Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press City Council over cannabis fees, social-equity rollout
Summary
Multiple public speakers urged the Los Angeles City Council to halt new licensing rounds and reconsider proposed fee increases for cannabis businesses, citing high costs, processing delays, and calls for audits and temporary licenses.
Public speakers at the Los Angeles City Council’s July meeting urged the council to pause the next round of social-equity cannabis licensing and to reconsider a proposed fee study they say will saddle small operators with higher costs.
Speakers said the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) has not provided enough implementation detail or timing for fees and licensing changes. Christopher Martínez, identified in public comment as a social-equity attorney, told the council that “the DCR has not provided any timeline or documentation to understand how long application reviews will take,” and called for third‑party consultants, clearer contract terms and predictable processing times.
The concerns were echoed by industry representatives. Madison Shockley, introduced as a social-equity operator and co‑chair of a local cannabis business council, said the city must not “bring more licenses into a system that doesn’t work” and supported pausing Round 3 of the city’s social‑equity licensing until process issues are fixed. Luis Rivera, identified as an applicant and social‑equity licensee, asked the council to reject or audit the DCR’s proposed fee study and to consider temporary or transitional licenses for applicants whose approvals are delayed.
Commenters described specific cost and process impacts. Speakers said the proposed study included a fee increase they characterized as 128 percent, and cited application costs they described as roughly $442 and a $2,000 fee to update an owner license; they asked the council to confirm whether those figures are accurate and to identify any past over‑collection for restitution. Shockley and others also raised concerns about what they described as past double taxation and asked for mechanisms to return improperly collected funds to affected businesses.
Council action at the meeting that pertains to the topic was procedural: a proposed modification to agenda item 7 was circulated and Concejala Padilla indicated the item would be continued to June 17, 2025, without protest. Commenters requested additional council steps — audits, temporary licenses, and a pause on new equity awards — but the council did not adopt those requests on the record during the session.
The public comments combined appeals for immediate relief (fee refunds or tax relief), near‑term operational fixes (temporary approvals and process timelines) and longer‑term oversight (independent audits and clearer recovery‑of‑cost methodology). The DCR and council staff were repeatedly asked to provide transparent timelines for application processing and to justify the proposed fee changes.
The public record at this meeting documents the concerns and requests; the transcript does not record a formal council vote to change DCR policy or to restore funds to businesses.
Looking ahead, petitioners asked the council to schedule an audit or independent review before resuming Round 3 of social‑equity licensing or implementing the fee study.
