On Tuesday, April 12, the Signal Hill City Council voted 3-2 against funding a report on California cities that allow cannabis businesses to operate without first getting residents’ approval.
Councilmember Edward Wilson asked the council to consider funding such a report after its Feb. 8 decision not to allow residents to vote on allowing cannabis businesses in Signal Hill—reversing its January decision to add such a measure to the November ballot.
“Cities can approve cannabis if they want,” Wilson said.
City Manager Hannah Shin-Heydorn confirmed that a city can pass an ordinance allowing cannabis operations, but added that it would still need voter approval to collect taxes from such businesses.
In a split vote Tuesday, the council decided not to pay the city attorney an estimated $5,000 to $7,000 to research and report on California cities that have allowed cannabis businesses without a ballot measure.
Wilson and Councilmember Robert Copeland voted in favor of funding the report while Woods, Vice Mayor Tina Hansen and Mayor Keir Jones voted against.
Copeland said he was “willing to keep an open mind” about how and why other cities passed an ordinance allowing cannabis businesses.
Voting against, Woods questioned the amount of time and resources the council and City have already spent pursuing the issue, including financial and zoning analyses.
The narrow zones where cannabis operations would be legally allowed in Signal Hill are a “stone’s throw” from cannabis businesses in the surrounding city of Long Beach, she said.
“This is not a feasible, fiscally responsible or viable option for Signal Hill,” Woods said, adding that moving forward on the topic is “someone’s agenda.”
Wilson responded that the fiscal analysis showed how the City would benefit financially, and that some on the council are “entrenched” in their positions despite what the information shows.
“Not only is it feasible, it’s profitable,” Wilson said. “Cannabis is our future. It’s not going away.”
Though Wilson noted he works in the cannabis industry in Long Beach, he said he doesn’t have a “personal interest” in whether or not Signal Hill has cannabis businesses.
Hansen said she looked at the financial report differently than Wilson, finding in it no guarantee that the City would profit from cannabis businesses. She also said she was “tired of being lectured every single time this comes on the agenda because of having a different point of view.”
Casting the deciding vote, Jones suggested that a report on what other cities do would not necessarily inform a council decision on what to do for its own residents.
“We would need a Signal Hill-specific solution, regardless,” Jones said. “So my vote is no.”
