DEAR WEHO: Staff fudges minutes of Business License Commission meeting

Dear Councilmembers and License Commissioners:

I’m concerned with the commission’s lack of understanding when it comes to transferring ownership and location of a dispensary license.

Recently the request to transfer the license of Zen Healing was approved with no added conditions which makes us assume that all the approved licenses would be transferred over to the new location in San Vicente Blvd. This action is in complete contrast with the city efforts in 2018 when every cannabis applicant had to go through a vigorous application screening. The decision to allow a complete transfer of ownership and location to a new owner is a slap in the face to everyone that went through the tiring application process in 2018.

I would like to also highlight the bold face lie written on the minutes of the previous Commission Meeting, item 9A “new business.” I just rewatched the meeting and in no way, shape or form did commissioners “expressed support” for the Special Event ordinance amendment. It was evident that Staff was completely unprepared and caused more confusion than clarification when responding to commissioner questions. At times, the director seemed to be personally insulted when clarity was requested.

I urge you to watch the commission meeting from last month and compare them to the events noted on the minutes. Staff must be informed that lies cannot take place and the minutes must be adjusted to factual events instead of delusional ones. I hope this is made known during tonight’s meeting.

Yours truly,
Concerned business owner and resident afraid of city retaliation which explains my anonymity

ANALYSIS

Throughout the meeting, commissioners raised numerous questions about the details of the ordinance, reflecting their lack of clarity and understanding. Specifically, they sought explanations about the definitions of “special events” versus “activations,” the impact on businesses (particularly retail spaces), and the extent of exemptions for restaurant buyouts.

Chair Elyse Eisenberg repeatedly questioned whether the exemptions applied to retail spaces and raised concerns about how certain businesses, like Supreme on Sunset Boulevard, would be affected by the proposed changes. Similarly, Vice Chair Anthony Vulin expressed confusion over the difference between special event permits and activations, and Commissioner Jordan Cockeram asked whether businesses could be exempt from the buyout limits, indicating a lack of understanding about how the ordinance would apply in practice.

A major point of confusion was whether retail businesses would be included in the same exemptions being proposed for restaurants. Eisenberg initially asked whether retail could be included as an exemption from special event permit requirements, only to later clarify that this might not be appropriate for all retail businesses.  Several commissioners raised concerns about the implications of exempting restaurants from special event permits for buyouts. Cockeram questioned whether the exemption could lead to businesses exploiting the ordinance to host regular private events without oversight. 

Throughout the meeting, Community Safety Director Danny Rivas emphasized that the commission’s role at this stage was to provide feedback, not to vote on or approve the ordinance amendments. The commission’s role was consultative, and there was no formal expression of collective support for the amendment.