Beverly Hills may be getting into the cannabis business. Kind of. And even though what was discussed on Tuesday evening only pertained to medical cannabis, city council members couldn’t have sounded less enthused.

Despite the city’s municipal code prohibiting any sale of cannabis products, the staff report to the city council read, “Beginning January 1, 2024, Senate Bill 1186 prohibits a city from adopting or enforcing any regulation that directly or indirectly prohibits the establishment of a physical premises to provide the non-storefront retail delivery of medicinal cannabis to patients or caregivers in a local jurisdiction.”

SB 1186 also prevents any municipality from:

• Limiting the number of businesses authorized to deliver medicinal cannabis in the city.
• Limiting the operating hours of medicinal cannabis businesses.
• Limiting the number or frequency of medicinal cannabis sales by delivery.
• Limiting the types or quantities of medicinal cannabis authorized to be sold by delivery.
• Prohibiting the establishment of physical premises from which retail sale by delivery of medicinal cannabis within the city is conducted by a licensed non-storefront retailer

“Local governments can still engage in implementing regulations for zoning, local licensing, public health and safety restrictions, and taxes.” The discussion Tuesday centered on what the ordinance would allow and the level of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to approve for delivery-only businesses.

The proposed ordinance:

• Prohibits non-storefront, delivery-only medical cannabis retail from locating:
  • On the ground floor of any building
  • In pedestrian-oriented areas defined in the Municipal Code
  • Within 600 feet of schools, daycare centers, youth centers, public parks, religious institutions, and the public library
• Requires the business to be established in Zone C-3
• Requires a CUP
• A consideration of fees to be brought back on a near-future date

What’s proposed would allow for municipal cannabis delivery into Beverly Hills, but still not allow any such businesses to anchor there. The products would have to come from an adjacent or nearby jurisdiction.

Councilmember Lili Bosse asked about the consequences of keeping policy the way it is in the city, to which, City Attorney Laurence Wiener said, “That’s not really an option for the city. We can argue about it, but it’s state law. And we have to allow these types of businesses with appropriate zoning regulations, etc.”

“We’re walking a very thin tightrope on what we could do and what to do,” said Vice Mayor Lester Friedman. “We reached that point where we went as far as we could to restrict the availability yet be in compliance with the law.”

Councilmember Sharona Nazarian asked whether the city could at least limit the number of delivery services that could fall within a specific radius of each other.

When the 600-foot distance was mentioned, and at a horizontal measure, Mayor Julian Gold suggestively asked that the word “horizontally” be removed. That would mean no two cannabis delivery businesses could be within roughly six stories of one another in the same building.

Wiener suggested that rather than removing “horizontally,” the ordinance language adds the word “vertically.”

Nazarian also expressed interest in adding fees beyond basically covering the city’s operational enforcement of the ordinance. But any additional taxes would have to be approved by voters.

Councilmember John Mirisch also inquired about fees as relates to having sufficient funding for additional security that may be needed at these sites. He asked Wiener whether taxes could be punitive and about what the maximum tax state law would allow the city to charge cannabis delivery services. Wiener acknowledged he has yet to research what maximum tax the city could charge, he did say there could be a “special tax” assessed for something specific like security.

After Mayor Julian Gold asked about security during the transport of cannabis, staff made clear that all cannabis must be kept in special lockers within a delivery vehicle. But that didn’t stop Gold from worrying about the theft of the entire vehicle.

He concluded, “I think this is just another overreach on the part of the state. And it’s just another piece of state preemption.” Gold added, “It makes no sense considering you can walk in off the street in cities that surround us and buy whatever the heck you want… this is just another stupid piece of legislation coming out of Sacramento.”

Nevertheless, the first reading of the ordinance passed unanimously, 5-0.

Photo by thegoodphoto