Here’s the complete report. an fascinating conundrum certainly.


Beneath California’s election laws, the Pasadena City Council only has two solutions tonight when it comes to taking action on an initiative that would throw a wrench into the City’s complicated, voter-authorized industrial cannabis ordinances.

The Council can either vote the initiative into law or vote to location it on the March 2020 ballot for residents to determine.

But, according to a city employees evaluation, the Council separately can also craft its personal measure for voters which would soften the initiative’s influence upon the present industrial cannabis course of action

“It would,” the report told the Council, “ be advisable to draft a measure that straight conflicts with the proposed measure.”

The newly certified proposed ballot measure would enable retailers who previously operated in violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code to temporarily continue operations without having going although the present permitting course of action and without having obtaining to comply with any of the City’s present distance needs.

The measure would enable at least 18 a lot more cannabis retailers to operate in Pasadena legally, and at areas other than these authorized by the voters when Measure CC was passed.

The City’s Measure CC, authorized by the voters final year, at the moment restricts the quantity of cannabis retailers to six—one per Council district—and sets distance needs from specific sensitive utilizes, such as properties, churches and schools.

No legal cannabis retail shops have officially opened however, but the proposed ballot initiative, if productive, could significantly alter the City’s cannabis retailer landscape.

According to a City employees report, The proposed measure would enable formerly “illegal” operators to operate close to residential places, parks and areas of worship, basically any zoning district in the City.

Shops would be regulated only by a State law, which is a 600-foot radius of a K-12, a day care center, or youth center.

Previously illegal operators could also move from their current areas and set up shop anyplace such retail is zoned.

New cannabis retailers who are at the moment in the licensing course of action would not be impacted by the proposed measure, and ought to continue via the Measure CC licensing course of action.

Illegal operators would have to safe a nearby cannabis permit by January 1, 2025 via the nearby course of action, but would not have to go via the screening permit course of action, or the conditional use permit course of action, if they remain in their present areas.

Ought to an illegal operator establish itself in a place immediately after the helpful date of the proposed measure, and prior to establishment by a legal operator, according to the City’s employees report, the new legal operator would now have to positioned 1,000 feet away from the illegal operator.

According to the employees report, all of the City’s cannabis operators are needed to have state license for cannabis or cannabis merchandise in accordance with the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Security Act and meet all of the needs therein. The California Bureau of Cannabis Handle will manage the state licensing course of action.

Presently there are 18 illegal operators in the City that could advantage from the measure, 14 of which have been shut down by the City.

The City may possibly also submit an cannabis initiative of its personal for the March ballot‚one that does not duplicate Measure CC, but as an alternative would straight conflict with the new measure. Ought to each measures acquire adequate qualifying votes, the measure with the highest quantity of total votes would go in to impact.

In a connected improvement, the City Council will also vote Monday on regardless of whether or not to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeal’s selection denying SweetFlower Pasadena, LLC’s Conditional Use Permit application for cannabis retailers.

SweetFlowers’ permit application was ruled “incomplete” simply because it did not offer a place map ready by a licensed surveyor, as needed by the City’s application course of action.