Arguments over proposed Costa Mesa cannabis shop reveal pot laws may be too hazy

When Costa Mesa approved an ordinance to allow retail cannabis sales and delivery into the city, lawmakers maintained there would be no way to gauge the success of the legislation until it was put into practice.

Now, two years later and with multiple dispensaries already doing business as dozens more continue to navigate the planning process, Costa Mesa officials are struggling to reconcile the letter of the law with real-world scenarios.

Take, for example, a recent application for a conditional use permit to operate a 2,157-square-foot cannabis storefront in a multi-tenant commercial building on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue.

Dan Zaharoni, chief executive of From the Earth, appeared before the Costa Mesa Planning Commission in a May 22 hearing to explain his business plan and the public benefits it would bring the city.

A STIIZY dispensary on Costa Mesa’s Harbor Boulevard is one-tenth of a mile from a commercial building where another dispensary, From the Earth, was recently denied for being incompatible with the city’s general plan.

(Don Leach / Staff Photographer)

He extolled the virtues of the company, which gives employees the option to unionize and formed a nonprofit foundation that donates 1% of gross revenue to philanthropic groups and causes, particularly youth organizations.

“Our company was born on philanthropy,” he said, describing sending middle-schoolers from Watts to camp and donating 5,000 backpacks to Santa Ana Unified School students. “I can assure you, if we’re given this opportunity to set up a location in Costa Mesa, we’ll be doing the same.”

That was a fact that did not sit well with some commissioners, who questioned a cannabis business’ affiliation with minors and the entities entrusted with their care. The discussion became tense when public speakers, in droves, shared their concerns.

A beauty salon in the building would be forced to move to accommodate the dispensary, while some complained a new cannabis business would take up too much shared parking. Still others said a dispensary already in the same shopping plaza — STIIIZY — was burdening the area with noise and the odor of cannabis.

Although an effort was made by some planning commissioners to move ahead with a staff recommendation to approve the permit, new Commissioner Tim Taber made a substitute motion to deny Zaharoni’s application.

“Technically, while it might fall within the city plan, we need to use what’s in front of us and evaluate operators, and there are too many little things adding up for me to want to accept this application,” Taber reasoned.

From the Earth’s plan, two years in the making, was grounded by a 5-2 vote supporting Taber’s motion. And so, Zaharoni appealed the matter to the City Council, which has so far heard a handful of cannabis cases and each time overturned the Planning Commission’s denial.

In a regular City Council meeting Tuesday, however, Zaharoni met with even more turmoil as council members peppered him with questions raised during the May 22 Planning Commission hearing.

Some council members seemed to take umbrage with the retailer’s affiliation with youth organizations, particularly a portion of Zaharoni’s same presentation that included the logo for local youth athletic organization Costa Mesa United.

“When you used the logo in your first presentation at the Planning Commission, did you have any type of agreement or partnership with them to accept any type of donation?” Councilman Loren Gameros asked.

Zaharoni said he hadn’t but had called the organization’s president and gotten confirmation they did not have a problem with it. He added that he typically includes the names and logos of groups the company would like to support in presentations to other communities.

“The fact that that was considered a bad thing was a little surprising to us,” he said. “We tend to donate to youth-based organizations, we do that all the time. But we don’t mix our brand, we don’t mix our products or operations with young children. That would be inappropriate.”

Mayor John Stephens made a motion to overturn the commission’s denial, stating it would be unconstitutional to deny an applicant based on the voluntary associations youth groups had with a particular business, a fact City Atty. Kimberly Hall Barlow confirmed.

“I don’t see any basis, as a matter of land use, for denying this applicant,” Stephens said. “There’s no question certain people in the community don’t want cannabis. [But] we went through a rigorous process and we voted to have the ordinance, the ordinance is on the books.”

When the question was called, however, only Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Harlan sided with Stephens and, with a 2-5 vote, the Planning Commission decision was upheld.

Barlow reminded the council they would need to point to a finding in the city’s general plan that could not be met to serve as a reason for denying the proposal, and the panel decided the use or intensity of the business would not be in accordance with the general plan, even though STIIIZY was previously allowed in the same complex.

The council was also set Tuesday to have a discussion about whether officials should review, and potentially amend, the city’s retail cannabis ordinance — a request that has been made repeatedly by Councilwoman Andrea Marr and past planning commissioners.

But, as 1 a.m. loomed, the panel decided to adjourn the meeting, effectively continuing that conversation and two other items to a date uncertain.