6/21/22
To: Huntington Beach City Council
From: Jonatan Cvetko
Executive Director
United Cannabis Business Association
RE: Item #24 Cannabis Regulatory Framework
The United Cannabis Business Association is the primire cannabis trade association representing cannabis retailers throughout the state. UCBA advocates responsible and equitable cannabis policy both on a state and local level. With the overwhelming majority of local jurisdictions currently maintaining prohibition against legal cannabis activities, we wish to acknowledge the progress that the City of Huntington Beach continues to pursue in regulating locally. Although we support the intent behind the city's progress, we regret to inform you that we cannot support the current draft of the ordinance as written and feel strongly that the policies put forward are inequitable.
We respectfully ask that the council consider the following concerns to amend the proposed ordinance accordingly.
#1 - Lack of Community Outreach
We strongly advise the council to hold additional community meetings to educate and receive feedback on the proposed policies the council is considering. We are aware of only one recent town hall meeting in addition to tonight’s city council meeting that the community has had an opportunity to learn and participate in a meaningful conversation with the city. We believe this to be a responsible step to take especially in light of the recent controversy that has been reported in nearby jurisdictions that were pursuing cannabis regulations.
There is no need to rush this ordinance without ample opportunity for the community to participate in the process.
#2 - Local Ownership Prioritization
The draft ordinance does nothing to prioritize local ownership. Many cities including most recently National City have chosen to provide an opportunity in prioritizing local ownership. At the recent town hall meeting multiple residents raised concerns about the policies being exclusionary to local residents for a number of reasons. We would recommend that the city council consider offering at least a portion of the licenses to be prioritized for local ownership. Doing so will provide an equitable opportunity for Huntington Beach’s residents.
Cannabis Community Feedback
received via email (cannabis@surfcity-
hb.org) As of June 28, 2022
#3 - Outside DeliveryThe allowance of outside delivery remains unclear at the moment. In the draft Commercial CannabisRegulations it states:
“Deliveries from Cannabis Retailers located outside the City of Huntington Beach are prohibited,unless the Retailer obtains a Huntington Beach Business License. “ However it refers to the Draft Ordinance to Amend the HBMS Chapter 5 for that license, yet the language doesnot seem to provide for a Business License for these activities. We respectfully request for clarity on thismatter. Allowing outside delivery is the responsible and equitable policy that benefits residents with additionallegal access opportunities and promotes fair competition that in turn provides an additional revenue stream forthe city. #4 - Property RequirementRequiring a property as part of the application process has continuously proven to be bad policy. Doingso promotes landlords to offer predatory pricing and similarly only favors the applicant with the most money,not necessarily the best applicant for the city. The requirement of property has led to numerous lawsuits inother jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, Pasadena and others. The City of West Hollywood avoided thisissue by not requiring the property and in turn required a timeline in which the operators need to acquire aproperty after their selection. We respect that the city’s goals are to encourage the businesses to beoperational quickly, however the city is unable to guarantee that they can process the applications in a timelymanner nor can they guarantee against lawsuits being filed against the city which may delay the issuing ofthose licenses and in turn require the applicants to continue to pay for their properties waiting for a resolve.This has been experienced in a number of cities. We strongly advise against requiring a property as part of theapplication process. #5 - $250,000 FeeIt is important to note that local jurisdictions are prohibited from profiting on the fees of an application.While we recognize the city’s intent to refund the fee to those who don’t proceed, the reality is that this fee isunjust and inequitable to applicants. The fee should be set to reflect the actual cost of administering theapplication. #6 - License RequirementWe strongly believe that the requirement of having 4 licenses (one of which needs to be retail) to applyfor a retail license is wholly unfair and out right inequitable. The legal industry is less than four years old andover 70% of local jurisdictions maintain a ban. Fair and equal opportunities do not exist for the overwhelmingmajority of interested applicants to achieve this standard. For the few who do, they too would never have hadthe opportunity to start much less grow should these requirements had been in place for them when theyacquired their first license.You would never make a similar requirement of another similar type of business such as other retailersor restaurants. It is simply unamerican to prohibit your own residents and the vast majority of interestedapplicants by implementing this policy.This policy is punitive and tonedeaf to the reality of the industry. It is purely a benefit to large cannabisbusinesses the majority of which are not owned by those which have been the most prosecuted by the waragainst cannabis. #7 - Labor RequirementsThe state has already established a Labor Peace Requirement at the amount of 20 employees or more.We believe the state has set the appropriate and responsible standard to promote strong and positive employee focused protections from big business and see no reason the local jurisdiction should modify thatstandard, specifically reducing it to a level of 2 employees.A council member in Anaheim raised concerns about doing similarly when the special interest behindthat effort attempted to introduce the same. Summarized, the council member stated that they did not believeit was the local government's responsibility to make such policies for private businesses, and questioned theconstitutionality of doing so.Labor laws such as these serve great value in protecting employees from large businesses. A policysuch as this once again proves to be inequitable and only promotes big business. We strongly advise that theLPA reflects the state's requirements.
There are a number of other issues with the current draft of the ordinances, most concerning is therecognition of how many of these policies were promoted in the outsider initiative in which the council had triedto fight against by pursuing a special tax measure in the recent election. It raises concern as to why theordinance seems to benefit the financial backers of the initiative attempt. While we support the intent of thecity’s goal to regulate locally, unless the above items are addressed and amended we cannot support theordinance as written and will continue to work with the community to ensure equitable policies that benefit thecommunity as a whole prevail.
We remain open and available to offer our support in this process,Thank you for the consideration, Jonatan CvetkoExecutive DirectorUnited Cannabis Business Association
From: Levin, Shannon
To: Yoon-Taylor, Grace
Subject: FW: cannabis retail
Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 8:13:41 AM
FYI-
From: Betty RIBITOWITZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:06 PM
To: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]> Subject: cannabis retail
Good Afternoon:
I am hoping this email is received in time for the City Council this evening.
I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for many years and have seen many changes.
Lately, I have been interested in the Council decision about whether to allow legal cannabis dispensaries in our great city. This is an issue where many are in favor of it but tend to be shy about voicing those opinions.
Let me preface this by saying I am not a user of cannabis products but I would definitely become one if I suffered from an ailment in which cannabis has been proven to help. I am looking at this issue from a purely economic and civic issue and I think HB should allow these legal businesses for the following reasons:
The tax revenue is estimated at a minimum of $1,000,000 per year. How many Peace Officers and/or Fire Fighters could that fund? Probably at least 2, hopefully more.
Surf City USA is one of the most visited beaches in California and the Country. VISITORS ARE COMING and will continue to come. We must pay to clean up, patrol, enforce laws and keep this city as a destination/resort town so why not generate additional funds through these legitimate businesses?
I think we all need to brace ourselves for a recession so I would hate for the City Council to look back and say, "we should have alllowed these businesses because that revenue would have certainly helped, especially in times like theses."
I urge the city council to allow these small businesses to town. It is a "win-win", it will encourage people to purchase these products the legal way, it is clearly a great tax revenue source, and this way at least the City Council has a say in how this is implemented.
Thanks for listening,
Betty
From: Cody Lasswell
To: Cannabis
Subject: Comments from last town hall meeting
Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 11:19:06 AM
Hello and good morning. My name is Cody Lasswell and I am a 20 year resident of Huntington Beach. I am a homeowner in Huntington Beach, I am raising my children in Huntington Beach, and I have been a proud small business owner in Huntington Beach since 2010.
I am writing you this letter in regards to the proposed cannabis tax (Measure A) and the presented requirements at last Thursdays town hall meeting. First I would like to say I am grateful for the residents and city council being open to capitalizing on one of the biggest markets in California and I fully support the city adapting regulations in which the businesses can be run. We are taking a step in the right direction as long as it is done correctly.
I started my career in the legal cannabis industry in 2006, managing Orange County’s first legal medical marijuana dispensary, OCPG. I have not only seen the industry grow into what it is, I have been a part of it in our community since the beginning and have witnessed what has been successful and what hasn’t. I have had many roles, but retail and helping patients and customers has been the most rewarding and why I am writing to you today.
First, it is my very, very strong opinion that the $250,000 permit fee is going to commercialize the cannabis market in Huntington Beach before it even starts. It takes too much working capital for a small business and opens up an invite to corporations and investment capital firms to jump on board when they have limited history or knowledge in the industry, as well as zero ties to the local community or cannabis community. I’ve seen it happen dozens of times and the trickle down effect is that their products, knowledge and therefore their service are below standard and consumers seek out (willing to drive to the next city over/ go black market) less commercialized product and overall experience, thus the tax money not staying in their local community and ultimately benefiting the black market only.
Second, it is also my professional opinion that a 1000 feet buffer zone is too much and will limit the opportunity for retail. The State of California requires retail spaces to be a minimum of 600 feet away from schools, churches, and other sensitive use areas of the community, etc. and there are no reasons why we can't adhere to the same guidelines. Also on that note, I think staying out of the downtown area and off of PCH is an excellent call.
And lastly, the State of California has also set a guideline for operating hours of 8am-10pm. I would like to encourage our community to adapt the same guidelines and or let the retail stores determine what their hours should be as set per the State of CA. As a current retail store owner within the city of Huntington Beach, my store is open until 10pm Monday-Saturday and 9pm on Sundays and in 12 years have gone without incident during the 8pm-10pm hour and on top of that the 8:30-9:30 hour on my sales reports is usually the busiest on Fridays and Saturdays. It would limit revenue and taxable income for the city.
Thank you so much for your time and any consideration. I am passionate about the industry as well as Huntington Beach and would love to see the two merge successfully and provide quality products to our community as well as for our community to reap the rewards of the success. I am happy to have any further conversation and look forward to the next meeting and hope that there are continued opportunities for open town hall meetings prior to regulations being set.
Best regards,
Cody Lasswell
From: Brooke Lasswell
To: Cannabis
Subject: Measure A cannabis tax and regulations
Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 11:58:53 AM
Hello! Thank you for taking the time to read and listen to public comment regarding the retail opportunity for cannabis in the city of Huntington Beach.
I appreciate that you are trying to make it work and do it right. :) I have a few concerns that I would like to bring to your attention in hopes that you're open to minor adjustments in regards to what you laid out on Thursdays town hall meeting.
I have worked alongside the cannabis industry for the last 12+ years in the retail space and I would consider myself informed in regards to what consumers are looking for and want.
My biggest concern is that the 250k permit fee is going to limit the mom and pop shops and let the corporations take charge. Consumers along with the residents of HB DO NOT WANT THAT AT ALL! We don't want shopping mall size dispensaries and the CVS's and Walgreens of the cannabis community to come in. Please take heavy consideration of this while solidifying regulations. My opinion is that residents should get first opportunity- someone that has roots here and cares about the community would be best fit to service the community.
Also, I also think limiting the business hours to 8pm will be doing both a disservice to the consumers, but also to the business and in return limits the tax revenue and from a common sense point just makes no sense- there aren't any businesses that I know of in HB, with the exception of those that serve alcohol, that have regulated business hours? Again I thank you for your attention to these matters and the consideration to lawfully bring cannabis into Huntington Beach.
A Very Happy HB Resident,
Brooke Lasswell
From: Reginald Chun
To: Cannabis
Subject: Vote against cannabis business in HB city
Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:06:36 PM
I am a Huntington Beach voter and I urge the Council to Vote against cannabis business in HB city.
The Ballot initiative
was misleading and deceitful as I assumed that the Council had already authorized Cannabis businesses which is not true, so why put taxing those businesses on the ballot.
For budgetary strains, uncertain tax collection, law
enforcement strains, and zoning and community safety policy reasons,
I urge the Council to vote against any Cannabis
business.
The supposed increase of $300-600k in city revenues is
speculative and should be discounted as the City of LA
Cannabis Regulation has found that revenues for Cannabis taxes are very low and often uncollected in these cash
businesses.
Cannabis businesses are often cash only businesses who
often fail to pay their taxes or fail to pay timely or
underreport their
true
gross receipts,
and are operated by
corporate entities --so the CIty will have to sue the
businesses to get their unpaid cannabis taxes and the
corporate entities are often judgment proof or have no cash assets.
Just as many cash only businesses, the rate of tax basis reporting is often lower than actual sales and the
City will be
unable to verify the business's true gross receipts.
In many cases, the City will have to sue to get their tax money and most lawsuits recover only a fraction of the
supposed owed cannabis taxes and corporate entities often are shell companies or purposely have no assets.
1. As there are abundunt examples of cannabis corrupting city council and city officials, such as Anaheim, Baldwin Park, San Luis Obispo and Calexico, we dont need pot money for our city functions.
See Politico article:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/27/marijuana-
legalization-corruption-450529.
See FBI Anaheim Cannabis probe:
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/05/19/democratic-leader- cannabis-consultant-melahat-rafiei-key-to-fbis-anaheim- corruption-investigation/
see Siskiyou bribes: US
Attorney:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/siskiyou-man-
convicted-bribery-public-official-conspiracy-commit-bribery- and
2. Cannabis operations bring in more opportunities for
robbery, burglaries, neighborhood deterioration and put a strain on police and government.
We dont need more strains
or distractions on our police investigations or city functions for a illusory pot of money.
3. To properly legalize, audit, monitor and collect cannabis taxes, the city will spend more money to hire the extra staff, create more & extra bureaucracy to collect and audit these cash businesses.
To ensure public safety, the city will divert
extra police resources to monitor and enforce city laws for these cash businesses.
The speculative tax revenue and the difficulty in actually collecting these phantom
tax revenues will not be worth the
costs of audits, extra tax staff, police monitoring and tax collection lawsuits, from these cash basis businesses.
We dont need more
opportunities for
corruption, distractions
to our police and city officials.
We have better and more
easier ways to generate business and collect taxes.
Thank you very much.
Reginald Chun
Huntington Beach resident.
From: [email protected]
To: Cannabis
Subject: Sales
Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 3:18:06 AM
A firm NO on any future cannabis sales development in HB. The last thing we need is more folks driving, walking, riding bikes and sitting all around town stoned on smoking dope.
Chuck Burns
Huntington Beach
714 369-7384
From: Robert Brown
To: Cannabis
Subject: Cannabis in HB
Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 8:46:45 AM
Good morning, City Council and other leaders of Huntington Beach.
My name is Robert Brown, I'm the
nurse from OC NORML that tried to speak up in support
last night. Public speaking has always been challenging for me and I apologize for my poor attempt.
A couple points I wanted to make is that my wife and I are both nurses. We have been homeowners here in HB for most of our 33 years married. I was able to attend
Edison, my
three kids graduated from Edison and my son continues to work in the special
education
department at Edison. All of my children
have college educations and my youngest is still at
Cal State LB.
I have been a cannabis advocate most of my adult life, I wrote my senior report in 1987 on cannabis. I started my library and research in the 80s and have always had that interest. In 1989 I became a nurse, and it was a career
ender at that time. I continued my advocacy but
was pushed into the closet.
January 2011 OCNORML hosted the first of its kind Medical Cannabis Conference at Laguna Woods. I attended and met some of the most dynamic people I have ever interacted with. It was a game changer for me. I joined this group and felt like I had one foot out of the closet but there is still my job. I was able to offer my time and fulfill officer duties but remain off the books.
When I was in high school it was booming off Beach and Slater and 5 Points. My pops wrenched for Harley and had his own Harley shop for a while and that got me out of back- alley shopping. Now days I do my shopping in legitimate shops that have tested and regulated products in Santa Ana. Well-built good-looking buildings. A couple of them are palace like and none have come out as eye sores.
I strongly feel every city in OC should have a small part of the big scene but am especially grateful that the city I have spent most of my life in is becoming more vocal and proactive.
I mentioned above that I currently work at the OC HCA, the past few years I have moved over to the housing team. I'm the gatekeeper for many of the county contracted beds. I sit on the Labor and Management Commitee and have long been a steward with the OCEA (County union). Its only because I'm very close to retirement that I can openly disclose my professional life. I do strongly feel on a professional level we still have many people silenced for employment reasons. In private most docs and nurses I have worked with support the availability of cannabis for those in need but are still intimidated to discuss publicly.
Orange County NORML has been going strong in OC for 19 years now. Miss Kandice our founder was a huge part in coordination measure CC in Santa Ana that pushed the city to write BB and ultimately got us legal shops in Santa Ana. We are the education piece of our industry, we show up at events with a table full of books, medical, law, cooking, and fun stuff too. We show up at community events and Im proud to report we are part of the group that picked up Cannabis Community Feedback
received via email ([email protected])
As of June 10, 2022
115 pounds of trash off HB city beach just last month. (And paid for parking to do it) Folks show up at 15 bucks a car and just come to clean up our city. Its amazing.
We continue monthly meetings on zoom and recently resumed live and in person meetings.
Every month we have incredible guests, we get doctors and lawyers to come speak, specialty medical groups will present, sometimes its business owners and product enthusiast that come to share what's new.
OCNorml – Cannabis Awareness Advocates (orangecountynorml.org)
We are available to help the city as needed/wanted. We do have a lot of resources at hand and have some amazing folks on our team.
Thank you for your time and opening the meeting up for public input.
Robert Brown
714 393 8458
--
____Bman____
>~)))*> <*(((~<
From: William Hennerty Jr.
To: Cannabis
Subject: Cannabis Town Hall
Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:57:47 AM
Good day,
After attending last night's town hall, I felt this process was a great way to get a better understanding for all stakeholders. It was great that everyone there seemed to be open and honest about legitimate concerns regarding this complicated issue.
Some of my concerns were location and public safety. I was happy to hear from Mr. Kalmick that the locations would not be in the coastal zone. That was a big one because I feel DT should not have these types of facilities. I feel the hours of operation should be 6am to 8pm.
Anything later than that should be rejected because of safety for employees.
Another concern was the 250k permit fee. That is a large amount and doesn't allow small operators to partake because they are priced out. Also the operators must have 5 existing cannabis businesses. Again, all geared to the big operators and not the small guys trying to get in the business. That seems unfair. I understand we want to make sure the operators can do what they say but there should be a balance. Large and small businesses opportunities for all. I was fine with only 10 retail permits. I don't think we need to have retail shops scattered throughout the city but the process should be open to all and maybe give a certain amount to the big guys and a few for the smaller operators.
In regards to indoor only grows. I think this is ridiculous. We live in Southern California and have free energy from the sun. There is no better light source than the sun. What would the carbon foot print be for facilities that run lights all day? There is no legitimate excuse not to allow outdoor grows (again should be limited in the permit process/regualtions). We should be open to low tech means. The sun is free and doesn't use nearly the energy it takes to operate a warehouse. It is common sense and should be reviewed. I hope this is brought up in conversation with cc.
Lastly, location before permits. As some business owner in this industry expressed their concerns about this. From what I took away is that this could be very costly and would also be another road block for the smaller operators that don't have that cash flow to pay for a space that they are unable to start right away due to many issues (power, permits, etc) I would encourage cc views the meeting since it was recorded to make a informed decision.
We will see if council takes into consideration all the imput and change the draft prior to the cc meeting in a few weeks.
I would like to thank all who put this together as we need more of these types of events for other issues with in the city. It will help bridge the devide in our city and help us get back to some sort of normalcy and transparency.
Thank you,
William Hennerty
605 Main st.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Cannabis Community Feedback Received
via email ([email protected])
As of June 9, 2022
-----Original Message-----
From: Amory Hanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 8:20 AM
To: Kalmick, Dan <[email protected]>
Cc: Bolton, Rhonda <[email protected]>; Peterson, Erik <[email protected]>; Cannabis <[email protected]>
Subject: Cannabis Ordiance Feedback
My Dear Councilman Kalmick,
I will not be able to attend the Huntington Beach City Council’s cannabis committee‘s meeting today.
However, I wanted to provide feedback on the draft ordinance.
Should the council or electors vote to allow cannabis dispensaries, I would like to see the permit process handled by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, not the city manager. The planning commission should grant permits on items of controversy so that public input can be provided. There are also many locations where a dispensary may not be appropriate and the planning commision can determine if the location is appropriate or not based on public input.
I felt the ordinance had enough regulations to balance the fact that California voted to legalize cannabis with proposition 19 with the need to ensure Huntingtoinans' quality of life and safety are not impacted by the negative effects of cannabis.
It appears Measure A may not receive the 2/3 vote needed to be approved. As of today it has received
66.40% of electors' votes, .26% short of the needed votes. I would urge the city council if this is not the case to allow this ordinance to be left up to the electors, so that they may determine if they are comfortable with allowing dispensaries without financial benefits to Huntington Beach.
Sincerely Yours,
Mr. Amory Hanson
From: Kim Flores <[email protected]>
Date: June 7, 2022 at 10:12:53 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request to Deny Cannabis Business
To Whom It May Concern:
I am against the cannabis industry business opening up in Huntington Beach because it would lead to more addiction and homelessness. It also puts EMS employees and the publics lives in danger due to the high flammability of the technology used to harvest the product and cool down the building. A few firefighters lost their lives saving customers inside these businesses in Carson, Santa Ana, and Foothill Ranch. Finally, schools advocate for a drug- free USA for students to stay healthy to increase their attendance rates.
Thank You,
Kim
From: David.Linderman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Cannabis <[email protected]>
Subject: Number of Commercial Cannabis Outlets in Huntington Beach
There should be no commercial Cannabis Outlets in Huntington Beach. Let the surrounding subprime cities around Huntington Beach such as Long Beach and Garden Grove have them all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bixby <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Cannabis <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]> Subject: my initial thoughts on the draft cannabis regulatory framework
Hi city council and staff,
Here are my current thoughts about the draft cannabis legalization ordinances at https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/residents/cannabis/
.
Legalize via Ordinance or Ballot Measure?
While it remains to be seen whether the Measure A cannabis tax measure reaches the two-thirds super- majority vote required to take effect to levy a tax, yesterday’s primary election vote demonstrated strong majority support for cannabis among those who voted. We do not need to hold another ballot measure on the question of legalization.
The will of the people is clear, and I support legalization by city council adoption of the necessary ordinances to retain city council flexibility if amendments are necessary in the future to fine-tune the regulatory framework.
Inadvertent Regulation of CBD via Sloppy Draft Text
In HBMC 5.130.040, "Cannabis" is first defined to exclude industrial hemp, then right below it "Cannabis Business" is defined to include hemp. Non-psychoactive CBD is most commonly derived from hemp, and so this wording forces all CBD-only sellers (i.e., every grocery store and drugstore) into cannabis licensing, which would be absurd. No part of cannabis legalization should impose regulatory bureaucracy on the sale of CBD.
Non-local Delivery Inconsistency via Sloppy Draft Text
HBMC 5.130 considers all forms of delivery to be a Cannabis Business subject to the full local licensing process, but the ZTA carves out delivery from non-local retailers and says that only a generic business license is required. State license types are enumerated, but not explicitly required. The ZTA needs to explicitly declare that a state license is required for non-local delivery operators.
I do want to see non-local delivery legalized to provide a competitive price check on local retail if the city is going to limit local retail to only the big operators. And because there is no fixed physical presence and none of the potential associated negative impacts from that with non-local delivery, it should be a lower bar for approval.
Non-local delivery should only require a standard business license that will be granted if the operator holds a valid state license for delivery.
Philanthropy Partner Requirement is Too Vague
HBMC 5.130.050(C)(4)(g) requires applicants to show proof of a “local philanthropy partner” that benefits the city. This is too vague and could be abused in the absence of further specificity. I propose that philanthropy partners should be limited to bona fide 501(c)(3) organizations.
Four Licenses is an Anti-Competitive Eligibility Threshold
I strongly oppose the HBMC 5.130.050(C)(4)(d) requirement for a cannabis permit applicant to already hold at least 4 current city permits or state licenses. This creates an un-level playing field that favors the biggest operators, and it has been my experience as a retail consumer that the biggest operators may also have the highest prices. This will harm consumers.
It is my understanding that the intent of this provision is two-fold, both to reduce the number of initial applicants so that the city learning curve is not overwhelmed, and to limit the initial permits to those operators with proven track records and staying power. I support both of those goals, and I do NOT support allowing permit applicants with zero prior experience in the legal market.
Fortunately, the city could still accomplish these goals via a different approach.
I propose that the 4-permit requirement be replaced by a requirement to have continuously held and operated under the same permits/licenses as being sought from HB for a period of 2-3 years. This will still block first-timers with no track record but will allow a quality operator with a single permit and years of experience to grow their business by expanding to HB, which is the kind of business that we should be pursuing as part of economic development policy. This should also be easy as a quick screen early in the application review process before delving into the more time-consuming aspects of application scoring.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
The draft regulatory framework invests the city manager with exclusive decision-making authority driven by very subjective and currently ill-defined criteria, and this authority is wielded out of public view and has huge financial consequences for an applicant. This creates a perfect environment for a bad-faith applicant to attempt to subvert the process via bribery or other methods of undue influence.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. The Los Angeles Times regularly reports on criminal bribery cases where cannabis license applicants have paid large sums of money or other favors to staff and/or elected officials to gain approvals.
I propose the following changes to bring more sunshine and oversight into the process:
- The initial regulations and scoring criteria plus any amendments by the city manager must be publicly approved by a vote of the city council. This will likely be infrequent.
- The city council should have the ability like they do for other low-level permits to appeal city manager cannabis actions within 10 days up to a public de-novo city council hearing and vote. This will only happen as much as councilmembers cause it to happen.
I look forward to further refinement of the draft cannabis regulatory framework.
Mark Bixby
[email protected]
714-401-4526 cell