More News

Hollister City Council approves amendment to ordinance to allow adult-use in cannabis supply chain, excluding dispensaries

Taking into consideration that recreational marijuana will eventually out pace medical use, the council approved a change to city ordinance to allow recreational production and distribution, but no dispensaries.
Will Pennstrom claimed that as regulated adult-use of cannabis increases, teen use decreases.
Patrick Orosco said a typical cannabis facility could generate $1 million in tax revenues for the city.
Sean Donohoe said a state senate bill has combined adult-use and recreational regulations.
Jack Kirk asked the council to slow down and let medical cannabis get established before moving on to adult-use.

After holding a public hearing, Hollister City Council unanimously approved an amendment of the chapter “Business Licenses and Regulations” of the city’s municipal code and administrative procedure for issuing cannabis facilities regulatory permits and regulations for operating cannabis facilities and medical cannabis dispensaries.

In a staff summary for considering the amendment, it was explained that the city adopted Ordinance 1131 and 1131A, which governed medical cannabis operations and facilities within the city limits. The city subsequently adopted a temporary urgency ordinance on Dec. 18, 2017, that prohibited any adult use cannabis facilities and ratified non-medical personal-use cultivation. The amendment council passed on Feb. 5 regulates the future of adult use or recreational marijuana cultivation, manufacturing and distribution— excludes dispensaries.

Staff recommended a number of changes to be included in the amendment:

  • Compliance with the State of California for non-medicinal personal use cultivation.
  • No outdoor cultivation permitted.
  • "Adult Use" cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and distribution permitted only within the zoning districts currently approved for medical cannabis.
  • Retail sales for "adult use" are prohibited throughout the city, including permitted medical dispensaries.
  • All "adult use" cultivation and manufactured cannabis goods/products are for sale and export between licensees and licensed premises only.
  • Packaging of all cannabis products shall be in compliance with California’s Public Health Department. All products shall clearly be identified with an "A" for Adult Use and "M" for medical.
  • California residency requirement has been removed to be consistent with the State of California regulations.

During the public hearing numerous individuals with cannabis affiliations spoke in favor of approving the amendment and only one resident, Jack Kirk, advised caution and slowing down of the process. Will Pennstrum said he was speaking on behalf of AgriPharma (formerly Zyte Oil LLC) and other supply chain operators in the city. He said he had five years of cannabis management experience in Colorado, where he developed a manufacturing facility with 60 full-time employees.

“I’ve seen first-hand the benefits to the community adult-use operations can bring,” he said. He also said there were not only obvious benefits, such as tax revenues, but also not-so-obvious benefits, including teen and child-use of cannabis. He claimed that in cities that allowed legal adult-use, there was a reduction of teen use. “One study through a national survey on drug use and health from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration states that in Colorado teen cannabis use has dropped 12.5 percent in the year before recreational sales were allowed to 11 percent in the first year of sales all the way down to nine percent at the end of 2017. To put it simply, teens us cannabis less when it’s properly regulated.”

He emphasized the importance of packaging designs that would not appeal to children. He said even though he wasn’t pushing for the allowance of adult-use dispensaries, he wanted the council to understand that everyone in the supply chain would do everything possible to keep cannabis away from those who are under age.

Patrick Orosco, who said his background was as a shopping center developer, explained that as tenants looking for retail space decreases his job is to look for businesses that are expanding. He related how a single Target store might generate $60 million in retail sales annually, of which a city will receive about one percent, or about $600,000 in tax revenue. He said he had been studying 10 cannabis businesses for employment opportunities and tax revenue potential, ranging from 15,000 to 200,000 square feet.

“The average first-year revenue to the city of one of those 10 operators was over $1 million,” he claimed. “That is a combination of the increase of tax revenue from property taxes and cannabis-use tax. I’m here to compel you to do the same things you’ve been doing in attracting the competitive environment for cannabis uses by approving this ordinance because from just 10 operators you have the opportunity to generate the equivalent of between 10 and 15 times a single Target’s tax benefit to the city.”

Carl Saling, who works with the cannabis company, Hollister Holistics, said over the last year as Hollister was creating its cannabis ordinance state regulations have changed. This has created a situation, he said, where most cannabis sales at dispensaries will be for adult use rather than medical because those who need medical cannabis will no longer need a doctor’s approval and can simply purchase recreational cannabis. He said it was imperative that the council approve adult use in the supply chain in order to guarantee the survival of the cannabis industry in the city.

Saling said over the last few months Hollister Holistics has worked closely with the Hollister Police Department (HPD) and other departments regarding safety and security. He said HPD visits the facility on a regular basis. He said HPD has real-time access to its security monitoring system and described the measures the company has gone through to guarantee the security of the facility, and that the public cannot enter it. He said the city’s ordinance spells out security measures for all cannabis operations in the supply chain.

“There will not be an increased safety impact to the community by approving adult use for the supply chain,” he assured the council. “There will be zero increase in traffic to our facility or any of the other facilities that focus only on the supply chain. We are private and only serve the industry on the wholesale level.”

Sean Donahoe, a former lobbyist, now a consultant for the cannabis industry, said Senate Bill 94 combined medical and adult use supply chain into an integrated set of regulations.

“There is no difference between the regulations that will be imposed on medical or adult use,” he said. “Every single level of scrutiny, lab testing, track-and-trace responsibility of taxation is identical. What we’ve seen in other regulated markets, particularly in Washington, is the medicinal market being subsumed by a larger adult use market. After all, this product is just cannabis. A plant when being grown doesn’t know whether it’s a medicinal plant or an adult-use plant.”

Jack Kirk, a long-time opponent of cannabis, asked the council to slow down and give medical marijuana operations a chance to function before moving into the recreational side.

“You don’t have to do this change of the ordinance tonight,” he said. “Prop. 64 allows people to have access to six plants. You’ve asked them to grow inside, like the county has. One plant will give you roughly three pounds. There’s a lot of use from six plants that will take care of people’s personal needs, whether it’s recreational or medicinal. Let us integrate the medical portion before you jump into this next level.”

While Mayor Ignacio Velazquez said there needs to be more meetings and discussions about dispensaries for recreational cannabis, he said it was time to start what was promised to the public.

“I don’t have any issues where the industry has gone,” he said. “I understand the cultivators and manufactures have to be able to compete. We do need to take this step by step and not get ahead of ourselves. One thing I’ve learned, any community that got ahead of itself got into trouble pretty quick. We’ve put together a good ordinance and I’m willing to be involved in tweaking it a bit, but a discussion about recreational dispensaries, we’re not there yet.”

Other cannabis news.

The city council also approved a cannabis use permit and development agreement for High Sierra Analytics Inc. to operate a testing laboratory at 1851 Airway Drive. Also, two appeals from California Finest Manufacturing and LLXP Corporation were rescheduled until March 1

BenitoLink Logo

Become a Member Today

Support your local independent news.

We work hard to give you the news and information you need. By becoming a member, you will be part of something bigger; BenitoLink, your community-supported news source.

Donate

About:
John Chadwell (John Chadwell)

John Chadwell is an investigative reporter for BenitoLink. He has many years experience as a freelance photojournalist, copywriter, ghostwriter, scriptwriter and novelist. He is a former U.S. Navy Combat Photojournalist and is an award-winning writer who has worked for magazine, newspapers, radio and television. He has a BA in Journalism and Mass Communications from Chapman University and underwent graduate studies at USC Cinema School. John has worked as a script doctor and his own script, God's Club, was released as a motion picture in 2016. He has also written eight novels, ranging from science fiction to true crime that are sold on Amazon. To contact John Chadwell, send an email to: johnchadwell@benitolink.com.

Comments

Submitted by (Rob Bernosky) on

It really is such a shame that the City of Hollister is rushing into this. We just don't know what we are getting into, in my opinion. https://www.benitolink.com/news/hollister-city-council-approves-amendmen...

On the bright side, it looks like the tax revenues are projected to be so big, that we will not have increase sales taxes for transportation, I guess. There will be plenty of bucks floating around based on the rosy picture the marijuana proponents are giving us.

I disagree that Hollister is rushing into recreational cannabis policy. To the contrary, the city should have had policy, code, staffing and regulations in place on January 1 to capitalize on adult-use sales and tax revenue. The only shame I can see is the steadfast resistance of the same anti-cannabis advocates who demonstrate their personal and public biases against the express will of the majority of voters who supported Prop. 64 in San Benito County.

Bernosky's affection for the Republican party platform (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cagop/pages/38/attachments/origina...) and its principles regarding Agriculture, the Economy and Jobs, Equal Opportunity, Federalism, Private Property Rights and the Environment are diminished by his personal disdain for cannabis and his nostalgia for 20th century Draconian laws that punish cannabis users through a failed prohibition public policy agenda.

Warning that "We just don't know what we are getting into" is both incorrect and cowardly; it is the same mentality that AG Jeff Sessions advances to support his Nixonian and anachronistic opinion against cannabis in a world where - according to a recent Gallup poll - "A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled. 64% percent of those reached by Gallup said they support the legalization of marijuana".

Let the good times roll with increased tax revenue and liberty for all. 

Submitted by (Rob Bernosky) on

Thank you for citing the California Republican Party's Platform; when the subject of marijuana was discussed, I helped draft the language as a member of the Platform Committee.

We can disagree with whether the City of Hollister is moving too fast or not. I get it; you are either a user or in the business, I do not care. But what I do know is having to smell it in my backyard, when I visit schools, or just walking around the county, and when I see very unattractive properties like the current "medical" dispensary we have in the county start popping up, and how we are going to deal with law enforcement to police the industry and whether cartels will be actually in control or not. I know, you might think the property to which I refer is beautiful or there are other businesses that look worse. It does not change this resident's opinion, ugly is ugly and I would rather see beauty.

You are making this political. I am making it real. The City of Hollister and County of San Benito County need to slow way down and lets proceed carefully. I also am well aware of the huge tax implications and how it will pay for things like roads so we will not need any more new taxes. That is why I remain open-minded.

Point 1: You're welcome. I used to be a registered Republican for decades, there is intrinsic value to our community for all political perspectives including conservative feedback. That's what 'Makes America Great' - not 'Again' but 'As Designed and Executed by Due Public Process' for centuries. This is a local political issue; a point I will address subsequently.

Point 2: It is clear we disagree. "User" seems like a pejorative and condescending judgment term you employ pursuant to your bias against adults who choose to legally consume cannabis products. To reciprocate, neither do I care about your opinion.

Point 3: I've read your repeated complaints about the smell of neighbors crops in your backyard. Too bad, so sad. Oh, and your personal subjective opinion regarding beauty and unattractive properties... 'the eye of the beholder'. 

Point 4: Back to 'my making this political' - again, we disagree, but I appreciate your giving me credit for making this political. You aren't making this real. The Hollister City Council and staff is making public policy both 'real' and 'political', I'm just a citizen with an opinion different than yours. I'm a cancer survivor and responsible adult who contributes to the betterment of our community and believes that cannabis has both medical and recreational positive attributes; so in that sense, yes, I'm a 'user' with a local political opinion in favor of Prop. 64. 

Point 5: Thanks for remaining 'open-minded' to the potential and beneficial socio-economic potential of cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and sales to adults in Hollister/San Benito County. 

Submitted by Will McGuire (Conrad Condor) on

It's not my intention to get mired in the arguments pro or con about adult use of medical or recreational uses of Marijuana, the benefits are probably overblown but the people have spoken, Now I'm seeing short ads on TV promoting the product, ie: "Cannabis is for Lovers", no warning to the little children to close their eyes while the ad runs, doesn't the ban on cigarette ads also ban these ads?

Mr. McGuire, 

Yes, the State of California regulates advertisements of cannabis products which county or city laws must meet or exceed.

 

BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL PROPOSE

TEXT OF REGULATIONS The following is new 

text to be added to the California Code of Regulations 

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 16 DIVISION 42. BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL§ 5040. Advertising Placement 

(a) Any advertising or marketing placed in broadcast, cable, radio, print, and digital communications shall only be displayed where at least 71.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by reliable up-to-date audience composition data. (b) Upon request, a licensee shall provide to the Bureau audience composition data as required in subsection (a) of this section for advertising or marketing placed by the licensee. This information shall be provided to the Bureau within the time specified by the Bureau. (c) If the Bureau determines that audience composition data for advertising or marketing provided by a licensee, does not comply with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, or the licensee fails to provide audience composition data to the Bureau within the time specified by the Bureau, the licensee shall remove the advertising or marketing placement in question. Authority: Section 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 26151 and 26152, Business and Professions Code. 

I'm not sure if little children close their eyes during liquor, beer or wine commercials on TV, but I doubt it. 

Add new comment

Add Facebook comment

Comment using your Facebook account. Facebook comments will be published on this page, and on Facebook. It will not be posted to the "Recent Comments" list on the BenitoLink front page.