City Council — April 6, 2026

Retail Cannabis Ballot Measure and Staff Recommendations

• Staff presented three cost options ranging from $25,000 to $90,000 for drafting a ballot measure, noting that a decision is required by June to meet the November filing deadline.
• Regional data indicated declining tax revenues for early adopters due to market saturation, while potential local benefits included estimated annual revenue of $300,000 to $600,000 and job creation.
• The Council rejected the staff's initial recommendations to proceed with a ballot measure or conduct a public opinion survey.
• Motions to place the measure on the November ballot or authorize a survey failed or died for lack of a second, leaving the city's current prohibition on commercial cannabis activities in place.

Agenda Item: Retail Cannabis Ballot Measure and Staff Recommendations

Staff Presentation and Background

• City staff presented a report on the legal framework and market trends regarding retail cannabis in Santa Paula. Staff noted that while California Proposition 64 (2016) legalized adult use statewide, local jurisdictions retain the authority to permit or prohibit commercial cannabis activities. Santa Paula currently prohibits all commercial cannabis activities, except for lab testing, which is not currently operating in the city. A business tax on cannabis was approved in 2018 but has not been implemented due to the absence of local businesses.
• Staff provided data on regional cannabis revenue, indicating a decline in tax revenue for early adopters such as Port Hueneme and Ojai due to market saturation and competition. Port Hueneme’s revenue dropped from a peak of $4 million to a projected $900,000–$1 million, while Ojai’s revenue decreased from $320,000 to $160,000. Staff outlined potential benefits, including tax revenue (estimated at $300,000 to $600,000 annually if adopted), activation of vacant commercial properties, and job creation. Concerns raised included impacts on community character, public safety, youth access, and market volatility. Land use considerations noted that dispensaries are typically located in commercial or industrial districts with minimum distance requirements from schools and community centers.
• Staff presented three options for the Council to consider: 1. Extensive Approach: Hiring a consultant, conducting a public opinion survey, and working with legal experts to draft a ballot measure. Estimated cost: approximately $90,000. 2. Moderate Approach: Hiring a consultant for community outreach and drafting materials without a formal public opinion survey. Estimated cost: approximately $50,000. 3. Basic Approach: Utilizing only the city’s legal counsel to draft ballot language without external consultants or surveys. Estimated cost: approximately $25,000.
• Staff clarified that a decision to place a measure on the November ballot must be made by the Council’s second meeting in June to allow sufficient time for legal drafting and filing. Staff also noted that a simple "yes/no" measure is not legally sufficient; the ballot measure must contain specific ordinance language regarding regulations, such as location buffers and licensing limits.

Public Comment

• Public comment was taken regarding the potential legalization of retail cannabis businesses. Speakers presented arguments both for and against the measure.
• Opposition: Multiple residents expressed opposition to allowing retail marijuana stores. Arguments included concerns about youth access, increased addiction rates, negative impacts on local recovery programs, and potential increases in crime and emergency room visits. Several speakers cited personal experiences with substance abuse or family members affected by addiction. One speaker noted that the city had previously voted to maintain a ban on retail marijuana businesses seven years prior. Another speaker raised concerns about the financial cost of implementing a ballot measure (estimated between $25,000 and $100,000) and questioned the cost-benefit analysis. A resident representing the Santa Paula Ministerial Association urged the Council to protect youth from harmful influences. Another speaker, a child educator, expressed disappointment that the Council was considering spending approximately $100,000 to pursue cannabis stores despite previous citizen opposition.
• Additional speakers cited concerns about dangerous pesticides in illegal products, the normalization of use among youth, and the safety of children near dispensaries, noting that a 500-foot buffer is insufficient.
• One speaker argued that allowing retail marijuana stores could negatively impact Santa Paula’s attractiveness to new families and businesses, noting that more than half of California cities prohibit such businesses.
• A student requested that the Council consider the impact on children and adolescents, urging them to maintain the ban to ensure a safe environment.
• One speaker cited a petition with over 800 signatures collected previously, arguing that the Council should not waste money on a ballot measure and should instead focus on other community issues.
• Another speaker questioned the economic impact studies and cited negative experiences from friends in neighboring cities with dispensaries, requesting that the Council not spend taxpayer money on a ballot measure.
• One speaker referenced a 2019 vote where the Council upheld the ban and cited health concerns regarding THC effects on developing brains, presenting a petition with over 1,400 signatures supporting the ban.
• Another speaker urged the Council to uphold the ban to avoid sending a mixed message to youth and to save money by not proceeding with a survey or ballot measure.
• One speaker shared personal experience with marijuana addiction and requested that the Council prevent the industry from entering the city to protect younger generations.
• Another speaker cited a recent incident in Ojai involving a carjacking linked to a dispensary visit and expressed opposition to bringing retail marijuana to Santa Paula to preserve the town's character and safety.
• A high school student presented statistics on increasing marijuana use among California students and cited studies linking teen marijuana use to mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts.
• One speaker cited a 2023 study linking local policies prohibiting marijuana sales to lower teenage marijuana use and psychotic disorders, and referenced a San Diego County report stating that 38% of suicides among those under 25 involved THC.
• Another speaker shared a personal account of a home burglary attributed by police to drug addicts and criticized smoke shops for not cooperating with law enforcement.
• One speaker representing the Grumbine family reiterated opposition to retail cannabis, citing concerns about the impact on young men and the financial projections.
• Another speaker, a resident of five years, shared a personal experience from a previous city where the opening of a marijuana store was followed by increased car break-ins and a shooting involving a security guard.
• One speaker, identifying as an immigration lawyer, stated opposition to the measure, explaining that under federal law, marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug. The speaker noted that admitting to any use of marijuana renders an individual ineligible for a green card and can lead to denaturalization for those who gained citizenship through misrepresentation, impacting undocumented individuals, mixed-status families, and DACA recipients.
• Support/Regulation: One speaker, a former resident and cannabis industry professional, argued that cannabis already exists in the community and that local regulation would allow the city to capture tax revenue, control the market, and prevent illegal sales. This speaker emphasized that dispensaries have strict age verification (21+) and security measures, and that a ballot measure would allow for a data-driven decision. Another speaker, representing a group of five sons, argued that while they agreed marijuana use in young people has negative impacts, the Council should consider the message sent to youth by legalizing it.
• One speaker argued that the fear surrounding marijuana is similar to historical prohibitions and that adults should have the right to decide via a ballot measure, noting that residents already travel to neighboring cities for legal products like fireworks and alcohol.
• Another speaker challenged the "gateway drug" theory and cited the economic benefits of legal dispensaries, arguing that the issue is about personal choice and democratic will, and suggested that revenue could support local shelters.
• One speaker recommended proceeding with a ballot measure, suggesting that a public poll would be the fairest way to determine community sentiment, and argued that keeping drugs in illegal channels is not a viable solution.
• Speakers argued that cannabis is already available through delivery and the illegal market, and that regulation provides safety, security, and tax revenue. Supporters highlighted the potential for economic development, citing the city’s financial needs and the loss of the local hospital. They emphasized that licensed dispensaries are highly regulated with strict ID checks and security measures, which they argued is safer than the unregulated market. Some speakers noted that surrounding cities have dispensaries and that Santa Paula risks losing business to them.
• Process Concerns: Several speakers raised concerns about the timeline for placing a measure on the ballot, noting that the deadline to submit a resolution to the county is June 29. Questions were raised about the neutrality of the proposed survey firm, with one speaker noting that the firm lists the California Cannabis Association as a client. Another speaker questioned how the consultant was selected and noted that the firm also advocates for the industry.

Council Discussion

• The Council discussed the next steps, including the option of placing a ballot measure on the November ballot. Council members discussed the timeline, noting that a resolution must be authorized by the full Council and submitted to the county by June 29. There was discussion regarding the use of a standing committee versus an ad hoc committee for further deliberation. One Council member expressed concern about the short timeline and the potential for unintended consequences, including the impact on young people’s job applications and immigration status if they disclosed cannabis use. Another Council member questioned the necessity of a survey, suggesting that the Council could make a decision directly.
• The Chair clarified that the Council has the option to recommend not enacting an ordinance, enact an ordinance, or place a measure on the ballot. The Chair noted that if a survey were conducted and results were overwhelmingly negative, the Council could choose not to proceed with a ballot measure. Conversely, if results showed overwhelming support, the Council could consider adopting an ordinance directly. Council Member Chavez asked for clarification on the projected revenue figures, which the staff confirmed were estimates based on regional performance.
• Council members debated the merits of each option. Some members expressed concern about the cost of the survey and the timeline, noting that the decision needed to be made by June. Others argued that putting the measure directly on the ballot would "cement" the decision and prevent future Councils from reversing it, whereas a Council-only decision could be undone by subsequent elections. There was discussion regarding the legal status of cannabis, noting that while legal in California, it remains a Schedule I drug federally, which affects banking and other aspects of the industry.

Motions and Votes

• 1. Motion to Adopt Staff Recommendations 1, 2, and 3:
• A motion was made to adopt staff recommendations 1, 2, and 3.
• Vote Outcome: The motion was put to a vote. The vote was 1 in favor and 4 against.
• Result: The motion failed.
• 2. Motion to Approve Recommendation 1 (Place Measure on Ballot):
• Council Member Chavez moved to approve Recommendation 1, which directs staff to place the cannabis measure on the November ballot.
• Council Member Nelson seconded the motion.
• Vote Outcome: The motion was defeated.
• 3. Motion to Approve Recommendation 2 (Public Opinion Survey):
• The Chair entertained a motion to approve Recommendation 2, which involves authorizing a public opinion survey.
• No member made a motion to approve Recommendation 2.
• Result: The motion died for lack of a second (or lack of a motion, as no one moved it).
• 4. Motion to Approve Recommendation 3 (Grassroots/Other Approach):
• The Chair entertained a motion to approve Recommendation 3.
• No member made a motion to approve Recommendation 3.
• Result: The motion died for lack of a second (or lack of a motion, as no one moved it).

Adjournment

• With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.