IT'S WHEN IT'S WARRANTED.

AND IN THIS CASE, BRINGING THE REVOCATION HEARING WAS DEFINITELY WARRANTED.

BUT I THINK THAT WE ALSO NEED TO BE, WE'RE TRYING TO BE A BUSINESS FRIENDLY CITY.

AND IN AN ERA WHERE THE ECONOMY IS DRIVEN ENTIRELY BY RESIDENTIAL, WE DO NEED BUSINESS TO COME TO REDONDO BEACH AND MONEY TO BE INVESTED HERE.

AND I DON'T WANT TO BE HOSTILE TO MAJOR INVESTMENTS THAT DO COME IN TO OUR SIDEWALKS OR OUR BUILDINGS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO I'M WILLING TO GIVE THIS BUSINESS OWNER ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS REPRESENTED IN COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT MOTION.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF THE FIRST MOTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC MADE.

SECOND. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND A SECOND, AND YOU'RE THE LAST HAND UP.

SO YOU ALL READY TO CALL THE VOTE OR IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION? I. OKAY, I WILL CALL THE VOTE THEN. LET'S SEE IF THIS DOESN'T PASSES, THEN WE REVERT BACK TO THE TO YOUR VOTE.

TO YOUR MOTION. OKAY. DISCUSS FURTHER. IF NEEDED ON REVOCATION.

RIGHT. YES, YES, FOR THE REASON SHE HAD STATED ORIGINALLY.

SO ALL FOR? AYE. AYE. NO. NO. NO. OKAY. SO THAT'S A 2 TO 3 THAT FAILS.

WE'VE GOT THE SUBS TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION NOW BACK.

PARDON? YOU CAN CALL THE VOTE. I'LL CALL THE VOTE.

ALL FOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. NO. ALL OPPOSED. SO WE STILL 3-2.

ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE IN THE SAME SPOT.

SO WE HEARD SOMETHING IN THE PROCESS. THIS WAS SUPER FUN.

THANKS, EVERYBODY. OKAY. AND FOR THE APPELLANT THE RESOLUTION WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS THE STAFF REPORT WAS MADE AVAILABLE. AND YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.

AND YOU ARE INVITED BACK TO MARCH, THE MARCH 3RD MEETING.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON IT, YOU MAY MAKE COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION.

AND I WELCOME YOU TO EMAIL ME ANY COMMENTS BEFOREHAND IF YOU'D LIKE.

OKAY. WITH THAT I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL FOR? AYE. OKAY. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH WILL BE ADJOURNED.

REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT 4:30 P.M.. CLOSED SESSION.

AND REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6 P.M.. OPEN SESSION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 6TH, RIGHT HERE IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

[02:30:07]