Phew. I think we are almost through our long, collective cannabis nightmare.

We finally get some clarity on the City’s answer to its “cannabis problem”

After cannabis complaints have dominated the pages of Nextdoor and Facebook; after conditional use permit applications have snarled the development services department for months (probably years at this point); after public commenter after public commenter has marched to dais to lament either Costa Mesa becoming a “pothead city” or bureaucracy standing in the way of life-saving medicine: there is light at the end of the tunnel.

With the City Council’s first reading of the proposed updates to the cannabis ordinance, two things are clear. First, the city is getting out of the business of processing large numbers of crushingly complex cannabis conditional use permits. And second, not much will change about the cannabis stores that have already been approved.

For those playing along at home, here is what the Council approved regarding updates to the cannabis ordinance:

• After existing cannabis operators complained about onerous employee badge fees and agonizingly slow processing times, the Staff was instructed to agendize a separate item at a future meeting to lay out the options to either expedite the process or reduce the cost.
• The requirement that cannabis retail stores maintain a 24-hour a day security guard presence will be amended to limit the requirement to business hours, when the store is accepting or making deliveries, or when the Staff/CMPD has specifically required 24-hour security coverage.
• Cannabis retail storefronts may only post a 12″x18″ notice on the door to clarify to potential customers that it is a cannabis dispensary, and they (still) may not use the word “cannabis” or marijuana-related symbols in their branding or advertising.
• The Cannabis administrative regulations that have been authored by Staff will be disclosed to the public.
• State law prohibitions regarding cannabis advertising to minors will be incorporated into the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
• The number of new cannabis business permits that will be considered by the City will be capped at 35, after which no new cannabis business permits (CBPs) will be considered until the number of CBPs operating in the city falls below ten (10).
• Once the number of CBPs falls below ten (10), new CBP applications will be subject to a few new zoning regulations:
  • No cannabis retail storefront may operate in a location within 250 feet of a residential properties (how this will work with Measure K shooting our commercial corridors through with residential properties, I have no idea).
  • No cannabis retail storefront may operate in a location within 1,000 feet of a youth center.
  • Either the landlord or the applicant for a new CBP must notify the existing tenant (if there is one) that a CBP has been applied for, so that the tenant has additional forewarning that it may soon be evicted.
  • Existing CBPs that are located in areas that would run afoul of these new regulations will become “legal nonconforming”, but will be otherwise allowed to continue operating.

While all these changes are well and good, the only one that will have any practical effect in the short term will be the cap on processing new CBPs. And frankly, I wonder if that even matters that much. I’d like to point out that not a single written comment from the cannabis industry or its boosters complained about the prospect of a cap, which makes me think that either (1) all the big players are already in, such that the cap works to their advantage to keep out new competition, or (2) the competition among the existing storefronts is already so fierce that it is already winnowing the wheat from the chaff, such that we shouldn’t expect to see that many new operators coming in, anyway (anecdotally I’ve spotted a 99% off (up to a $30 discount) billboard for one local pot shop, and another has been advertising a 30% off sale since it opened, so it’s certainly possible that the “market is working”).

The rest is either feel-good nibbling around the edges or irrelevant until we start processing new CBPs, which won’t happen until my kids have hit retirement age (if then).

But now we can free up our development services department to get back to the business at hand, like, I don’t know, approving a new home once in a while.

But a lot of other interesting stuff was mentioned, too!

The potential e-bike ordinance, which has been a recent focus of this blog, got multiple mentions, though it seems apparent many of the council members were unaware that a potential ordinance had already been proposed to the Active Transportation Committee.

Former Council Member Wendy Leece broached the topic of Don Harper’s “intention to resign” in her public comments, highlighting the fact that, despite his announced intention, he still sits on the dais. Again, personally I am in no rush for him to move along, but she’s right: we’ll need a clear path to filling his seat (or not) sooner rather than later.

And finally…

So what exactly is going on with the “school fields as parks” initiative?

As part of her comments, Council Member Reynolds slipped in a small thank you to Staff for “opening” Victoria Elementary School’s fields for joint use by the residents. I followed up with some of the community members I know and, as far as I’m aware, this hasn’t actually happened yet. Clearly there is a lot happening behind the scenes still, now more than four months on from the grand bargain struck last Fall to address the drama in Harper Park and to open other Westside school fields to unstructured joint use. Once again, let’s keep an eye on this issue — I expect it to come back to the forefront as the six month “pilot program” at Harper Park expires in May, and as the weather turns towards our beautiful Spring and Summer seasons.