Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Pacific Grove council debates whether to pause cannabis lottery amid ownership stacking concerns
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented an informational memo on storefront cannabis permitting and an upcoming March 30 lottery. Applicant counsel Amara Morrison urged the council to pause or agendize formal deliberation, saying eight of roughly 10 eligible applications appear to share common ownership; a motion to pause was made but ruled improper for an informational item.
The Pacific Grove City Council heard an informational presentation March 4 about the storefront retail cannabis permitting process and an upcoming March 30 lottery, then spent extensive time debating whether the city should investigate overlapping ownership among applicants before proceeding.
Amara Morrison, an attorney with Redwood Public Law and counsel for applicant Nunn Pacific Grove LLC, told the council the city’s memo failed to explain “how the permitting process complies with state law, particularly around the question of various applicants’ ownership interests.” She urged the council to agendize the memorandum for formal deliberation or postpone the lottery so staff and the city’s consultant can explain why common ownership or parent‑company relationships were not treated as disqualifying under the city’s ordinance and the state statute.
“I respectfully request that the council agendize the memo for a full discussion and deliberation at a future council meeting, either before the lottery on March 30 or postpone the lottery until deliberations can occur,” Morrison said.
Councilmember WalkingStick moved to pause the permit award process and to agendize an ordinance to prevent “application stacking,” saying he was prepared to “step on some toes” to make the licensing process fair. Senior Attorney (city counsel) responded that the item was posted as informational only and that taking formal action on it would be improper under the posted agenda.
Staff said the written memorandum was intended as background and that administrative rules and the ordinance — as written and reviewed by special counsel and by the city’s consultant HDL — had been used to vet applicant eligibility. Deputy City Manager Halaby and City Manager Matt Mogensen said staff had responded to FAQs during the application window, including advising applicants that multiple applications on a single property were allowed under current ordinance language.
Council members were divided: some said applicants had followed clear guidance and should be treated equally under the current rules; others said the council should correct an apparent loophole before a permit is awarded. Councilmember Murrell said each application filed under unique LLCs with distinct EINs appears to follow the rules, while WalkingStick and some others said the pattern of related parties filing multiple applications raises fairness questions that deserve policy review.
No formal change to the lottery schedule was made at the meeting. The council accepted the consent agenda earlier in the evening and then treated Item 8a as informational; the senior attorney advised that because it was an informational item a motion to pause would be improper. The council directed staff to provide additional information and to follow up in subsequent memos.
What’s next: the city has scheduled the Phase 3 cannabis lottery for Monday, March 30; the council asked staff to provide a memo that more fully explains how the city evaluated ownership interests and any legal advice the city relied on in concluding the process complies with state law.
Quotes: “We respectfully request that the council agendize the memo for a full discussion and deliberation,” said Amara Morrison, counsel for an applicant. Councilmember WalkingStick said, “I would rather do the right thing and maybe step on some toes than allow the wrong thing to happen and try and clean it all up afterwards.”
Attribution: quotes and attributions in this article are drawn from council meeting remarks and public comment recorded on March 4; direct quotes are attributed to speakers who self‑identified in the transcript or were introduced on the record.
