Following a public hearing the City Council unanimously awarded a medical cannabis delivery permit to Catalina Cannabis, LLC, at the first council meeting in May.
The permit is good for a year.
The applicant may now apply for a license from the state. After that, the matter will come back to the Avalon Planning Commission and the City Council.
Background
According to the staff report by Senior Management Analyst Devin Hart, the permit application period opened on Jan. 24. The application period closed on March 3, but was extended to March 21.
“The City of Avalon received one complete application by the stated deadline from Catalina Cannabis, LLC,” Hart wrote.
“City Staff evaluated the applications based on the proposed location of business, business plan, neighborhood compatibility plan, and the safety and security plan,” Hart wrote.
According to her report, the operating plan and business location comply with the Municipal Code.
“The City Council reserves the right to reject any or all applications if it determines it is in the best interests of the City, taking into account any health, safety and welfare impacts on the community,” Hart wrote.
“The proposed resolution before City Council would award the medical cannabis delivery permit to Catalina Cannabis, LLC, however, Catalina Cannabis will not be issued the license until it satisfies certain conditions and requirements. If the City Council elects to adopt the proposed resolution to award a medical cannabis delivery permit to Catalina Cannabis, LLC, the applicant will have the ability to begin the process of licensing through the State of California Bureau of Cannabis Control,” Hart wrote.
“After the appropriate licensing is procured, City Staff will establish additional conditions, if necessary, and return to the City Council for award of the medical cannabis delivery business permit,” Hart wrote.
“At the next regular meeting of the City Council, City Staff will provide a recommendation for City Council approval on an appropriate business licensing fee for commercial cannabis businesses, and potential oversight and enforcement through the Los Angeles County Public Health Department,” Hart wrote.
Discussion
Applicant Alexander Winanger gave the council a presentation about the proposed business.
Catalina Cannabis will offer flower, pre-rolls, edibles, tinctures, and topicals. Winanger’s mother Elizabeth and Suren Seron will be his partners.
The business will operate from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Winanger said there would be one delivery vehicle.
Winanger said they have already acquired their seller’s permit and business license.
Carl Johnson, former owner of the Catalina Connect cannabis business, said he was directly involved in crafting the cannabis regulation the city relies on.
Johnson said the proposed site of Catalina Cannabis is located within 600 feet of two sensitive sites, the Avalon Public Library and the Christian Community Church, when he said also functions as a youth center.
He said the California Business and Professions Code said a cannabis business may not be located within 600 feet of a school, daycare center, or youth center.
“That law hasn’t changed,” Johnson said.
He said when another individual applied to operate a cannabis business, his application was denied in part because of its proximity to youth serving locations.
“I spent good money out of my own pocket to consult with federal and state authorities to determine whether cannabis can legally be transported to Catalina Island,” Johnson said.
“No federal clearance waiver or exemption from the U.S. Coast Guard has been disclosed,” Johnson said.
Johnson said every one of his vessels was boarded by the Coast Guard.
Johnson raised the issue of what he saw as the similarity between the applicant’s business name, Catalina Cannabis, LLC, and his own Catalina Cannabis Corp, doing business as Catalina Cannabis and Catalina Cannabis Company.
Johnson said he would defend the identity and goodwill he built in this community.
“They didn’t engage the community. They didn’t make their plan public,” Johnson said.
He said when he was licensed, his application was made public.
No one else spoke.
City Attorney Scott Campbell said they would look at everything. “This has been an open process,” Campbell said.
One of the issues Johnson raised was whether there had been full disclosure of plans for the proposed business.
“There’s certain information that is proprietary that is not subject to disclosure, but to the extent that there are public documents available, they will be provided within the confines of the law. Again, they have to prove that they have all these permits and approvals and it’s in compliance with state law before the permit is actually issued,” Campbell said.
“So this is a significant step, but it’s not the end step in the process,” Campbell said.
Councilmember Mary Schickling asked what was public under Johnson’s business.
Management Analyst Devin Hart said it was different because that was a competitive process. She said a committee was formed made up of two council member, two city staff members, and members of the community. “They reviewed the applications, applied the assessment rubric and then brought before City Council their committee recommendation,” Hart said.
“At no time was any application released to the public,” Hart said.
“It wasn’t until Mr. Johnson submitted an appeal to the revocation or suspension of the license that we provided the appeal contents to City Council and that he included in his appeal contents his application and that’s when it became a public record because of it was part of the context of his appeal,” Hart said.
“Since this application was unopposed, why wasn’t there the same community involvement or was there in the staff?” Schickling asked.
“Pursuant to the requirements of a public hearing, a public hearing notification was sent to all of the residents and businesses and addresses within 300 feet of their commercial location,” Hart said.
She said the notice was published in two issues of the Catalina Islander on April 25 and May 2.
“There was no requirement for community engagement, other than their optional participation in this public hearing,” Hart said.
“The applications are still proprietary and contain operationally sensitive information,” Hart said.
She said that was why they weren’t previously and were not now provided to the City Council.
City Attorney Campbell said in the past process, there were several applications, and interviews by the council. “In this case, there was only one application that was complete an submitted with the requirements of the Municipal Code,” Campbell said.
“The point is, we’re looking at a new process or new person,” said Councilmember Michael Ponce.
Johnson said the applicant would not get state licenses and this was a complete waste of time.
“I’m trying to tell you guys a vote yes is a waste of this city’s resources and time,” Johnson said.
Campbell said the city would go through that process because that’s what the process is.
“And if they don’t get it?” asked Mayor Anni Marshall.
“They don’t get it,” Campbell said.
Ponce moved to approve the permit.
Schickling asked what kind of information the council would get when the issue comes back to them.
City Manager David Maistros will review it between now and when it comes back to the council.
Campbell said the application would also have to go through the Planning Commission before it returned to the council.
“So this is just your basic preliminary jumping off point,” Schickling said.
“At any point, this could get denied,” Ponce said.
