HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-03-21_Open Session_Item 6_Harrison, Matt_RedactedFrom:Matt Harrison
To:Public Comments
Subject:03/03/2021 - Open Session - Agenda Item No. 6 (CCB Licensing)
Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:46:37 PM
Caution - This email originated from outside the City - Verify that the Email display name and Email address are consistent. - Use caution when opening attachments.
In tonight's update on CCB licensing (Item #6; packet p. 31-49), the city staff report fails to
mention several facts essential for the Council's consideration. While the city intends to grant
any potential new retail licenses based on the original list of applicants from 2019 (p.31), the
staff report does not mention or evaluate any alternative options for the Council, nor does the
report mention the consequences of that likely action. Accordingly, as the attorney for four
(4) such prospective applicants, we write to make the council aware of several important
issues thereof, specifically relating to the license cap, the current scoring system, the litigation,
and the Council's present authority to (finally) resolve all of these issues fairly and equitably.
HdL scoring
The "scoring results" relied on by the City (p. 49) are deficient as a matter of law, and must be
voided or otherwise remedied. They were generated by a prior contractor, HdL, pursuant to a
now-terminated agreement with the City. After terminating its contract with HdL, the City
engaged SCI for cannabis-related audit services. However, SCI's scope of work did not
include application scoring or evaluation. And while the City has already modified the criteria
on which the scoring relies, eliminating several of the most arbitrary factors, it still to date has
not rescored the existing applications. Additionally, the scoring system itself - generally and
the specific results as applied to the listed applicants - are under pending legal challenge in
San Bernardino County Superior Court. (Washington, LLC et al v. City of San
Bernardino, CIVDS1905710; multiple consolidated cases)
Licensing cap
If the City is not willing or able to address the scoring deficiencies, the City has the authority
under the current ordinance to increase - or remove - the cap on retail licenses, whether
independently or as an alternative. The current cap of seventeen (17) retail licenses was
selected by the prior council, pursuant to motions by now-departed Councilmember Nickel
and Mulvihill, and as such, should be reconsidered by the Council to ensure the current policy
and outcomes are consistent with its goals, and as the ordinance specifically requires.
At minimum, we suggest the Council consider setting the retail cap equal to the number of
applications received in the previous cycle (34). That will allow the processing of licenses and
resolution of the litigation, since all participants would be granted a fair opportunity to
demonstrate compliance (as detailed in this evening's staff report.
We respectfully urge the Council to address these issues as soon as possible in order to
provide a fair and equal opportunity for all applicants, support entrepreneurship and job
creation in the City of San Bernardino, create a new legacy of opportunity and prosperity for
all, and finally resolve this needless litigation.
Thank you.
Matt Harrison, Esq.
--
M. Sean Harrison, Esq.
Prometheus Civic Law
This message (including any attachment to this message) is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise legally protected
from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please delete it without saving it and
separately notify the sender. Thank you.