The Red Bluff City Council voted to continue development agreements for two commercial cannabis storefronts, approving resolutions to extend the contracts and preserve the operators’ permit rights under the city’s regulations.

City community development staff told the council that the original ordinances regulating commercial cannabis were adopted in February 2022 and that three collectives were awarded permit rights through the city’s competitive process. Staff said the businesses had paid required public‑benefit fees on time and had no compliance complaints on file with police or fire.

Tom (city staff) told the council that calendar‑year 2024 cannabis activity from the three businesses generated approximately $350,000 in combined revenue for the city, revenue the city uses for general fund purposes such as police and fire services. He also told council members that the applicants requested no substantive changes to terms; the only proposed change was extending the development‑agreement term from three years to five with annual permit renewals. Staff summarized key provisions: annual renewals, public‑benefit fees set at 3% of gross receipts paid quarterly, and termination provisions in the agreements.

The public hearing drew multiple speakers. Dolores (identified as a member of a watchdog group) alleged that a city official, Cody Straub, had failed to disclose a consulting relationship with cannabis applicants in his conflict‑of‑interest (Form 700) filings and urged recusal and possible removal. City legal counsel advised that she could not determine for council whether a council member or staff had a disqualifying conflict; she explained the legal standard under Government Code section 1090 and said the question of conflict must be evaluated by the person with the potential economic interest or through a formal legal process.

Representatives of one operator and two nearby residents spoke in favor of continued, regulated storefront operations. Sundial Collective’s founder, Latham Martinez, said regulation and licensed operations improve safety and that delivery remains legal into Red Bluff even if no dispensaries operated inside city limits. Martinez told the council: “Would you rather it be regulated in your city or unregulated?”

Councilmembers debated the broader public‑health and community impacts. One council member read a news account about cardiovascular and behavioral health risks associated with regular cannabis use and said such evidence shaped a personal opposition to expanded cannabis activity. Other council members countered that alcohol can cause far greater immediate safety harms and that prohibitions can drive unregulated markets.

Staff noted a recent change in state excise tax: before July 1 the excise tax was 15%; after July 1 it increased to 19%, a factor staff said might affect operators’ economics. Staff also reported that one operator, referred to as Culture in the planning file, had notified the city of closure effective that day; the council therefore considered continuations for two operators only.

Votes at a glance:

- Resolution 24‑2025 (continue development agreement for Sundial Collective South at 723 Main Street): motion to adopt; mover: Council Member Strack; second: Council Member Bennett. Roll call: Council Member Clements — Yes; Council Member Strach — Yes; Council Member Herndon — No; Mayor Pro Tem Gonzales — No; Mayor Deiders — Yes. Tally: 3 yes, 2 no. Outcome: approved.

- Resolution 25‑2025 (continue development agreement for Nugg Holdings, storefront at 237 South Main): motion to adopt; mover: Council Member Strachan; second: Council Member Spont. Roll call: Council Member Clannett — Yes; Council Member Strach — Yes; Council Member Herndon — No; Mayor Buenaventura — No; Mayor Deiders — Yes. Tally: 3 yes, 2 no. Outcome: approved.

Council discussion also touched on practical consequences if continuations were denied: staff advised that continuations are an administrative step enabling the businesses to operate under city rules and that deliveries from other jurisdictions would still be available to Red Bluff residents even if local storefronts were prohibited. Staff recommended caution if council sought to change the city’s approach because of potential legal and operational risks, including appeals or impacts to existing permit holders.

Ending: The council approved both continuations by 3–2 votes after extended public comment and legal clarifications; staff will return any required paperwork and continue permitting oversight under the renewed terms. The record includes public concerns about conflict disclosures, a staff explanation of revenue and tax changes, and operator arguments that regulation improves safety.