Sonny R. Santa Ines
Mayor
Victor A. Sanchez
Mayor Pro Tem
Ray Dunton
Council Member
Dan Koops
Council Member
Wendi Morse
Council Member
1 June 22, 2026
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Courtney J. Caron, Esq.
Adamant Law Group, P.C.
4040 Vineland Ave, Ste 204
Studio City, CA 91604-3350
[email protected]
Re: Response to June 19, 2026 Letter — Resolution No. 26-05 and Cannabis Business Permit Application for 9535 Artesia Boulevard
Dear Ms. Caron:
Thank you for your letter dated June 19, 2026 sent on behalf of 9535 Artesia Ave, Inc. dba Herb’s Diner (the “Applicant”). It is unclear why Letter was sent: Resolution No. 26-05 speaks for itself. As you note, it does not require the City Council to award the dispensary Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) to the highest sealed bidder. And nothing in the staff report asserts that as the law. The Council keeps its discretion to review the qualified applicants, weigh the sealed bids alongside everything else before it, and decide which applicant, if any, should receive the permit.
This equation is not arithmetic: the City is not buying the cheapest construction; it is deciding which qualified operator should be trusted with a closely regulated cannabis business in this community. That is why the Resolution measures applicants against more than one criterion. An applicant must meet the minimum qualifications and must show that issuing a CBP “will be in the best interests of the City of Bellflower,” judged against objective criteria that include operating experience, managerial capacity, the business plan, location, financing, and public benefit (Resolution No. 26-05, § 9; see BMC tit. 14). The sealed bid is one of those considerations. It is not all of them.
That brings us to the Applicant. The Applicant filed its CBP application for the dispensary at 9535 Artesia Boulevard on March 31, 2026, corrected the items the City Manager flagged, and was found complete and eligible for Council consideration. The draft findings in Resolution No. 26-25 answer the best-interests criteria in the Applicant’s favor on experience, managerial capacity, business plan, location, and financing. For dispensaries, the guaranty of twelve months of estimated tax revenue serves as the sealed bid. The Applicant’s proposed guaranty is $225,000. The staff report notes that this figure is “lower than the other Applicant’s guaranty bid” and, on that basis, recommends that the Council not issue a CBP to the Applicant.
Sonny R. Santa Ines
Mayor
Victor A. Sanchez
Mayor Pro Tem
Ray Dunton
Council Member
Dan Koops
Council Member
Wendi Morse
Council Member
2 None of that ties the Council’s hands. The staff recommendation is advisory, and — as your Letter and this response agree — it does not turn the process into a mandatory highest-bidder award. Under § 14(E), the Council may weigh the guaranty figures together with the qualification findings and all other evidence presented at the hearing, and may then determine which applicant, if any, should receive a CBP. The guaranty is a real and legitimate factor the Council is entitled to weigh heavily; it is simply not, by itself, the answer.
So the City will do exactly what the Resolution contemplates. The City Manager has forwarded the eligible applicants; the anonymized bids will be presented; the Council will hold its public hearing; and the Council will consider the applicants and the record and determine which applicant, if any, should receive the available retail CBP. Nothing in this letter commits the City to any applicant or outcome, or waives any of the City’s rights. The Council’s discretion — to grant or to decline — remains its own.
Please direct any further correspondence on this matter to my office.
Very truly yours,
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney, City of Bellflower
cc: Mayor Sonny R. Santa Ines and Members of the City Council Ryan Smoot, City Manager
June 19, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Mayor Sonny Santa Ines
Members of the Bellflower City Council
City of Bellflower
16600 Civic Center Drive
Bellflower, California 90706
Re: Resolution No. 26-05 – City Council Authority and Obligation to Consider Qualified Cannabis Retail CBP Applicants
Dear City Manager Smoot, Mayor Santa Ines, and Honorable Members of the City Council:
On behalf of 9535 Artesia Ave, Inc., we write regarding the proper interpretation of Resolution No. 26-05 and the City Council's role in evaluating applicants for the available cannabis retail Cannabis Business Permit ("CBP").
In the case that there may be uncertainty regarding whether the City Council is legally required to award the permit to the applicant submitting the highest sealed bid, 9535 Artesia Ave, Inc., wants to be on the record as to our understanding of the resolution. Respectfully, such an interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the Resolution adopted by the City Council, inconsistent with established principles of statutory construction, and inconsistent with the discretionary licensing framework established by the Bellflower Municipal Code and Resolution No. 26-05.
Most importantly, the City Council should understand that the governing law is the Resolution that was actually adopted—not the staff report that preceded it.
The February 9, 2026 staff report recommended implementation of a sealed -bidding process for retail cannabis permits and specifically stated that, unlike a traditional public works bidding process, "the City Council would select the highest bidder rather than the lowest bidder." However, that recommendation was never incorporated into the operative language of Resolution No. 26-05.
This distinction is legally significant.
Under well-established principles of statutory and ordinance interpretation, it is the language enacted by the legislative body that governs. Staff reports may provide background, policy
recommendations, and legislative history, but they do not themselves create binding law. A city council remains free to adopt, reject, revise, or partially adopt any recommendation made by staff.
Here, staff expressly recommended a process in which the City Council would select the highest bidder. Yet when Resolution No. 26-05 was drafted, presented, debated, and ultimately adopted, no such requirement was included. Instead, the Resolution requires only that qualified applicants submit sealed bids and that those bids be anonymized and presented to the City Council for consideration.
The Resolution contains no provision stating that the highest bidder shall receive the permit.
The omission is presumed intentional.
When a legislative body considers particular language and ultimately declines to enact it, courts routinely recognize that the omission reflects a deliberate legislative choice. Had the City Council intended to establish a mandatory highest-bidder system, it could have adopted the exact language proposed by staff. It did not do so. The City Council instead adopted a Resolution that requires submission and consideration of bids while preserving the Council's role as the final decision - maker.
Accordingly, interpreting Resolution No. 26-05 as requiring automatic issuance of the permit to the highest bidder would improperly insert language into the Resolution that the City Council consciously chose not to enact. Such an interpretation would elevate a staff recommendation above the operative law adopted by the City's legislative body and would be contrary to established principles of legislative construction.
Equally important, the cannabis retail CBP process established by Resolution No. 26 -05 is not a public works procurement process.
The staff report noted that the proposed bidding system was modeled after public works bidding procedures. However, the issuance of a cannabis business permit is fundamentally different from the award of a construction contract.
In the public works context, state law often requires award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder because the governmental objective is procurement of construction or services at the lowest cost consistent with bidder responsibility.
By contrast, issuance of a cannabis business permit is a discretionary licensing determination involving the exercise of municipal police powers. The City is not purchasing a product or procuring construction services. Rather, the City is determining which qualified applicant should be entrusted with the privilege of operating a highly regulated cannabis business within the community.
Nothing in California law creates a default rule requiring a cannabis permit to be awarded to the highest bidder. If the City Council intended to relinquish its discretion and create a purely
ministerial auction process, it was required to do so expressly. Resolution No. 26 -05 contains no such language.
To the contrary, the Resolution repeatedly preserves and emphasizes the City Council's role in evaluating applicants and making the final determination.
Section 13 provides that after review of applications; the City Manager will provide the City Council with a list of applicants deemed eligible for City Council consideration. Resolution No. 26-05, Section 13(B). The fact that applicants are presented to the Council for consideration necessarily demonstrates that eligibility alone does not determine the outcome.
Section 14 further confirms the Council's discretionary role. Specifically, Section 14(E) provides:
"The City Council will consider each CBP application on a first-come-first-serve basis during the public hearing and determine which, if any, person will receive a CBP or CBP Renewal, if desirable."
This language is irreconcilable with the notion that the permit must automatically be awarded to the highest bidder.
The phrase "determine which, if any" plainly contemplates deliberation, evaluation, and the exercise of judgment by the City Council. If the Resolution intended a purely ministerial process, there would be no reason for the Council to determine which appli cant should receive the permit.
Nor would there be any reason for a public hearing. The Resolution could simply have directed staff to identify the highest qualified bid and issue the permit accordingly.
It does not.
Likewise, Section 14(F) establishes a closed-bidding process for dispensary applications and requires qualified applicants to submit sealed bids that include a guaranteed minimum tax revenue proposal supported by documentation. The Resolution further requires that the bids be anonymized before presentation to the City Council for consideration.
Notably absent from Section 14(F) is any requirement that the City Council award the permit to the highest bidder.
The Resolution requires submission of bids.
The Resolution requires consideration of bids.
The Resolution requires presentation of bids to the Council.
The Resolution does not require automatic selection of the highest bid.
This distinction is critical.
The bids are unquestionably relevant and should be considered by the City Council as part of its evaluation process. However, the Resolution treats the bids as information for Council consideration—not as a mechanism that supplants the Council's decision-making authority.
Indeed, the staff report itself states that the purpose of the proposed process was to promote "objective decision making" while ensuring that the City attracts "the highest quality cannabis businesses." Evaluating the quality of a cannabis operator necess arily involves consideration of factors beyond a single numerical bid amount.
When Resolution No. 26-05 is read as a whole, the process established by the City Council is straightforward:
1. The City Manager reviews applications and determines eligibility.
2. Qualified applicants submit sealed bids.
3. The bids are anonymized and presented to the City Council.
4. The City Council conducts a public hearing.
5. The City Council considers the qualified applicants and the information presented.
6. The City Council determines which applicant, if any, should receive the permit.
Nothing in the Resolution requires the City Council to disregard its independent judgment or automatically award the permit based solely upon the highest bid submitted.
In fact, the structure of the Resolution suggests the opposite. The Resolution repeatedly assigns substantive responsibilities to the City Council, including consideration of applications, conducting a public hearing, and determining which applicant should receive a permit. Those provisions would be rendered largely meaningless if the Council's role were reduced to opening envelopes and identifying the highest number.
Moreover, to the extent any ambiguity exists, established principles of municipal law favor preserving rather than eliminating the discretionary authority of elected decision -makers. A surrender of legislative discretion should not be inferred from silence , particularly where the Resolution expressly contemplates Council review, deliberation, and determination of the successful applicant.
For these reasons, Resolution No. 26-05 should be interpreted as requiring the City Council to review the qualified applicants, consider the sealed bids and other relevant information presented during the public process, deliberate regarding the merits of the applicants, and determine which applicant should receive the available retail CBP.
Accordingly, the City Council is not only permitted to discuss and evaluate the applicants during a public meeting, but such discussion and evaluation appear to be contemplated —and indeed required—by the process established in Resolution No. 26 -05. The Council's role under the Resolution is not ministerial. Rather, the Resolution preserves the Council's discretionary authority and responsibility to determine which qualified applicant best satisfies the objectives of the City's cannabis regulatory program and should receive the permit.
We respectfully request that the City Council exercise the authority preserved by Resolution No. 26-05 and conduct a full and meaningful public discussion regarding the qualified applicants before making its final determination.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney J. Caron, Esq.