Cannabis to council

The discussion Monday (Sept. 9) at the Chico Internal Affairs Committee meeting was unusually cordial, considering the often-contentious topic of conversation: commercial cannabis. It was more or less the culmination of 10 weeks of discussing the matter in a larger group, made up of people from varying sectors of the community.

The outcome: The committee, Vice Mayor Alex Brown and City Councilmen Scott Huber and Karl Ory, voted unanimously to direct staff to draft an ordinance allowing dispensaries, deliveries, and manufacturing and testing facilities.

The issue came before Internal Affairs as a result of Brown’s request to council to develop the framework for allowing commercial cannabis, which was supported by local voters via Proposition 64, passed in 2016. She then chaired a newly formed Commercial Cannabis Committee, made up of nine other people, representing everything from education to public health to the Downtown Chico Business Association to the cannabis industry. They met 10 times over the past several months.

“The cannabis committee was a really well-formed group,” Brown told the CN&R by phone. “Even though there was some disagreement amongst members, it was incredibly professional and productive. I knew we couldn’t make everyone happy, but my goal was to build consensus around everything, [or at least] almost everything.”

Brown offered the group assembled Monday—which nearly reached the capacity of the conference room at the Fred Davis Municipal Center—an outline of the cannabis committee’s discussions and recommendations to Internal Affairs. The most discussed topic, unsurprisingly, was dispensaries, she said. The group settled on a cap of one retail shop per 25,000 population, to be allowed only in a special overlay zone prepared by the Planning Department, away from schools and excluding downtown and the Chico Mall areas. Applications will be merit-based, with priority going to Butte County applicants, as well as those with a commitment to giving back to the community and/or hiring locally.

In addition, stores must provide educational material about their products and employees must attend a standardized “bud-tender” training. Artificially flavored vape products will not be allowed, while smokeable concentrates, like dabs, shatter and wax, must be kept behind the counter, available only by request.

There was only one real item of contention—a suggestion by Butte County Public Health Officer Andy Miller to limit the potency of products sold.

“I’m still concerned about the concentration of cannabis,” he told the panel, referring to levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive compound in cannabis. “I’m concerned if we think the risk from those products is low. I think our belief of the risk of high concentrations of THC is changing rather quickly. … Please be open to hearing evolving research.”

Jessica MacKenzie, as head of the Inland Cannabis Farmers Association, represented the industry on the cannabis committee. She addressed the Internal Affairs Committee and expressed her reservations about setting potency limits. She elaborated by phone afterward that she sees Miller’s point of view, but thinks the state already has addressed the potency issue when it comes to edibles, and that flower—buds to be smoked—should not be limited, as there’s little risk of smoking too much.

“There is a reason to care about dosage and potency of anything that you consume, whether it be THC, alcohol, calories or saturated fat,” she said. “The state of California is hyper aware of the fact that some forms of cannabis tend to come with more risk. That’s why there are regulations on labeling what the dose is of edibles. Where it doesn’t make sense is with flower—capping flower potency solves a problem we don’t have. The problem is the excess consumption of edibles.”

Internal Affairs voted to further that discussion at the City Council level, but not to include a cap on potency in the draft ordinance.

As far as other cannabis-related businesses, the only major omission from the recommendations is cultivation—no commercial gardens or greenhouses allowed in city limits. Others, however, like delivery services, will have a place—and with no cap on how many. In fact, aside from retail operations, none of the other businesses will be capped; all will be handled through a permitting process. Manufacturing facilities larger than 5,000 square feet will require more extensive review.

About a dozen members of the public, several of them from the cannabis committee, spoke during the public comment period. They expressed concerns ranging from ensuring only people 21 and older are allowed to purchase cannabis products to the ability of code enforcement to monitor businesses’ compliance with local regulations like keeping concentrates behind the counter. The state handles sting operations on alcohol and tobacco businesses, explained Brendan Vieg, Chico’s community development director of planning and housing, and it’s his understanding cannabis is handled similarly. Internal Affairs directed staff to look at various fee structures, including a sales tax, to ensure funding for code enforcement.

Karli Olsen, who represented the Chico Chamber of Commerce on the cannabis committee, expressed frustration at Brown’s presentation, calling it “disingenuous.” She felt it didn’t accurately depict the group’s desires and said the process “lacked transparency.” Others, however, including speakers from the anti-cannabis contingent, praised the process and the progress made.

MacKenzie concurred: “People disagreed, but you don’t have to be contentious to disagree,” she told the CN&R. “If anyone walked away thinking they got everything, it wouldn’t have been successful. Since nobody’s completely happy, I think we did a good job.”

The draft ordinance will go before the City Council likely in the next couple of months, Brown said. Then it will go to the Planning Commission to discuss zoning.