County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE OPERATIONS ...file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/ceo/agendas/1030996... · Members of the Public may address the Operations Cluster on any agenda

DATE: December 14, 2017 TIME: 1:00 p.m. LOCATION: Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, Room 830

AGENDA

Members of the Public may address the Operations Cluster on any agenda item by submitting a written request prior to the meeting.

Two (2) minutes are allowed for each item.

1. Call to order and introductions – Kieu-Anh King/Gevork Simdjian

(5 minutes)

2. Public Comment (2 minutes each speaker)

3. PRESENTATION ITEMS:

A) Board Letter: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL MEDICAL AND ADULT-USE CANNABIS IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS (15 minutes) CEO – Joseph Nicchitta or designee

B) Board Memo: NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO NEGOTIATE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH SUNPOWER CORPORATION, SYSTEMS (10 minutes) ISD – Scott Minnix or designee

C) Board Letter: ESTABLISH A CONSUMER COUNSELING CALL CENTER IN PARTERNERSHIP WITH CSULB (10 minutes) DCBA – Brian Stiger or designee

D) Board Letter: VARIOUS HALL OF RECORDS CAPITAL PROJECTS (10 minutes) DPW – Mark Pestrella or designee

E) Board Letter: EXECUTE A DAA WITH BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING SERVICES CEO – Gary Gero

SACHI A. HAMAI Chief Executive Officer

County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

OPERATIONS CLUSTER

CONTINUED ON PAGE 2

REVISED

Page 2 of 2

4. CALENDAR FORECAST FOR 12/21/17: (5 minutes)

No Items

5. Adjournment

This letter offers the Board recommendations regarding the regulation of commercial medical and adult-use cannabis in unincorporated areas. These recommendations were developed in response to the Board’s directives on February 7, 2017, and November 7, 2017, and are based on input received by the CEO’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) during its public outreach efforts in Summer 2017, and in consultation with affected County departments.

Targeted for: January 23, 2018 Board Agenda

Recommendation No. 1: Create a new cannabis commission Creation of new, five-member cannabis commission appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

Cannabis Commission Duties and Functions

Quasi-Judicial Oversight and Advisory

• Conduct public hearings and approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application to establish or continue operating a cannabis business.

• Conduct license renewal hearings.

• Conduct license revocation hearings.

• Act as the lead County agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a cannabis business license application.

• Other duties as needed to carry out the commission’s quasi-judicial functions.

• Conduct routine “status hearing” after a cannabis business license has been approved to check on the status of the business, and compliance with conditions and regulations.

• Conduct “corrective action hearings” when a cannabis business has been cited for violating a condition of approval or has received an excessive amount of community complaints.

• Direct the preparation of and review staff reports regarding the effectiveness of cannabis regulations in unincorporated areas, health equity considerations, and unlicensed cannabis business activity, among other cannabis-related issues.

• Recommend cannabis-related policy or ordinance changes to the Board of Supervisors.

• Other duties as needed to carry out the commission’s oversight and advisory functions.

• Add the Treasurer and Tax Collector, the County Agricultural Commissioner, the Fire

Chief, the Health Officer, the Director for Center for Health Equity, and the Director of Regional Planning, or their designees, as advisory, non-voting members of the cannabis commission.

Recommendations No. 10, 11 & 12: Updates to Title 7 (Business Licensing), Analysis of Budget Impacts, and Timeline

• Direct the Treasurer and Tax Collector, in coordination with the CEO and County Counsel, to prepare ordinance amendments to Title 7 of the County Code (Business Licenses) to license and regulate, from a business license perspective, commercial medical and adult-use cannabis businesses;

Page 3 of 76

• Direct the CEO to work with departments to determine the budget impacts of these recommendations and report back in writing to the Board within 120 days on such impacts, including any new necessary staff or resources, including but not limited to software and/or systems’ needs; and

• Direct all affected departments to return to the Board within 120 days with necessary ordinance amendments that implement the above recommendations, for the Board’s consideration.

Taxes Proposition 64 allows the County to impose an excise (gross receipts) tax on cannabis businesses operating within the County. An excise tax would require voter approval. The next regularly scheduled opportunity to place a cannabis tax measure on the ballot is June 5, 2018. The Board would need to approve the tax measure by March 6, 2018. The CEO is finalizing revenue projections and other background activity related to a cannabis tax and expects to report back to the Board in February 2018, should the Board choose to place a tax measure on the June 5, 2018, ballot.

Recommendation No. 3: Cannabis license types

These license types adequately address all commercial cannabis activity allowed under State law, except for outdoor commercial cultivation, which will not be allowed pursuant to Board’s direction on February 7, 2017.

Table 2 Cannabis Licenses for Unincorporated Areas

Activity Recommended County

Licenses Description

Cultivation Cultivation–Indoor Authorizes the cultivation of cannabis in a fully enclosed facility that uses only artificial light.

Manufacturing

Manufacturer–General Authorizes extractions using volatile or nonvolatile solvents and mechanical means, infusion operations, and the packaging and labeling of cannabis products.

Manufacturer–Processor Authorizes the packaging, repackaging, labeling, and relabeling of cannabis products only.

Distribution

Distributor–General

Authorizes the transportation of cannabis and cannabis products between licensed cannabis businesses, storage of cannabis and cannabis products, packaging and labeling of cannabis, and quality control practices, including arranging for the sampling and testing of cannabis and cannabis products by a licensed cannabis testing laboratory.

Distributor–Transporter

Authorizes the transportation of cannabis products between licensed cannabis businesses, except that Distribution-Transporter licensees may not transport cannabis products to retailers other than immature plants and seeds from a cannabis nursery licensed by the State.

Page 4 of 76

Retail

Retail–Store Authorizes the sale of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers at a retail store, and the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers.

Retail–Delivery-Only

Authorizes the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers only. “Delivery-only” retailers will still be required to maintain a physical location from which all deliveries will originate.

Microbusiness Microbusiness–Store Microbusiness–No Store

Authorizes a minimum of three of the following activities on the same premises: (1) cultivation of less than 10,000 square feet of cannabis; (2) manufacturing using nonvolatile or no solvents; (3) distribution; and (4) retail. The three-activity minimum is required by State regulations. A microbusiness proposing to have onsite retail will require a Microbusiness–Store license.

Laboratory Testing

Tester

Authorizes the testing of cannabis and cannabis products for quality and potency, as well as the sampling of cannabis and cannabis products at a distributor’s premises and the transportation of the samples to the testing facility.

Recommendation No. 4: Strategic Licensing Phase-In Maximum of 20 cannabis stores/microbusinesses and 20 delivery-only services in first three years, allocated by supervisorial district based on unincorporated area population. Maximum of 10 cultivators, 10 manufacturers, 10 distributors, and 10 testing laboratories in first three years. In the initial licensing phase, these businesses would not be required to locate in each supervisorial district based on population, as potential development patterns for non-retail businesses are unknown. In addition, many businesses may choose to “vertically integrate” by obtaining multiple cannabis license types (other than a testing laboratory license, which must remain separate), meaning the number of total businesses operating in unincorporated areas may be less than the total number of available licenses. The cannabis commission will be tasked with denying cannabis license applications that will result in undue concentrations or community impacts, along with monitoring development patterns and the effectiveness of regulations. After three years of licensing, the cannabis commission will provide the Board with recommendations to increase or decrease the number of licenses, or keep them the same.

Table 3 Phase-In for Cannabis Stores/Microbusinesses and Delivery-Only

Supervisorial District

Unincorporated Area

Population

% of Unincorporated

Area Population

Max. # of Stores/Micro-

businesses @ 1 per 52,000 pop. (min. one)

Max. # of Delivery-Only @ 1 per

52,000 pop. (min. one)

SD1 267,733 25% 5 5

SD2 262,249 25% 5 5

SD3 21,505 2% 1 1

SD4 222,630 21% 4 4

SD5 295,511 28% 5 5

Total 1,069,628 100% 20 20

Page 5 of 76

Table 4 Phase-In for Non-Retail Cannabis Licenses

Business Type Licenses Included Max. # of Licenses

Cultivation Cultivation – Indoor

10

Manufacturing Manufacturer–General

Manufacturer–Processor 10

Distribution Distributor–General

Distributor–Transporter 10

Laboratory Testing

Tester 10

Total: 40

Recommendation No. 9: Unlicensed cannabis business elimination plan On November 7, 2017, County Counsel provided the Board with a verbal report indicating that new unlicensed cannabis businesses are opening at about the same rate as the District Attorney, Sheriff, and County Counsel are closing existing unlicensed businesses. This phenomenon has been described as “whack-a-mole,” because new cannabis businesses quickly take the place of cannabis businesses that are shut down. Recent experience shows that a more comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. CEO recommends that the Board direct the CEO to collaborate with the Sheriff, District Attorney, County Counsel, Treasurer and Tax Collector, Director of Regional Planning, and Director of Public Health to prepare an unlicensed cannabis business elimination plan that will include, at a minimum, direct enforcement activities (e.g., lawsuits), consumer education campaigns, and legislative policies. As part of plan development, the CEO will work with participating departments to develop a recommendation as to whether current unlicensed cannabis businesses should be allowed to become licensed.

Recommendation No. 2: Finalize a health impact assessment to develop health equity models for cannabis licensing

• Finalize a health impact assessment on health equity impacts of licensing cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas to develop health equity models for licensing

• Require cannabis businesses to mitigate their incremental potential negative health equity impacts according to the recommendations of the health impact assessment.

• Establish a system to monitor community health information as cannabis licensing is implemented, using the health impact assessment as the baseline

Includes a report back to Board within 120 days on other recommended measures to reduce health equity impacts, including establishing a health equity grant program consistent with

Page 6 of 76

directives on November 7, 2017.

Recommendation No. 5: Zoning These recommended zones are consistent with Board’s directives on February 7, 2017. Also consistent with Board’s direction on February 7, 2017, commercial cannabis activity will remain precluded in agriculturally or residentially zoned areas.

Zoning

Retail–Store Retail–Delivery-Only Tester

Cultivation–Indoor Manufacturing–General Manufacturing–Processor Distribution–General Distribution–Transporter Microbusiness–Store Microbusiness–No Store

C-3 (General Commercial) OK Not allowed

C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) OK Not allowed

M-1 (Light Manufacturing) OK OK

M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) OK OK

M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) OK OK

Recommendation No. 6: Buffers from sensitive uses These proposed buffers protect places where children congregate against the impacts of cannabis businesses, and ensure that cannabis stores do not locate close to existing drug or alcohol treatment centers. These buffers also protect communities from an overconcentration of cannabis retailers by ensuring that cannabis stores are located away from other cannabis stores. The buffers additionally address the potential combined impacts from cannabis stores locating near liquor stores by ensuring cannabis stores are located away from places that sell alcohol for offsite consumption. The Department of Regional Planning has prepared maps depicting where cannabis businesses can locate based on recommended zoning and buffering. The maps will be available attached to the draft board letter.

Page 7 of 76

Table 6 Buffers from sensitive uses

Buffers (feet)

Retail–Store Microbusiness-Store

Retail–Delivery-Only Cultivator–Indoor Distributor–General Distributor–Transporter Manufacturer–General Manufacturer–Processor Microbusiness-NoStore Tester

School 1,000 1,000

Day Care 600 600

Public Library 600 600

Public Park 600 600

Alcohol/Drug Rehab 600 None

Other Cannabis Stores and

Microbusinesses

600 None

Alcohol Sales (Off-site) 300 None

Recommendations No. 7 & 8: Equity workshop and cannabis equity review panel

Residents of communities disproportionately criminalized by the “war on drugs” often face steep barriers to entry into the cannabis industry, such as lack of access to information, capital, and experience. Cities such as Oakland and Los Angeles are seeking to reduce such barriers to entry by establishing a cannabis “equity program.” The “equity program” typically defines categories of persons who would qualify for benefits under the program, along with provisions to ensure that “equity applicants” are able to establish a cannabis business and succeed over the long term. The Advisory Working Group strongly recommended that the County follow suit and establish its own cannabis equity program for unincorporated areas. Members of the public at listening sessions echoed the Advisory Working Group’s concerns about equity. The CEO recommends convening a culturally competent public workshop to solicit stakeholder feedback about who should qualify and what types of benefits would exist under such a program. The CEO also recommends that the Board establish a 15-member, Board-appointed cannabis equity review panel, which will be advisory to the Board of Supervisors and the cannabis commission, and will periodically issue public reports on effectiveness of the County’s cannabis

Page 8 of 76

ownership equity program, impacts of cannabis legalization on health equity, and any other equity issues associated with the County’s cannabis-related programs and enforcement of cannabis laws.

Page 9 of 76

DRAFT

“To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service”

January 23, 2018 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors:

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL MEDICAL AND ADULT-USE CANNABIS IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS

(ALL DISTRICTS AFFECTED) (3 VOTES) SUBJECT This letter offers your Board recommendations regarding the regulation of commercial medical and adult-use cannabis in unincorporated areas. These recommendations were developed in response to your Board’s directives on February 7, 2017, and November 7, 2017, and are based on input received by the CEO’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) during its public outreach efforts from May through August 2017. All recommendations reflect the CEO’s close consultation with affected County departments.

JOINT RECOMMENDATION WITH THE DIRECTORS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF REGIONAL PLANNING, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND THE TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR, THAT THE BOARD:

1. Direct the CEO, in coordination with County Counsel, to prepare appropriate

ordinances and take other actions necessary to establish a new five-member, Board-appointed cannabis commission to serve as the primary County agency to hold public hearings and exercise appropriate discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications, among other duties specified below, and direct the CEO to report back in writing within 60 days on a budget and staffing plan for the cannabis commission, including any necessary resources, positions, software and/or systems;

2. Direct the Department of Public Health, in coordination with the CEO, to finalize a

health impact assessment on the health equity impacts of cannabis regulation;


Board of Supervisors

HILDA L. SOLIS First District MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS Second District SHEILA KUEHL Third District JANICE HAHN Fourth District KATHRYN BARGER Fifth District

County of Los Angeles

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1101

http://ceo.lacounty.gov

Page 10 of 76

direct the CEO, in coordination with the Department of Public Health and County Counsel, to prepare appropriate ordinances to require that cannabis businesses applying to locate in an unincorporated area mitigate the businesses’ incremental potential negative health equity impacts, in accordance with recommendations of the health impact assessment; and direct the CEO and the Department of Public Health to report back to the Board within 120 days on other recommended measures to reduce health equity impacts, including but not limited to establishing a health equity grant program;


ordinances to create permits for indoor cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, cannabis stores, cannabis delivery-only services, microbusinesses, and testing laboratories, as specified in greater detail below;


ordinances to implement a strategic phase-in for cannabis permitting in unincorporated areas that will allow a maximum of 20 cannabis stores, with no more than five stores in any one supervisorial district; a maximum of 20 delivery-only services, with no more than five delivery-only services in any one supervisorial district; and a maximum of 10 cultivators, 10 manufacturers, 10 distributors, and 10 testing laboratories countywide;

5. Direct the Department of Regional Planning, in coordination with the CEO and

County Counsel, to prepare an amendment to Title 22 of the County Code (Zoning Code) to implement the recommended zoning detailed below, which will allow cannabis stores, delivery-only services, and testing laboratories in heavy commercial and manufacturing zones; allow all other cannabis business types in manufacturing zones; and prohibit commercial cannabis activity in all other zones, including agricultural and residential zones;

6. Direct the Department of Regional Planning, in coordination with the CEO and

County Counsel, to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Code to require that cannabis stores be located at least 1,000 feet from schools (K-12); 600 feet from day cares (including preschools), public parks, public libraries, drug and alcohol treatment facilities, and other cannabis stores, and 300 feet from offsite alcohol sales such as liquor stores; and require that all other cannabis businesses be located at least 1,000 feet from schools (K-12), and 600 feet from day cares (including preschools), public parks, and public libraries.

7. Direct the CEO to conduct a culturally competent public workshop to obtain

stakeholder feedback on social equity issues related to cannabis legalization, and report back in writing in 120 days with recommendations to establish an equity

Page 11 of 76

program for commercial cannabis that will reduce barriers to ownership and employment in the cannabis industry for people who have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs or who reside in impacted areas identified by the health impact assessment;

8. Direct the CEO, in coordination with County Counsel, to prepare necessary

ordinances to create a 15-member, Board-appointed cannabis equity review panel, which will be advisory to the Board of Supervisors and the cannabis commission, and will periodically issue public reports evaluating the effectiveness of the County’s equity programs, the impacts of cannabis legalization on health equity, and any other equity issues associated with the County’s cannabis-related programs and the civil and criminal enforcement of cannabis laws;

9. Direct the CEO to collaborate with the Sheriff, District Attorney, County Counsel,

Treasurer and Tax Collector, and Director of Public Health to prepare an unlicensed cannabis business elimination plan that will include, at a minimum, planned direct enforcement activities (e.g., lawsuits), consumer education campaigns, and legislative policies, as well as a recommendation whether current unlicensed cannabis businesses should be allowed to become permitted, and provide the plan and recommendation to the Board in writing within 120 days;

10. Direct the Treasurer and Tax Collector, in coordination with the CEO and County

Counsel, to prepare ordinance amendments to Title 7 of the County Code (Business Licenses) to license and regulate, from a business license perspective, commercial medical and adult-use cannabis businesses;

11. Direct the CEO to work with departments to determine the budget impacts of these

recommendations and report back in writing to the Board within 120 days on such impacts, including any new necessary staff or resources, including but not limited to software and/or systems’ needs; and

12. Direct all affected departments to return to the Board within 120 days with

necessary ordinance amendments that implement the above recommendations, for the Board’s consideration.

PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION On February 7, 2017, your Board directed the CEO to coordinate with multiple other departments to prepare regulations to allow and license medical and adult-use cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas, including cultivation, distribution, testing, manufacturing, and retail.

Page 12 of 76

Pursuant to your Board’s directives on February 7, 2017, the OCM conducted extensive outreach to solicit feedback on stakeholder desires and concerns for commercial cannabis regulation. Outreach efforts included the convening of the Advisory Working Group, more than 12 presentations to community groups, town councils, and County commissions, and 20 public workshops (listening sessions) throughout the County to solicit feedback from community members. The CEO published reports documenting the OCM’s outreach efforts in October 2017. These reports are available online at http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/documents-and-reports. On November 7, 2017, your Board directed the CEO to work with County Counsel and the Department of Public Health and its Center for Health Equity to develop a health equity model for commercial cannabis permitting, including a discretionary hearing process for cannabis retailer and phased-in permitting, among other things. The recommendations in this letter respond to your Board’s directives in February and November 2017, and reflect the recommendations provided by the Advisory Working Group, input received from the public, and close consultation with affected County departments, including but not limited to County Counsel, the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Treasurer and Tax Collector, and the Departments of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures, Consumer and Business Affairs, Human Resources, Fire, Public Health, Public Works, and Regional Planning. The following documents are attached to this letter:

• Attachment I: Analysis of Recommendations. Attachment I contains a detailed analysis of, and the justification for, each of the recommendations in this letter. For your Board’s convenience, this letter describes each recommendation in summary form.

• Attachment II: Advisory Working Group Recommendations. In June 2017, the OCM convened the Los Angeles County Advisory Working Group on Cannabis Regulation (Advisory Working Group), a group of experts and stakeholders, to provide advisory direction on cannabis regulations in unincorporated areas. The Advisory Working Group’s recommendations are provided in Attachment II.

• Attachment III: Maps. Attachment III contains maps showing where cannabis businesses would be allowed to locate if the Board adopts these recommendations. These maps are available online at http://planning.lacounty.gov/cannabis/maps.

Page 13 of 76

http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/documents-and-reports/

http://planning.lacounty.gov/cannabis/maps

Recommendation No. 1: Create a new cannabis commission (See Attachment I, pages 3-5, for analysis)

The CEO, jointly with the Department of Regional Planning and the Treasurer and Tax Collector, recommend creating a new, five-member cannabis commission appointed by the Board of Supervisors. This would include:

• Directing the CEO to work with County Counsel to establish the cannabis commission to conduct public hearings on cannabis business applications, advise the Board of Supervisors on the effectiveness of cannabis regulations in unincorporated areas, and recommend cannabis-related policy or ordinance changes to the Board of Supervisors, among the other duties specified in Table 1, below.

• Adding the Treasurer and Tax Collector, the County Agricultural Commissioner, the Fire Chief, the Health Officer, the Director for Center for Health Equity, and the Director of Regional Planning, or their designees, as advisory, non-voting members of the cannabis commission.

Table 1




• Conduct permit renewal hearings.

• Conduct permit revocation hearings.

• Act as the lead County agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a cannabis permit application.


• Conduct routine “status hearing” after a cannabis permit has been approved to check on the status of the business, and compliance with conditions and regulations.


• Direct the preparation of and review staff reports regarding the effectiveness of cannabis regulations in unincorporated areas, health equity considerations, and unpermitted cannabis business activity, among other cannabis-related issues.



Page 14 of 76

Recommendation No. 2: Finalize a health impact assessment to develop health equity models for cannabis permitting

(See Attachment I, pages 5-6, for analysis) The CEO, jointly with the Department of Public Health, recommends that your Board:

• Direct the Department of Public Health to coordinate with the CEO to finalize a health impact assessment1 on the health equity impacts of permitting cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas.

• Direct the CEO to work with the Department of Public Health to utilize the results of the health impact assessment to develop health equity models for commercial cannabis permitting.

• Direct the CEO to work with County Counsel and the Department of Public Health to require cannabis businesses to mitigate their incremental potential negative health equity impacts according to the recommendations of the health impact assessment.

• Direct the CEO and the Department of Public Health to identify data points and establish a system to monitor community health information as cannabis permitting is implemented, using the health impact assessment as the baseline for relevant health conditions and outcomes in unincorporated areas.

In addition, the CEO and the Department of Public Health will report back to your Board within 120 days on other recommended measures to reduce health equity impacts resulting from cannabis permitting, including establishing a health equity grant program consistent with your Board’s directives on November 7, 2017.

Recommendation No. 3: Cannabis permit types

(See Attachment I, pages 7-9, for analysis)

The CEO recommends that your Board implement the permit types identified in Table 2, below, for unincorporated areas. These permit types adequately address all commercial cannabis activity allowed under State law, except for outdoor commercial cultivation,

1 A health impact assessment is a systematic process for assessing the potential impacts of pending policy, program or project decision outside of the traditional health sector on the health of populations and the distribution of those effects within populations. Health impact assessments inform decision-makers by providing recommendations on ways to augment the potential health benefits and/or mitigate the potential harms of proposed programs, projects or policies using a broad conception of health that includes both health outcomes (e.g., diseases, disabilities, conditions) and the social determinants of health (e.g., housing, income, social connections).

Page 15 of 76

which will not be allowed pursuant to your Board’s direction on February 7, 2017.

Table 2 Cannabis Permits for Unincorporated Areas


Permits Description


Manufacturing



Distribution


Authorizes the transportation of cannabis and cannabis products between permitted cannabis businesses, storage of cannabis and cannabis products, packaging and labeling of cannabis, and quality control practices, including arranging for the sampling and testing of cannabis and cannabis products by a permitted cannabis testing laboratory.


Authorizes the transportation of cannabis products between permitted cannabis businesses, except that Distribution-Transporter permittees may not transport cannabis products to retailers other than immature plants and seeds from a cannabis nursery licensed by the State.

Retail

Retail–Store Authorizes the sale of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers at a retail store, and the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers.

Retail–Delivery-Only

Authorizes the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers only. “Delivery-only” retailers will still be required to maintain a physical location from which all deliveries will originate.


Authorizes a minimum of three of the following activities on the same premises: (1) cultivation of less than 10,000 square feet of cannabis; (2) manufacturing using nonvolatile or no solvents; (3) distribution; and (4) retail. The three-activity minimum is required by State regulations. A microbusiness proposing to have onsite retail will require a Microbusiness–Store permit.

Laboratory Testing

Tester


Page 16 of 76

Recommendation No. 4: Strategic Permitting Phase-In (See Attachment I, pages 9-12, for analysis)

In the first three years of cannabis permitting, the CEO recommends permitting a maximum of 20 cannabis stores/microbusinesses and 20 delivery-only services. These permits will be allocated by supervisorial district based on unincorporated area population to ensure equity in availability and siting. Proposed permit allocations are shown in Table 3, below. The CEO also recommends permitting in the first three years a maximum of 10 cultivators, 10 manufacturers, 10 distributors, and 10 testing laboratories, as shown in Table 4, below. In the initial permitting phase, these businesses would not be required to locate in each supervisorial district based on population, as potential development patterns for non-retail businesses are unknown. In addition, many businesses may choose to “vertically integrate” by obtaining multiple cannabis permit types (other than a testing laboratory permit, which must remain separate), meaning the number of total businesses operating in unincorporated areas may be less than the total number of available permits (e.g., one business could hold permits to cultivate, distribute, and manufacture at the same site, rather than having such activity occur at three separate sites by three businesses). The cannabis commission will be tasked with denying cannabis permit applications that will result in undue concentrations or community impacts, along with monitoring development patterns and the effectiveness of regulations. After three years of permitting, the cannabis commission will provide your Board with recommendations to increase or decrease the number of permits, or keep them the same. The Department of Public Health concurs with the proposed initial phase-in and the safeguards in place to ensure that no one community is unduly impacted by cannabis businesses. As stated above, the Department of Public Health’s health impact assessment will inform the cannabis commission’s decision-making on permit applications, including imposing conditions that will mitigate a proposed businesses’ incremental or cumulative impacts to the health outcomes of a community.

Page 17 of 76



Unincorporated Area

Population

% of Unincorporated

Area Population





SD1 267,733 25% 5 5

SD2 262,249 25% 5 5

SD3 21,505 2% 1 1

SD4 222,630 21% 4 4

SD5 295,511 28% 5 5

Total 1,069,628 100% 20 20

Table 4 Phase-In for Non-Retail Cannabis Permits

Business Type Permits Included Max. # of Permits


10





Laboratory Testing

Tester 10

Total: 40

Recommendation No. 5: Zoning

(See Attachment I, pages 13-14, for analysis) The Department of Regional Planning, jointly with the CEO, recommends your Board institute zoning for cannabis businesses as shown in Table 5, below. These recommended zones are consistent with your Board’s directives on February 7, 2017, with respect to zoning and will ensure that cannabis businesses are compatible with the type and scale of surrounding development. Also consistent with your Board’s direction on February 7, 2017, commercial cannabis activity will remain precluded in agriculturally or residentially zoned areas.

Page 18 of 76

Zoning








Recommendation No. 6: Buffers from sensitive uses (See Attachment I, pages 15-18, for analysis)

The Department of Regional Planning, jointly with the CEO, recommends your Board adopt the buffers from sensitive uses shown in Table 6, below. These proposed buffers protect places where children congregate against the impacts of cannabis businesses, and ensure that cannabis stores do not locate close to existing drug or alcohol treatment centers. These buffers also protect communities from an overconcentration of cannabis retailers by ensuring that cannabis stores are located away from other cannabis stores. The buffers additionally address the potential combined impacts from cannabis stores locating near liquor stores by ensuring cannabis stores are located away from places that sell alcohol for offsite consumption. The Department of Regional Planning has prepared maps depicting where cannabis businesses can locate based on recommended zoning and buffering. These maps are attached to this letter and available online at http://planning.lacounty.gov/cannabis/maps.

Page 19 of 76



Buffers (feet)


Retail–Delivery-Only Cultivator–Indoor Distributor–General Distributor–Transporter Manufacturer–General Manufacturer–Processor Microbusiness-No Store Tester

School 1,000 1,000

Day Care 600 600


Public Park 600 600



Microbusinesses

600 None


Recommendations No. 7 & 8: Equity workshop and cannabis equity review panel (See Attachment I, pages 18-20, for analysis)

Residents of communities disproportionately criminalized by the “war on drugs” often face steep barriers to entry into the cannabis industry, such as lack of access to information, capital, and experience. Cities such as Oakland and Los Angeles are seeking to reduce such barriers to entry by establishing a cannabis “equity program.” The “equity program” typically defines categories of persons who would qualify for benefits under the program, along with provisions to ensure that “equity applicants” are able to establish a cannabis business and succeed over the long term. The Advisory Working Group strongly recommended that the County follow suit and establish its own cannabis equity program for unincorporated areas. Members of the public at listening sessions echoed the Advisory Working Group’s concerns about equity.

Page 20 of 76

For these reasons, the CEO recommends that your Board direct the CEO to convene a culturally competent public workshop to solicit stakeholder feedback about who should qualify for benefits under such a program and what types of benefits should be offered. The CEO also recommends that your Board establish a 15-member, Board-appointed cannabis equity review panel, which will be advisory to the Board of Supervisors and the cannabis commission, and will periodically issue public reports evaluating the effectiveness of the County’s cannabis ownership equity program, the impacts of cannabis legalization on health equity, and any other equity issues associated with the County’s cannabis-related programs and the civil and criminal enforcement of cannabis laws.

Recommendation No. 9: Unlicensed cannabis business elimination plan

(See Attachment I, pages 20-21, for analysis) On November 7, 2017, County Counsel provided your Board with a verbal report indicating that new unlicensed cannabis businesses are opening at about the same rate as the District Attorney, Sheriff, and County Counsel are closing existing unlicensed businesses. This phenomenon has been described as “whack-a-mole,” because new cannabis businesses quickly take the place of cannabis businesses that are shut down. Recent experience shows that a more comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. It is therefore recommended that your Board direct the CEO to collaborate with the Sheriff, District Attorney, County Counsel, Treasurer and Tax Collector, Director of Regional Planning, and Director of Public Health to prepare an unlicensed cannabis business elimination plan that will include, at a minimum, direct enforcement activities (e.g., lawsuits), consumer education campaigns, and legislative policies. As part of plan development, the CEO will work with participating departments to develop a recommendation as to whether current unlicensed cannabis businesses should be allowed to become permitted.

Recommendations No. 10, 11 & 12: Updates to Title 7 (Business Licensing),

Analysis of Budget Impacts, and Timeline (See Attachment I, pages 21-22, for analysis)

Should your Board approve the recommendations identified above, it is further recommended that your Board:

• Direct the Treasurer and Tax Collector, in coordination with the CEO and County Counsel, to prepare ordinance amendments to Title 7 of the County Code

Page 21 of 76

(Business Licenses) to license and regulate, from a business license perspective, commercial medical and adult-use cannabis businesses;

• Direct the CEO to work with departments to determine the budget impacts of these recommendations and report back in writing to the Board within 120 days on such impacts, including any new necessary staff or resources, including but not limited to software and/or systems’ needs; and

• Direct all affected departments to return to your Board within 120 days with necessary ordinance amendments that implement the above recommendations, for the Board’s consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING In the long term, costs associated with the activity of the cannabis commission and its staff will be recoverable through application and permit fees paid by cannabis business owners and applicants. In the short term, the CEO will provide your Board within 60 days with a staffing plan for the cannabis commission and identify any new resources which may be required to operate the cannabis commission. In addition, the CEO will work with all affected departments to provide your Board with detailed budgetary impacts within 120 days. At this time, the CEO has preliminarily concluded that most affected departments have existing positions and resources sufficient to implement the above recommendations, with the following exceptions:

• The Department of Public Health has preliminarily identified a need for a chief public health administrator, staff analyst, and chief research analyst to conduct health impact assessments and address issues of health equity in the cannabis context. These positions may not be cost-recovered. The CEO will continue to work with the Department of Public Health to identify new positions and available funding.

• The Treasurer and Tax Collector may need to upgrade case processing and tracking software. Acquisition and implementation costs are estimated at $250,000 to $300,000. Ongoing maintenance and service costs are expected to be cost recovered through licensing fees. The CEO is working with the Treasurer and Tax Collector to finalize software and systems’ needs and associated costs.

• The Sheriff has requested additional deputies to conduct background checks and pre-permitting inspections, and to review security plans submitted by applicants. The CEO is continuing to work with the Sheriff to identify the appropriate number of new deputies based on the permitting phase-in identified above.

Page 22 of 76

In addition, Proposition 64 allows the County to impose an excise (gross receipts) tax on cannabis businesses operating within the County. An excise tax would require voter approval. The next regularly scheduled opportunity to place a cannabis tax measure on the ballot is June 5, 2018. Your Board would need to approve the tax measure by March 6, 2018. The CEO is finalizing revenue projections and other background activity related to a cannabis tax and expects to report back to your Board in February 2018, should your Board wish to place a tax measure on the June 5, 2018, ballot. FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS In November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act), which legalized the possession, use, and cultivation of cannabis by adults age 21 and over within certain quantity limits, and established a regulatory framework for commercial adult-use (recreational) cannabis. On February 7, 2017, your Board adopted a motion directing, among other things, the CEO to work with affected County departments to conduct public outreach and prepare ordinances to allow and regulate commercial cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of medical and adult-use (recreational) cannabis. On November 7, 2017, your Board adopted a motion directing the CEO to collaborate with the Director of Public Health and County Counsel to develop health equity models for cannabis regulation in unincorporated areas. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The recommended actions do not commit the County to undertaking any discretionary project that will result in a physical change in the environment, and therefore do not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (California Code Regulations, title 14, section 15061(b)(3).) In the alternative, CEQA does not apply to the recommended actions because they would establish the discretionary review and approval of permits, licenses, or other authorizations to engage in commercial cannabis activity. (Business & Professional Code section 26055(h).) IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS) The recommendations in this letter would have no direct impact on existing County services or projects. However, should your Board adopt these recommendations, significant work and efforts will be needed to create a new cannabis commission, staff the commission appropriately, and acquire other necessary infrastructure, such as permitting

Page 23 of 76

software. Existing personnel resources may need to be reallocated, and new personnel may be needed. Should you have any questions or concerns about this matter, please contact me or Joseph M. Nicchitta, Cannabis Management Officer, at (213) 974-4530 or [email protected]. Respectfully submitted, Sachi A. Hamai Chief Executive Officer

SAH: JJ:JMN DSK:MT:RF:rld Attachments c: Executive Office, Board of Supervisors County Counsel Assessor District Attorney

Sheriff Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures Alternate Public Defender Consumer and Business Affairs Fire Human Resources Public Defender Public Health Public Works Regional Planning Sherriff Civilian Oversight Commission Treasurer and Tax Collector

Page 24 of 76

mailto:[email protected]

ATTACHMENT I: ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS This Attachment I describes the CEO’s public outreach efforts regarding cannabis legalization and regulation, and provides and analysis of, and justifications for, each of the CEO’s recommendations for regulating commercial medical and adult-use (recreational) cannabis in unincorporated areas.

I. Summary of public outreach efforts

A. Advisory Working Group The CEO’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) convened the Advisory Working Group on June 29, 2017, to prepare recommendations to guide the County’s development of a regulatory program for cannabis in unincorporated areas. Advisory Working Group members represented a diverse range of stakeholders and experts, including public health experts, drug policy experts, academics, drug prevention specialists, cannabis industry representatives, local elected officials, and community stakeholders. Each Board office recommended up to two members to represent its district. The Advisory Working Group met eight times and discussed the following topics:

• June 29, 2017 Kickoff and orientation

• July 20, 2017 Preventing youth access and exposure to cannabis

• July 27, 2017 Public health and safety issues

• August 3, 2017 Regulations for cannabis retailers

• August 10, 2017 Regulations for cannabis cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses

• August 17, 2017 Taxation and economic development

• August 24, 2017 Equity

• August 31, 2017 Consideration and approval of final recommendations The Advisory Working Group approved 64 recommendations, all of which were reached by consensus, meaning that each member present agreed to a recommendation before it was carried forward. Because of the diverse backgrounds, expertise, and priorities of working group members, the consensus process allowed for meaningful discussion, compromise, and recommendations that reflected the interests and viewpoints of every member – not simply the majority. On October 24, 2017, the OCM published a 301-page report detailing the efforts of the Advisory Working Group and its recommendations. The report can be accessed online at http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24-FINAL-AWG-

Recommendations-Report.pdf.

Page 25 of 76

http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24-FINAL-AWG-Recommendations-Report.pdf

http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24-FINAL-AWG-Recommendations-Report.pdf

The Advisory Working Group’s recommendations are discussed in detail below and are attached in full in Attachment II: Advisory Working Group Recommendations. The CEO is continuing to analyze all of the recommendations for potential implementation prior to or during permitting.

B. Public Listening Sessions The OCM convened listening sessions on cannabis regulation throughout the County at locations identified by each Board office. Listening sessions began on July 12, 2017, in Topanga and ended on August 31, 2017, in East Los Angeles. In total, the OCM conducted 20 community listening sessions, including a Spanish-language listening session in East Los Angeles at the request of community members. Listening sessions took place at the following locations:

• First District: La Puente, West Covina, Walnut Park, and three in East Los Angeles

• Second District: Athens/Willowbrook, West Athens/Westmont, Lennox, and Florence-Firestone

• Third District: Topanga Canyon and Santa Monica Mountains/ Calabasas

• Fourth District: South Whittier, Hacienda Heights, West Whittier/ Los Nietos, and Rowland Heights

• Fifth District: Quartz Hill, Altadena, Santa Clarita Valley/Castaic, and Claremont/La Verne/San Dimas

The purpose of the listening sessions was to obtain feedback from the community to inform the development of cannabis regulations for unincorporated areas. Listening sessions were facilitated by professional facilitators to maximize feedback received at each session. Community concerns raised during the listening sessions were recorded by notetakers. In addition, any written comments received by the OCM during a listening session or submitted by mail, email, or through a comment box on the OCM’s website were collected and recorded. On October 25, 2017, the OCM published a 449-page report documenting the results of the community listening sessions. The report is available on the OCM website at http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Public-Listening-Session-

Report.pdf. Community feedback has been incorporated into the CEO’s recommendations, and relevant community concerns are discussed below.

Page 26 of 76

http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Public-Listening-Session-Report.pdf

http://cannabis.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Public-Listening-Session-Report.pdf

II. Analysis of Recommendations

A. Recommendation No. 1: Create a new cannabis commission

1. Background On February 7, 2017, your Board adopted a motion that, among other things, directed the CEO to coordinate with affected County departments to prepare regulations to allow, license, and regulate commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas. On November 7, 2017, your Board adopted a motion that directed, among other things, the CEO and the Department of Public Health to work together to incorporate health equity principles into regulations for cannabis retailers. Your Board specifically identified establishing a discretionary hearing process for cannabis retailers and directed the CEO to identify an existing or new County hearing body to conduct the discretionary review.

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community feedback to establish a discretionary hearing process for cannabis businesses

The Advisory Working Group recommended that the County require cannabis businesses, including retailers, cultivators, and manufacturers, to obtain a discretionary entitlement after a public hearing. (See Attachment II, Recommendations No. 32, 41, 49.) Although the Advisory Working Group did not provide a recommendation about which County hearing body should conduct such a hearing and discretionary review, the Advisory Working Group did emphasize that the process should allow for community participation and take into account potential negative impacts from cannabis businesses, including negative community health consequences that could arise from the overconcentration of cannabis businesses and quality-of-life impacts. The CEO also received numerous comments during listening sessions that cannabis businesses should be required to obtain a conditional use permit or undergo a public hearing prior to be allowed to operate. In East Los Angeles, for example, the local chamber of commerce provided extensive commentary about the need to require a discretionary permit process to ensure responsible business development and community input. Furthermore, while not all agreed that cannabis businesses should be allowed in their communities, people tended to agree that cannabis businesses should positively contribute to the physical and economic health of the communities where they locate. Listening session participants shared a desire to have input on where and what businesses locate in their community.

Page 27 of 76

3. Justification for creating a new cannabis commission Beginning in January 2018, permitted commercial cannabis businesses will be extensively regulated under a complex scheme of state and local regulations. Cannabis permitting presents unique challenges for local jurisdictions. Regulators and officials considering cannabis business applications must be deeply familiar with applicable regulations, understand the commercial cannabis supply chain, and should expect to closely monitor the local cannabis industry and adjust ordinances and regulations to meet the changing market. In addition, your Board has directed the creation of a health equity model for cannabis retail permitting. Merging principles of health equity into the cannabis permitting process represents a profound and positive change in how the County assesses impacts and mitigation in unincorporated communities. Because of these unique challenges and the opportunity to create a new and dynamic process for cannabis permitting that takes into account indices of health and community wellbeing, the CEO, jointly with the Department of Regional Planning and the Treasurer and Tax Collector, recommends creating a new, five-member cannabis commission appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The CEO recommends that, prior to service, cannabis commissioners participate in a mandatory orientation regarding State and local cannabis laws, the operation of cannabis businesses, health impacts, and equity issues as they relate to cannabis legalization and commercial cannabis businesses, and other pertinent topics. Furthermore, to provide cannabis commissioners with the necessary expert advice and counsel to carry out their duties, the CEO recommends that the following advisory (non-voting) members or their designees be assigned to the commission:

• The Treasurer and Tax Collector;

• The Director of the Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures;

• The County Fire Chief;

• The County Health Officer;

• The Director of the Center for Health Equity; and

• The Director of Regional Planning.

4. Cannabis commission’s duties

Consistent with your Board’s directives, the Advisory Working Group’s recommendations, and community feedback, the cannabis commission will principally serve in a quasi-judicial capacity (i.e., as a hearing body) to conduct public hearings and approve, conditionally approve, or deny cannabis permit applications. The cannabis commission will also act as an oversight and monitoring body, and will be advisory to the Board of Supervisors on issues related to cannabis. A summary of some of the cannabis commission’s key duties are provided in Table 1, below.

Page 28 of 76

Table 1




• Conduct permit renewal hearings.

• Conduct permit revocation hearings.

• Act as the lead County agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a cannabis permit application.


• Conduct routine “status hearing” after a cannabis permit has been approved to check on the status of the business, and compliance with conditions and regulations.


• Direct the preparation of and review staff reports regarding the effectiveness of cannabis regulations in unincorporated areas, health equity considerations, and unlicensed cannabis business activity, among other cannabis-related issues.



B. Recommendation No. 2: Conduct a health impact assessment to

develop health equity models for cannabis permitting

1. Background

On November 7, 2017, your Board adopted a motion requiring that cannabis regulations for unincorporated areas include health equity models to empower a County hearing body to conditionally approve or deny an application for a cannabis business, especially if the business will cause incremental impacts to community health.

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community feedback on health equity

The Advisory Working Group recognized the need to address potential impacts in communities already struggling with high crime, blight, and other issues. (See Attachment II, Recommendations No. 32 and 49.) At listening sessions, the CEO received many comments from residents who were concerned about the effects that cannabis retailers would have in their communities. Of those who expressed concerns, they tended to describe concerns about long term community health and wellbeing, such as whether cannabis retail will make existing conditions worse in neighborhoods with relatively high crime, high concentrations of alcohol outlets, and other negative health indicators, and whether commercial cannabis

Page 29 of 76

will increase youth consumption and the negative outcomes that are associated with recreational cannabis use by young people.

3. A health impact assessment will inform the development of regulations for cannabis retailers

Consistent with your Board’s directive on November 7, 2017, and the concerns identified by the Advisory Working Group and community members at public listening sessions, the CEO, jointly with the Director of Public Health, recommends that your Board direct the Department of Public Health to conduct a health impact assessment that will inform the development of regulations for cannabis retailers and other cannabis businesses. A health impact assessment is a systematic process for assessing the potential impacts of pending policy, program or project decision outside of the traditional health sector on the health of populations and the distribution of those effects within populations. Health impact assessments inform decision-makers by providing recommendations on ways to augment the potential health benefits and/or mitigate the potential harms of proposed programs, projects or policies using a broad conception of health that includes both health outcomes (e.g., diseases, disabilities, conditions) and the social determinants of health (e.g., housing, income, social connections). The health impact assessment conducted by the Department of Public Health will become a foundational tool for the cannabis commission as it considers whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny cannabis permit applications. For example, based on the results of the health impact assessment, cannabis businesses may be required to mitigate their incremental impacts to community health. Mitigation could include, for example, changes to the way a cannabis business proposes to operate, funding after-school programming or job training, providing community benefits such as local or targeted worker hire, transformational public art, or other community reinvestment. Whether and to what extent a business will be required to mitigate impacts will depend on the outcome of the health impact assessment and the type, scale, and location of the proposed cannabis business. Mitigation must be based on the proposed business’ incremental or cumulative impacts. Due process prevents the County from requiring that a proposed business owner correct societal ills not directly or indirectly caused by the business.

4. Monitoring

Your Board’s November 7, 2017, motion emphasized the need to monitor the effects of commercial cannabis licensure in unincorporated areas. The health impact assessment will establish a baseline for relevant health conditions in unincorporated areas. Changes to health outcomes will be measured against this baseline over time to understand the effects that licensure is having on unincorporated areas. The CEO will work with the Department of Public Health to identify data points and establish a data collection and monitoring program to track necessary community health information.

Page 30 of 76

C. Recommendation No. 3: Cannabis permit types

1. Background

On February 7, 2017, your Board directed the CEO to coordinate with affected County departments to prepare ordinances to “allow, license, and appropriately regulate and enforce the cultivation, transportation, distribution, processing, manufacturing, testing, retail sale, and delivery of medical and commercial (recreational) cannabis in unincorporated County areas.” To implement your Board’s directive, the CEO has analyzed applicable State law and regulations and worked with other County departments to identify and define the appropriate local permits necessary to establish a cannabis business in unincorporated areas.

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community

feedback on cannabis permit types The Advisory Working Group generally recommended that all types of commercial cannabis activity be allowed in unincorporated areas. Specific recommendations encouraged the County to offer microbusiness permits and small-scale cultivator permits to encourage local ownership, small businesses, and urban agriculture opportunities. (See Attachment II, Recommendations No. 42, 43, 47.) Community members at listening sessions offered varying comments about the types of commercial cannabis activity that should be allowed in unincorporated County. As mentioned above, community members were primarily concerned about cannabis stores. Some community members also raised concerns about potential explosion dangers associated with some cannabis manufacturers’ use of volatile solvents, such as butane, to extract concentrated cannabis from cannabis plant material. Finally, some individuals encouraged the County to issue microbusiness and other small-scale permits to encourage local ownership and small businesses. In addition, the Advisory Working Group recommended the Board of Supervisors reevaluate its February 7, 2017, directive precluding outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 43.) Many residents at listening sessions also stated the County should allow outdoor commercial cultivation in agricultural areas. Other residents were concerned about outdoor commercial cultivation, especially near sensitive environmental areas and in mountain areas where runoff and pesticides could damage the environment.

3. Recommended cannabis permit types for unincorporated areas California law requires that persons applying to operate a commercial cannabis business obtain a State license and any local licenses, permits, or other authorizations prior to operating the business. For unincorporated areas, the CEO recommends that your Board implement permit types for commercial cannabis in Table 2, below.

Page 31 of 76

As noted above, some community members raised concerns about potential explosions at cannabis manufacturing utilizing volatile solvents, such as butane. While explosions resulting from improper butane extraction occur regularly throughout the County, these explosions have been associated with amateur “DIY” extractions in places like garages, homes, motels, and recreational vehicles, or were related to equipment not inspected for compliance with building or fire code requirements. According to the County Fire Department, well-regulated and inspected extraction equipment that complies with applicable Building and Fire Code provisions poses no greater explosion danger than other common food manufacturing processes that use volatile solvents, such as essential oil extraction from herbs and other plants. The CEO also received many public comments to create small-scale permits to encourage small businesses and local ownership. The permit types recommended above are based on the type of cannabis activity, not the scale of activity, and neither incentivize nor limit small business or local ownership. That said, considering the proposed strategic phase-in described in this letter which will limit the initial number of cannabis permits, fostering local and small cannabis businesses is better achieved in the short term by offering incentives or priority permitting to those businesses. The CEO is continuing to analyze Advisory Working Group recommendations regarding incentivizing local ownership and small businesses, along with other potential economic development that cannabis permitting could create, and will consider whether to include applicable incentives or priority permitting strategies into its permit application processes.



Permits Description


Manufacturing



Distribution


Authorizes the transportation of cannabis and cannabis products between permitted cannabis businesses, storage of cannabis and cannabis products, packaging and labeling of cannabis, and quality control practices, including arranging for the sampling and testing of cannabis and cannabis products by a permitted cannabis testing laboratory.


Authorizes the transportation of cannabis products between permitted cannabis businesses, except that Distribution-Transporter permittees may not transport cannabis products to retailers other than immature plants and seeds from a cannabis nursery licensed by the State.

Retail Retail–Store

Authorizes the sale of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers at a retail store, and the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers.

Retail–Delivery-Only Authorizes the delivery of cannabis and cannabis products to consumers only. “Delivery-only” retailers will still be required to

Page 32 of 76



Permits Description

maintain a physical location from which all deliveries will originate.


Authorizes a minimum of three of the following activities on the same premises: (1) cultivation of less than 10,000 square feet of cannabis; (2) manufacturing using nonvolatile or no solvents; (3) distribution; and (4) retail. The three-activity minimum is required by State regulations. A microbusiness proposing to have onsite retail will require a Microbusiness–Store permit.

Laboratory Testing

Tester


D. Recommendation No. 4: Strategic Permitting Phase-In

1. Background On November 7, 2017, your Board directed, among other things, that the CEO collaborate with the Director of the Public Health and County Counsel to develop a “[s]trategic phased-in licensing scheme for cannabis businesses that will balance the need for a precautionary approach to licensing with the need to reduce illicit and unregulated cannabis products and businesses.” Your Board also directed that the phased-in licensing scheme should incorporate “appropriate monitoring and assessment of overall community impacts” and “the efficacy of the County’s cannabis regulations[.]”

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community

feedback on phasing-in cannabis permitting The Advisory Working Group did not recommend phasing in cannabis permitting. However, many community members, in particular, at listening sessions in East Los Angeles, stated the County should not permit cannabis businesses until all illegal cannabis businesses have been closed. While it is understandable for residents to request the closure of illegal businesses prior to the start of cannabis permitting, unlicensed cannabis businesses operate at substantial profit because no critical mass of permitted competition exists. Through a strategic phase-in, the County can increase its permitted cannabis industry over time while decreasing the profitability of unlicensed stores and along with closure efforts, eliminating the incentive to operate in unincorporated areas.

3. Determining the number of cannabis stores and delivery-only services in the first phase of permitting

Page 33 of 76

For at least the past several years, unlicensed cannabis stores have been operating in unincorporated areas and in cities, despite laws prohibiting such businesses. The total number of unlicensed stores operating in unincorporated areas is unknown and fluctuates. In April 2017, County Counsel provided your Board with a report identifying 75 unlicensed stores. On November 7, 2017, County Counsel confirmed in a verbal presentation to your Board that it was aware of 77 unlicensed stores in unincorporated areas. County Counsel reported that, while 29 unlicensed stores had been closed between April and November 2017, 31 new unlicensed stores had opened. For the purposes of developing a permitting phase-in, the CEO assumes that demand for cannabis will support at least 77 cannabis stores in unincorporated areas. The number of existing unlicensed stores provides perhaps the best estimate available at this time to predict how many legal cannabis stores are needed to eliminate all unlicensed stores over time. Because cannabis stores have been identified as having the greatest street-level and community impacts, the CEO proposes to permit a maximum of 20 cannabis stores in the first three years of permitting. This represents approximately one-quarter of the number of unlicensed stores currently operating in unincorporated areas. In addition, to prevent permittees from concentrating in any one community, these 20 permits would be spread across the County based on unincorporated area population, as described in Table 3, below. In addition to unlicensed cannabis stores, a review of cannabis business listings such as those on the website Weedmaps.com shows that unlicensed cannabis delivery services proliferate across Los Angeles County. In order to combat these unlicensed delivery businesses, the CEO also recommends allowing a maximum of 20 delivery-only retail permits in the first three years of permitting, distributed by unincorporated area as described in Table 3, below. It bears noting that permitted delivery-only retailers are expected to pose fewer community and health impacts than permitted cannabis stores because delivery-only services do not sell to customers onsite, are frequently located in unmarked facilities in industrial or heavy commercial areas, and tend not to attract nuisance activities such as loitering, smoking, and other activity. Many analysts also believe that consumers will increasingly prefer cannabis delivery over shopping at cannabis stores, and a failure to permit cannabis delivery services is likely to incentivize the continued operation of illegal delivery services.

4. Ensuring that the siting of cannabis retailers and delivery services is equitable

To prevent overconcentration and ensure equity in siting and availability, the CEO proposes to distribute cannabis store/microbusiness and delivery-only permits by supervisorial district based on unincorporated area population. Supervisorial districts would have at least one potential store and delivery-only retail permit, but could have no more than one such permit per 52,000 unincorporated area residents. The following chart identifies the retail development potential in each supervisorial district:

Page 34 of 76

As an additional means to ensure equity in siting, the cannabis commission will be empowered to consider countywide development patterns for cannabis stores, microbusinesses, and delivery services, and ensure that siting is geographically equitable across a supervisorial district and the County as a whole.



Unincorporated Area

Population

% of Unincorporated

Area Population





SD1 267,733 25% 5 5

SD2 262,249 25% 5 5

SD3 21,505 2% 1 1

SD4 222,630 21% 4 4

SD5 295,511 28% 5 5

Total 1,069,628 100% 20 20

*Source: 2017 ESRI population estimates.

5. Recommended phase-in for non-retail permits The CEO has been unable obtain accurate estimates of the number of non-retail cannabis businesses operating in unincorporated areas. In discussions with the City of Long Beach (approximately 470,000 residents), which has begun issuing licenses to medical cannabis businesses, city officials verified receiving 40 medical cannabis cultivator applications, five medical cannabis distributor applications, 19 medical cannabis manufacturer applications, and two medical cannabis testing laboratory applications. Long Beach has not yet started licensing adult-use (recreational) cannabis businesses. In addition, in 2016, the California Department of Food and Agriculture issued the results of a survey conducted as part of its environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The survey shows that over 1,400 survey respondents were interested in opening a cultivation business in Los Angeles County as a whole; over 270 were interested in opening a manufacturing business; 300 were interested in opening a distribution business; and over 80 were interested in opening a testing laboratory. These statistics, while not determinative of how many applications the County would receive, indicate that interest in establishing a non-retail cannabis businesses is substantial. Because it is difficult to predict the total number of non-retail businesses that would locate in unincorporated areas and the collective impacts that could occur from these businesses, the OCM recommends starting with a relatively conservative approach to

Page 35 of 76

non-retail permitting. The CEO recommends allowing a maximum 10 permits per business type in the first three years, as explained in Table 4, below. The number of permits can be adjusted after the initial permitting phase based on data collected about the development patterns of non-retail businesses. It is important to note that a business can be “vertically integrated” under State law and regulation, meaning it can obtain multiple license types (other than a testing laboratory license, which must remain separate). For this reason, the number of total businesses operating in unincorporated areas may be less than the total number of available permits, should a single business obtain two or more permit types (e.g., a business could obtain permits to cultivate, distribute, and manufacture at the same site). The CEO does not recommend distributing non-retail businesses by supervisorial district at this time because of the lack of reliable information about where such businesses will tend to locate, and whether and to what extent they will vertically integrate. The cannabis commission will be empowered to ensure that the siting of non-retail cannabis businesses is equitable across supervisorial districts and the County as a whole. Once development patterns for non-retail businesses become apparent after permitting begins, recommendations about geographic distribution and permit limits can be developed and provided to your Board for your consideration.

Table 4 Phase-In for Non-Retail Cannabis Permits

Business Type Permits Included Max. # of Permits


10





Laboratory Testing

Tester 10

Total: 40

6. Monitoring after initial permitting phase The demand for a cannabis business permit in unincorporated areas will be closely monitored after permitting begins, as will the unlicensed cannabis market, health equity impacts pursuant to the health impact assessment described above, and other key indicators relevant to the number and types of cannabis permits the County offers. The cannabis commission will be tasked with reviewing these indicators in the third year of permitting and making recommendations to your Board about whether to adjust the number or types of cannabis permits in future years.

Page 36 of 76

E. Recommendation No. 5: Zoning

1. Background

On February 7, 2017, your Board directed the Director of Regional Planning to identify appropriate zones for cannabis businesses in unincorporated County areas. Your Board specified that cannabis retail and testing should be restricted to heavy commercial and manufacturing zones, and that all other cannabis uses should be restricted to manufacturing zones.

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community feedback on zoning for cannabis businesses

The Advisory Working Group did not offer a recommendation regarding applicable zoning, but indicated that cannabis retail would be appropriate in commercial and manufacturing zones if allowed through a discretionary hearing process. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 32.) Public comments received at listening sessions reflected conflicting views on where cannabis businesses should locate. With respect to cannabis stores, for example, many community members stated that cannabis stores should be treated like liquor stores, which are allowed in commercial zones. Other community members were concerned about having ready access to a cannabis store, especially those who use cannabis for medical reasons. On the other hand, many community members stated that cannabis stores should be relegated to industrial areas, far away from homes and commercial corridors. These commenters tended to live in areas heavily impacted by unlicensed dispensaries which tend to cluster in commercial areas. With respect to non-retail cannabis businesses, most commenters agreed that these businesses should be in industrial areas, although, as noted above, many also commented that cannabis cultivation and other commercial cannabis activity should be allowed in agricultural zones.

3. Recommended zoning Consistent with your Board’s direction, the Director of Regional Planning, jointly with the CEO, recommends your Board direct Regional Planning to institute the zoning for cannabis businesses identified in Table 5, below. These recommended zones will ensure that cannabis businesses are compatible with the type and scale of surrounding development. As noted above, commenters in communities hardest hit by unlicensed commercial cannabis activity raised concerns about cannabis stores locating in commercial areas. Allowing permitted retailers in heavy commercial areas will provide consumers with a legal option to purchase cannabis where they are used to shopping (unlicensed stores

Page 37 of 76

tend to cluster in commercial areas) and make it easier for medical cannabis patients to access a permitted store. Ultimately, permitted stores are expected to push out unlicensed stores over time, helping communities presently dealing with unlicensed activity. Moreover, unlike unlicensed operators, stores granted a permit by the cannabis commission will be required to comply with strict regulations that ensure the store’s compatibility with surrounding businesses. Permitted stores will also be unable under applicable County rules to concentrate in any one community.

Zoning








4. No commercial cannabis activity in agricultural or residential zones

Consistent with your Board’s direction on February 7, 2017, commercial cannabis activity will remain precluded in agriculturally or residentially zoned areas.

5. Regional Planning Commission consideration

If your Board approves this recommendation, the Department of Regional Planning will work with the CEO and County Counsel to amend the Zoning Code accordingly. The Zoning Code amendment is subject to public hearing and review by the Regional Planning Commission, which will provide your Board with a recommendation to adopt, modify, or decline to adopt the amendment. It is expected that this process will be completed within 120 days.

Page 38 of 76

F. Recommendation No. 6: Buffers from sensitive uses

1. Background

Under State law, a cannabis business must be located 600 feet from schools (K-12), licensed day cares (including preschools), and “youth centers.” These distances are default distances only, and State law allows cities and counties to increase or eliminate these distances. Cities and counties are also free to identify additional sensitive uses and set buffers between those uses and cannabis businesses.

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community feedback regarding buffers

The question of buffers was perhaps the most hotly debated issue at the Advisory Working Group and at listening sessions in all areas of the County. Most of this discussion focused on where cannabis stores should be allowed to locate. During listening sessions, concerned community members tended to worry that cannabis stores would be a blighting effect on the community, causing loitering and other quality of life issues, increase crime, and providing a place for neighborhood youth to buy cannabis. Community members identified a wide range of sensitive uses and suggested buffering distances of up to several miles. Suggested sensitive uses included schools, day cares, parks, libraries, places of worship, senior housing, and homes. Advisory Working Group members, many of whom attended multiple listening sessions and heard community concerns, extensively discussed appropriate buffers for cannabis stores. Members strongly agreed that cannabis stores should be located away from places where youth congregate, such as schools. However, some members were also concerned that very large buffer distances and an expansive list of sensitive uses could result in a de facto ban on cannabis businesses. Advisory Working Group members ultimately reached consensus on increasing State buffers from schools, preserving buffers from day cares and youth centers, and considering new buffers from public parks, public libraries, and youth drug and alcohol treatment centers, among other things. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 40.) The Advisory Working Group also recommended that a variance procedure be available to allow reduced buffers in exceptional cases, and asked that the County publish a map showing the development potential for cannabis businesses prior to adopting any buffer distances. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 40.) Regarding non-retail cannabis uses, some community members stated that all cannabis businesses should be located away from schools. Others were concerned about potential explosions at cannabis manufacturing facilities and asked that these businesses be located far away from homes.

Page 39 of 76

The Advisory Working Group did not offer a recommendation regarding buffering non-retail cannabis businesses from sensitive uses.

3. Recommended buffers Establishing appropriate buffers for cannabis businesses is challenging. Acknowledging many community members’ desires for very large buffer areas, the Department of Regional Planning studied large buffer distances from uses such as schools, parks, and libraries. Regional Planning also considered buffers from very common uses such as residential areas and places of worship. The analysis revealed that large buffers and buffers from very common uses either resulted in a de facto ban on cannabis businesses, or concentrated uses in industrial and industrial-adjacent areas, which tend to be lower income neighborhoods in the First and Second Supervisorial Districts, and in the Antelope Valley in the Fifth Supervisorial District, where properties tend to be relatively large and spread apart. In the end, the buffer recommendations of the Advisory Working Group served as a useful starting point that balanced community concerns while avoiding unintended consequences of concentrating impacts in lower income neighborhoods and the Antelope Valley. For this reason, the Department of Regional Planning, jointly with the CEO, recommends your Board adopt the buffers for cannabis stores set forth in the Advisory Working Group’s Recommendation No. 40, with several modifications to incorporate residents’ concerns and other important policies.

• First, your Board should buffer cannabis stores from all drug and alcohol treatment centers as a matter of public policy, so as not to unduly interfere with the treatment of individuals living in those facilities. The Advisory Working Group recommended that the County evaluate buffering drug and alcohol treatment centers that served youth.

• Second, your Board should establish a buffer between cannabis stores to prevent an overconcentration of stores in any one area.

• Third, your Board should set a buffer between cannabis stores and offsite alcohol sales, such as liquor stores, to prevent a combined concentration of cannabis and alcohol retailers in the same area.

• Fourth, your Board should eliminate buffers from “youth centers,” which are vaguely defined under State law and difficult to identify in practice.1 Public parks and libraries, along with schools, serve as appropriate proxies for

1 Health and Safety Code section 11353.1(e)(2) defines a “youth center” as “any public or private facility that is primarily used to host recreational or social activities for minors, including, but not limited to, private youth membership organizations or clubs, social service teenage club facilities, video arcades, or similar amusement park facilities.”

Page 40 of 76

“youth centers” and ensure that cannabis stores do not locate too close to places where youth commonly congregate.

• Finally, microbusinesses with a retail store onsite should be subject to the same buffers as cannabis retail stores generally.

For cannabis delivery-only retailers and non-retail businesses, the Department of Regional Planning, jointly with CEO, recommends that your Board require such businesses to be buffered from schools, day cares, and public parks and libraries only. Because delivery-only retailers and non-retail businesses do not serve customers onsite and tend to have fewer impacts than cannabis stores, fewer buffers from sensitive uses and no buffer between businesses are needed to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Recommended buffers are represented in Table 6, below. If your Board approves this recommendation, the Department of Regional Planning will include these buffer distances in the Zoning Code amendment described above.


Buffers (feet)


Retail–Delivery-Only Cultivator–Indoor Distributor–General Distributor–Transporter Manufacturer–General Manufacturer–Processor Microbusiness-NoStore Tester

School 1,000 1,000

Day Care 600 600


Public Park 600 600



Microbusinesses

600 None


Page 41 of 76

4. Maps showing commercial cannabis development potential Consistent with the Advisory Working Group’s Recommendation No. 40, Regional Planning has prepared maps depicting where cannabis businesses can locate based on recommended zoning and buffering. These maps are attached as Attachment III to this letter and available online at http://planning.lacounty.gov/cannabis/maps. Also consistent with the Advisory Working Group’s recommendation, the online versions of these maps show underlying demographic data.

5. The Zoning Code allows variances to reduce buffer distances As explained above, the Advisory Working Group recommended that prospective cannabis business operators be allowed to apply for a variance to reduce or eliminate the recommended buffers. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 40.) The Zoning Code already contains a variance procedure based on State law that expressly allows applicants for a variance to reduce or eliminate buffer distances. (County Code section 22.56.260.J.) The burden of proof for a variance is substantial. The applicant must demonstrate that because of “special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property, the strict application of the [zoning] code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.” (County Code section 22.56.290.A.) A variance must be granted by the Regional Planning Commission following a public hearing, and must be based on geographic factors specific to the property at issue, not the desires of the property owner or the community.

G. Recommendations No. 7 and 8: Equity workshop and cannabis equity

review panel

1. Background

For many, cannabis legalization is a matter of social justice and is necessary to end historical and present day disparate impacts to poor communities and communities of color from the “war on drugs.” Proposition 64, approved by California voters in November 2016, recognized these principles of social justice by legalizing the use, transportation, and possession of cannabis by adults age 21 and over (within certain quantity limits), and by providing those convicted of cannabis offenses that are now either legal or carry lesser penalties the opportunity to have their sentences reduced or their conviction records destroyed. Proposition 64 also set aside up to $50 million annually in cannabis tax revenue for program grants “for communities disproportionately affected by past federal and state drug policies.” (Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code section 34019(d).) However, concerns about the disparate enforcement of drug laws persist post-cannabis legalization. For example, adult-use (recreational) cannabis became legal in Colorado in 2014. Since then, the overall number of cannabis arrests has plummeted by over 80

Page 42 of 76


percent.2 Despite falling arrest rates, data from 2015 show that people of color are still approximately 2.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a cannabis offense.3 Additionally, many are concerned that poor and minority communities will be left behind by the cannabis “green rush,” as individuals in those communities generally have less access to capital and other resources.4

2. Advisory Working Group recommendations and community feedback regarding equity in ownership and employment

The Advisory Working Group flagged concerns regarding barriers to owning a cannabis business and employment in the cannabis industry, and offered two detailed recommendations on addressing such barriers. The Advisory Working Group recommended establishing a cannabis ownership and equity program that would reduce barriers to entry into the cannabis market for those living in communities hardest hit by the “war on drugs.” (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 62.) The Advisory Working Group also recommended creating an equity review panel to monitor and advise your Board on equity issues across all aspects of cannabis legalization. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 64.) Equity issues were also raised across all listening sessions countywide. Residents highlighted the need for equitable cannabis business ownership opportunities, especially at listening sessions in West Athens/Westmont, East Los Angeles, South Whittier, and West Whittier/Los Nietos. Suggested strategies included providing start-up capital, education resources, job training, and technical support to cannabis permit applicants. Many community members expressed the additional concern that cannabis legalization not further the disparate impacts caused by the “war on drugs,” but become an opportunity to reduce disparities. In communities most affected, participants asked that cannabis tax revenue be used to support reentry programs for the formerly incarcerated, expungement clinics, and to assist the formerly incarcerated with access to student loans, welfare, and other social services.

2 Drug Policy Alliance, “So Far, So Good: What We Know About Cannabis Legalization in CO, WA, AK, OR, and D.C.” (2016), accessed at http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Cannabis_Legalization_ Status_Report_ 101316.pdf. 3 Keith Humphreys, “Pot legalization hasn’t done anything to shrink the racial gap in drug arrests” Washington Post (March 21, 2016), accessed at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/21/ potlegalization-hasnt-done-anything-to-shrink-the-racial-gap-in-drug-arrests/?utm_term=.eb87410994b9. 4 Amanda Chicago Lewis, “How black people are being shut out of America’s weed boom,” BuzzFeed News (March 16, 2016), accessed at https://www.buzzfeed.com/amandachicagolewis/americas-whiteonly-weed-boom?utm_term=.btxeRPVyX#.pvKg8Pye5.

Page 43 of 76

http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Cannabis_Legalization_%20Status_Report_%20101316.pdf

http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Cannabis_Legalization_%20Status_Report_%20101316.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/21/%20potlegalization-hasnt-done-anything-to-shrink-the-racial-gap-in-drug-arrests/?utm_term=.eb87410994b9

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/21/%20potlegalization-hasnt-done-anything-to-shrink-the-racial-gap-in-drug-arrests/?utm_term=.eb87410994b9

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amandachicagolewis/americas-whiteonly-weed-boom?utm_term=.btxeRPVyX#.pvKg8Pye5

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amandachicagolewis/americas-whiteonly-weed-boom?utm_term=.btxeRPVyX#.pvKg8Pye5

3. Recommendation to conduct a public workshop Based on Advisory Working Group and community feedback, the CEO recommends holding a public workshop to define who should qualify for benefits under such a cannabis equity program and what types of benefits should be offered. Because equitable opportunities for cannabis ownership and employment will not solve all issues currently affecting areas most impacted by the “war on drugs,” the public workshop should explore ways that the cannabis equity program can be integrated into a wholistic services approach. For example, job-training can be expanded beyond cannabis industry jobs to business support services, such as marketing, accounting, and other businesses that can serve the cannabis industry and other community businesses. If your Board approves this recommendation, the CEO will work closely with Board offices to develop the workshop format and discussion topics.

4. Recommendation to create a cannabis equity review panel Cannabis legalization and commercialization represents a sea change in California drug policy, and offers the County the unique opportunity to monitor, track, and adjust its own rules and policies to advance social justice and equity. For these reasons, and based on the Advisory Working Group’s recommendations, the CEO recommends establishing a 15-member, Board-appointed cannabis equity review panel, which will be advisory to the Board of Supervisors and the cannabis commission, and will periodically issue public reports evaluating the effectiveness of the County’s “cannabis ownership and employment equity program,” the impacts of cannabis legalization on health equity, and any other equity issues associated with the County’s cannabis-related programs and the civil and criminal enforcement of cannabis laws. The CEO recommends that members have demonstrated knowledge and experience in an area which has a significant bearing upon cannabis regulation or legalization, equity issues, drug policy, or drug prevention or treatment.

H. Recommendation No. 9: Unlicensed cannabis business elimination

plan Your Board has taken steps to close unlicensed cannabis businesses, including establishing a medical marijuana dispensary enforcement team (MMDET) in March 2016. The MMDET is a collaborative team of staff from the District Attorney’s office, Sheriff’s detectives, County Counsel attorneys, and Regional Planning zoning enforcement, with support from staff from the Treasurer and Tax Collector and Public Health. The MMDET conducts direct closure efforts against unlicensed cannabis businesses, consisting primarily of filing civil lawsuits to close businesses. Direct closure efforts have not reduced the total number of unlicensed businesses operating in unincorporated areas

Page 44 of 76

because new unlicensed businesses open at about the same rate as existing ones are closed. During listening sessions, residents complained about unlicensed cannabis activity and demanded the closure of illegal businesses. A more comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. It is therefore recommended that your Board direct the CEO to collaborate with the Sheriff, District Attorney, County Counsel, Treasurer and Tax Collector, Director of Regional Planning, and Director of Public Health to prepare an unlicensed cannabis business elimination plan that will include, at a minimum, planned direct enforcement activities (e.g., lawsuits), consumer education campaigns, and legislative policies. In addition, the Advisory Working Group recommended that the County allow currently illegal businesses to become permitted under certain circumstances. (See Attachment II, Recommendation No. 60.) Therefore, as part of plan development, the CEO will work with participating departments to develop a recommendation as to whether current unlicensed cannabis businesses should be allowed to become permitted.

I. Recommendations No. 10, 11, and 12: Updates to Title 7 (Business Licenses), Analysis of Budget Impacts, and Timeline

Should your Board approve the recommendations identified in this letter, additional work will be required to ensure your Board’s approval is carried out appropriately. First, updates are likely necessary to Title 7 of the County Code (Business Licenses). Title 7 contains existing provisions for issuing business licenses to medical cannabis stores, but contains no provisions for adult-use businesses and non-retail medical cannabis businesses. Second, the CEO has begun analyzing the impacts to staffing that these recommendations will cause. As stated in the letter, most new functions will likely be carried out using existing staff and resources, but some additional staff and resources may be needed for the new cannabis commission, the Sheriff, and the Department of Public Health. In addition, commercial cannabis regulation presents novel technology issues, including but not limited to the potential local implementation of a “track and trace” system design to track cannabis plants “from seed to sale” through the supply chain. The “track and trace” system is integral to make sure cannabis is not diverted from the regulated market to the illegal market, or taken from the illegal market and sold in the regulated market, and to ensure sufficient information is available to local regulators in the event of a product recall, among other features. Other software or systems which may be needed include permitting and application tracking software to meet the specific demands of cannabis permitting.

Page 45 of 76

Lastly, in terms of timing, the CEO and other affected departments will return to your Board within 120 days with necessary ordinance amendments that implement the CEO’s cannabis recommendations, for the Board’s consideration.

Page 46 of 76

ATTACHMENT II: ADVISORY WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Topic Subtopic Recommendation

1. Youth access and exposure

Education The County should produce and widely distribute science-based, non-judgmental information on the risks and potential harms of cannabis use by children and youth. The information should be distributed using methods that are effective in reaching children and youth, as well as their parents, caregivers, and adult family members. The information should be conveyed in an objective, non-judgmental manner that is easily understood by persons with limited literacy and available in all key languages. Cannabis retail businesses should be required to post this information in a highly visible place.


Education The County should provide science-based, non-judgmental education and prevention resources for youth, and work with educators and youth service providers on effective ways to inform youth about the harms of underage recreational cannabis use, including but not limited to peer-to-peer and early intervention strategies for drug abuse prevention.


Education The County should provide science-based, non-judgmental education and prevention resources to ensure that local regulations allow for safe, responsible medical cannabis use by persons under the age of 21 where recommended by a doctor, and provide education to parents and caregivers about safe storage and responsible use practices to prevent underage nonmedical access to cannabis.


Education The County should prioritize the use of cannabis tax revenue to provide schools and youth service providers with accurate, science-based, non-judgmental and comprehensive education, prevention strategies and early risk-reduction interventions that aim to prevent underage recreational use; other supportive programming, such as after-school and out-of-school activities will also be prioritized.


Education The County should work with schools, school districts, and youth centers to post signage at facility entrances stating that the possession of cannabis is prohibited. Signage should be highly visible and in multiple languages.


Packaging and labeling

The County should ensure sufficient resources and funding to enforce state laws requiring child-resistant exit packaging for all products sold at retail or delivered to consumers.


Age verification The County should conduct regular unannounced compliance checks, no less than twice yearly, to ensure cannabis retailers comply with age-restriction laws, and should establish progressive penalties, up to and including license revocation, for cannabis retailers, including delivery services that do not comply with age-restriction laws.

Page 47 of 76

Topic Subtopic Recommendation


Age verification The County should require all retail cannabis sales personnel to complete documented training on age verification requirements, accepted age-verification practices, including but not limited to electronic age verification practices and other techniques to prevent underage youth from entering or loitering in the vicinity of retail outlets. Cannabis retailers should be held accountable for ensuring that all retail sales employees complete training before conducting sales. Progressive consequences (penalties including fines and suspensions to operate) should be implemented and should include license revocation, where appropriate. The County should conduct regular compliance checks with cannabis retailers.


Fines and penalties

The County should evaluate the feasibility of adding cannabis to a social host ordinance that holds individuals responsible for knowingly providing a place on property they control where nonmedical underage cannabis use takes place, regardless of who provides the cannabis products.


Advertising and marketing

The County should advocate for changes to state law to prohibit cannabis advertising in broadcast, cable, radio, print, and digital communications where less than 85 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by reliable, up-to-date audience composition data, consistent with rules applicable to tobacco advertising.

11. Public health and safety

Banking The County should investigate the feasibility of creating a public bank to serve the cannabis industry.


Banking The County should explore the feasibility of using third-party services to handle financial transactions, such as tax payments, between cannabis businesses and the County to reduce risks involved with cash only payment methods, and should implement adequate security measures and business capabilities at County offices, including exploring adding new payment offices, to handle the anticipated increase in cash payments by cannabis businesses.


Crime In connection with any new license or renewal application, the County should require each cannabis business to submit a security plan that implements industry best practices to deter crime and facilitate response and intervention by law enforcement.


Crime The County should ensure law enforcement is properly trained to prevent racial, ethnic, mental health and age-related profiling when interacting with community residents on cannabis-related issues.


Crime County law enforcement should partner with cannabis businesses to understand the businesses’ unique security concerns, including assigning a law enforcement liaison to interface directly with each cannabis business.


Driving under the influence of

drugs

The County should advocate for state legislation that clarifies cannabis open container laws to ensure both residents and law enforcement understand what is and is not legal.

Page 48 of 76




drugs

The County should set aside funds for the Department of Public Health to assess the efficacy of laboratory equipment to detect the presence of active THC in the blood and its correlation to impairment.



drugs

The County should investigate incorporating evidence-based interventions administered by appropriately trained public health professionals into alcohol and drug DUI programs, such as Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in a non-law enforcement setting.


Over-consumption and edibles

The County should explore whether to supplement state required labels for recreational edible cannabis products sold in County cannabis stores to provide information to consumers about how to avoid overconsumption and include warnings about cannabis use by women who are pregnant and breastfeeding, driving under the influence of cannabis, recreational youth cannabis use or other potential health impacts.


Education The County should explore the feasibility of developing and testing a universal symbol to be placed on every cannabis and cannabis product package label sold in County cannabis stores to easily identify that a product contains cannabis.


Education The County should require cannabis retailers to post multi-lingual signage alerting consumers that the possession and use of cannabis could impact a person’s immigration status under federal law and could violate the terms of a person’s parole or probation.


Education The County should implement a wide-ranging, multilingual and culturally competent multimedia campaign to educate the public, including tourists, about state and local cannabis laws and responsible cannabis use. The County should immediately pursue available state funding to support the education campaign.


Secondhand smoke

The County should work with state and local housing authorities to implement policies that minimize exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke within affordable housing units.


Secondhand smoke

The County should conduct a study, and implement a comprehensive secondhand cannabis smoke campaign, to reduce health risks to youth, employees, and other members of the public. The study and the campaign will be used to explore concrete policy options for regulating secondhand smoke.

25. Personal cultivation

Education The County should provide information on best practices for indoor and outdoor personal cannabis cultivation, including responsible pesticide use, waste disposal, odor control, and other health and safety concerns, and should establish a voluntary inspection program focused on safety and security.


n/a The County should consider the impact of existing restrictions on the outdoor cultivation of cannabis for personal use, to be in line with state guidelines.

Page 49 of 76



n/a The County should follow state rules (Compassionate Use Act) regarding personal cultivation for qualified medical patients, with no more than 3 patients cultivating per residence.

28. Onsite consumption

n/a As a harm reduction measure and to incentivize responsible consumption, the County should consider implementing a time-limited pilot program to allow for on-site consumption at licensed cannabis retailers and microbusinesses if separate consumption areas are provided. There should be a separate license and eligibility for the pilot program which should be limited to businesses who use responsible sales and service training and are located near public transportation, in order to reduce the amount of driving to and from such locations. As part of this pilot program, the County should track data indicators to track the needs for onsite consumption and analyze the outcomes from allowing on-site consumption and assess impacts on public health and safety, including but not limited to changes in the number of citations for driving under the influence of drugs, public consumption, odor complaints, and health impacts for employees of these businesses. Engaging community stakeholders, which would include businesses, in developing this pilot program. Applicants should go through a discretionary hearing and demonstrate how they will handle DUIDs and secondhand smoke.

29. Cannabis retailers

Delivery The County should implement appropriate regulations on the retail delivery of cannabis to ensure that delivery does not become an avenue for underage youth to access cannabis. Such regulations could include the use of age-verification technology during deliveries and special recordkeeping requirements. When considering regulations for retail cannabis delivery, the County Board of Supervisors should review research concerning youth access to alcohol in jurisdictions where alcohol delivery is permitted.


Delivery The County should require that, prior to engaging in cannabis delivery, a cannabis retailer register the identity of delivery drivers and vehicles used for delivery with the County and law enforcement on going as needed. The delivery vehicle should be solely for the purpose of the Cannabis industry and with no visible identification. Law enforcement should be properly trained to enforce this.


Hours of operation

Subject to state law or regulation, the County should set hours of operation for cannabis retail storefronts that allows sufficient customer access before and after work hours, but should consider allowing extended hours for medical cannabis delivery only after retail storefronts are required to close.

Page 50 of 76



Numerical and concentration

limits

The County should consider alternatives to capping the number of cannabis retail licenses, such as implementing a discretionary process, such as a conditional use hearing, that requires the hearing body to find that issuing the cannabis retail license is needed and will not result in an overconcentration in any neighborhood consistent with state law and zoning based on the ratio of retail licenses to population and other key indicators that impact quality of life and environment, including, for example, whether a cannabis retailer proposes to locate in a high crime reporting district. Per capita should not be considered. The County should conduct an analysis with GIS to study population density to prevent overconcentration based on current state sensitive-use buffers. The County should consider alternatives to setting minimum distances between retailers, being sensitive to commercial and industrial zones.


Loitering and onsite

consumption

The County should require cannabis retail businesses to have a security plan in place to prevent the misuse of recreational cannabis consumption by employees, and to prevent loitering, and cannabis consumption in parking lots, alleys, and other open areas adjacent to their businesses. The respective business should be well-lit and kept clean, and debris-free by the business operator. Businesses should clearly display signs with “no loitering, no public drinking, and no public cannabis use” in the business and immediately outside.


Onsite signage Signage should comply with current County guidelines. Signage should be functional rather than promotional. County should further explore signage possibilities to maximize business operations and reduce appeal to children and youth, and nuisance to neighborhoods. The County should consider restricting signage on vehicles, pending legal analysis.


Security In connection with any new license or renewal application, the County should require each cannabis business to submit an individualized security plan that implements industry best practices to deter crime and facilitate response and intervention by law enforcement, including but not limited to physical improvements to deter crime, camera and alarm systems, and onsite security personnel.


Employee requirements

The County should require mandatory retail employee/budtender training on how to maintain a safe retail environment, how to avoid sales of cannabis to individuals under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and how to provide consumer education on safe and responsible product use and health risks and consequences, particularly for novice users.


Signage and advertising

The County should evaluate the feasibility of requiring cannabis licensees to include accurate, science-based warning labels on cannabis advertising, similar to those required in the context of alcohol and tobacco.

Page 51 of 76




Part A The County should restrict cannabis advertising at or sponsorship of events, including but not limited to concerts, fairs, festivals and sporting events at County owned or operated facilities, consistent with how alcohol and tobacco products are treated. Exemptions should be considered for health and wellness events. Part B The County should advocate for changes to state law to expand the restrictions in Business and Professions Code section 26151(b) to include advertising at or sponsorship of events, including but not limited to concerts, fairs, festivals and sporting events.



The County should evaluate the feasibility of prohibiting branded merchandise primarily marketed to and used by youth, including but not limited to toys, games, video game systems, and clothing.


Location Part A The County should require cannabis retailers to locate not less than 1,000 feet from schools (K-12), and 600 feet from daycare centers and youth centers. Part B The County should consider establishing 600 feet buffers between cannabis retailers from public parks, playgrounds, and libraries. The County should consider whether to establish minimum distances between cannabis retailers and licensed youth alcohol or drug abuse treatment facilities. The County should carefully study any buffering and minimum distance rules to ensure that such rules will not unreasonably eliminate the ability of cannabis businesses to establish in unincorporated County areas, incentivize the continued operation of the unlicensed cannabis market, or create other unintended consequences such as the inequitable distribution of cannabis businesses throughout the County. Part C The County should ensure a variance procedure is available to applicants seeking to establish a cannabis retail business. Part D The County should publish a map depicting where cannabis retailers can locate prior to adopting any buffering regulations. This map should include demographic and socioeconomic data for the County’s unincorporated areas.

41. Non-retail cannabis

businesses

Location Cultivators, Manufacturers, Distributors, Microbusinesses Cannabis cultivators, manufacturers, distributors and microbusinesses should be required to obtain discretionary permits. Testing Laboratories Cannabis testing laboratories should be permitted through a ministerial approval process.

Page 52 of 76



businesses

Requirements for cultivators

and manufacturers

The County should require cannabis cultivators and manufacturers to submit for County review and approval prior to commencing operations, and in connection with any license renewal, an operating plan that addresses the following components to the satisfaction of the County: • Odor control and mitigation, both within the facility and outside the facility; • Energy conservation and sustainability; • Water conservation and sustainability; • Waste and wastewater disposal; • The application and storage of pesticides, fertilizers, and other hazardous chemicals; •Environmental sanitation standards consistent with the production of food products; and • Security.


businesses

Cultivators The County should conduct an analysis of the environmental impacts of indoor versus outdoor cultivation, and the differential effects in terms of revenue and regulatory and enforcement costs of allowing or prohibiting commercial outdoor cultivation.


businesses

Cultivators The County should evaluate whether offering a license type comparable to a State Type 1C-speciality cottage cultivation license could stimulate regenerative agriculture in urban areas and encourage small business operators.


businesses

Cultivators The County should require cultivators to allow the utility company to provide their monthly electricity usage for two years and then consider additional regulations for cannabis cultivation to make cultivation more energy efficient and offer incentives for efficient energy usage.


businesses

Manufacturers The County should adopt regulations to support the enforcement of state rules for cannabis product preparation and labeling.


businesses

Microbusiness The County should offer a license type for microbusinesses and should apply regulations to microbusinesses consistent with those applied to cannabis retailers, manufacturers, distributors, and cultivators. The County should use the microbusiness license to encourage local ownership and the participation of small businesses in the cannabis marketplace.


businesses

Testing labs The County should allow an appropriate ratio of cannabis testing laboratory licenses to dispensary, cultivation, and manufacturing licenses, to ensure sufficient and speedy testing. The County should consider giving application priority to existing laboratories that perform similar testing on non-cannabis products.

Page 53 of 76



businesses

Numerical and concentration

limits

The County should consider alternatives to capping the number of non-retail cannabis licenses, such as requiring the hearing body for a discretionary use permit to find that issuing the license is needed and will not result in an overconcentration in any neighborhood consistent with state law and zoning based on the ratio of licenses to population and other key indicators that impact quality of life and environment.

50. Compliance n/a The County should establish sufficient civil penalties, not less than $20,000 per day or penalties levied by surrounding jurisdictions, and work with utility providers to shut off utilities as a deterrent to combat unlicensed operators.

51. Compliance n/a The County should ensure that its application and licensing processes are sufficiently robust to identify and prevent organized crime from participating in the licensed cannabis marketplace.

52. Taxation Tax rates Part A The County should implement a low initial tax rate and be differentiated by type of license, including a volume tax for cultivators and square footage tax for nurseries. Part B The County should increase its initial low tax rate over time as the licensed cannabis market establishes to a rate comparable with surrounding jurisdictions, including in particular the City of Los Angeles. Part C The County’s cannabis tax ordinance should provide flexibility to increase and decrease taxes in response to changing market conditions and changing consumption patterns for young adults as tracked by Public Health, and legislation or regulation at the federal and state levels.

53. Taxation Revenue allocation

The County should allocate funds needed for regulating the cannabis industry. (10% to OCM and other County departments, and 10% to law enforcement to be used for community engagement, implicit bias training, and diversion programs), in an amount not to exceed 20% of annual revenue. The remaining 80% should be broken out as listed below:

50% of the annual revenue should be directed to science-

based youth and young adult access prevention, intervention, and treatment (including training), including direct funding to youth centers (i.e. Parks After Dark) and after-school programming, community education, research, assessment/evaluation tools, and reporting funding, with 50% of this funding going to community-based organizations (including capacity building and training), and no less than 25% going to health promotion, disease prevention, and health equity, as defined by public health.

15% of annual revenue should go to an “Equity Fund,” established to support equity applicants.

Page 54 of 76


5% of annual revenue should go to programs in communities

where licensed and unlicensed cannabis businesses are located, with funds concentrated where businesses are concentrated, to ensure that cannabis tax revenue stays local.

10% of annual revenue should be directed to LA-based community colleges and nonprofit vocational schools for job training, workforce development, and workforce programs (retail, manufacturing, ancillary, agricultural, administrative), prioritizing enrollment by those most disproportionately impacted by the historical and ongoing “War on Drugs,” such as arrests, convictions, incarcerations, poverty, lack of opportunities for education and employment.

54. Economic development

Community Benefit

Agreements

The County should require cannabis businesses to adopt community benefit agreements to give back to the local community. The CBA can take many forms, which can be fleshed out by criteria developed by the Equity Oversight Committee working with the OCM. CBA elements could include percent-of-profit giveback to community organizations, serving as an incubator to an equity applicant, community clean-ups and other support options.


Local and disadvantaged

worker hire

The County should require cannabis businesses to hire no less than 30% local workers. The County should utilize the County’s existing local worker hire provisions as guidance to define local workers and minimum hiring requirements. The County should also consider incentives for cannabis businesses that hire a minimum percentage of employees who were formally incarcerated or convicted, unemployed, veterans, and/or meet low-income definition. This would go through the Cannabis Equity Oversight Committee (see recommendation no. 61).


Residency The County should require a minimum of 51% of all ownership stakes in any cannabis business, except for testing labs, licensed in the County of LA to belong to individuals who have lived in LA County for a minimum of three years prior to the application. This policy should be re-assessed after five years to see whether the policy has had a positive impact on small business ownership.


Technical assistance

The County should assist applicants during the application process, or contract with nonprofits to provide such technical assistance. The County should offer ongoing technical and business assistance to applicants to help them remain compliant with applicable regulations.


License limits To promote small businesses and restrict monopolization of the unincorporated County market, the County should limit the number of cannabis business licenses of any one type that any one individual or business entity can obtain within unincorporated areas, and should study the feasibility of limiting the size of retail cannabis businesses.

Page 55 of 76



Application restrictions

County should allow only one application at a time per proposed premises to eliminate multiple applications from one location.


Existing unlicensed businesses

The County should provide a “pathway to legalization” for existing, unlicensed cannabis businesses, provided these businesses cease operations during the application process and meet all zoning, buffering, and distancing requirements established by the County for cannabis businesses generally.

61. Equity Background checks

The County should not automatically disqualify applicants with criminal backgrounds, but should consider all available evidence in order to evaluate an applicant’s fitness to receive a cannabis business license from the County.

62. Equity Equity program Part A The County should set aside a certain percentage of licenses for “equity applicants,” with the goal of one-to-one applications. “Equity applicants” should include businesses where greater than 50 percent of the business is owned, in perpetuity, by persons who meet a certain income level, LA County residency (with a minimum of 3 years) and impacted person status, geography (prioritizing those from impacted neighborhoods within LA County), and other requirements that promote the equitable ownership of licenses by community members hardest hit by the “war on drugs.” Research on eligible “equity applicants” should include study of the Targeted Areas Preferences Act of 1986. Part B The County should offer “equity applicants” priority licensing, reduced fees, consider tax incentives excluding excise tax, and other similar incentives or benefits to reduce barriers to entry. Part C To reduce the burden on and risk for “equity applicants,” the County should allow “equity applicants” to apply for a cannabis business license without having secured a physical location. The County should provide “equity applicants” up to 6 months to secure compliant premises upon conditional approval of the cannabis business license application. The discretionary hearing will take place after the location is identified. Part D The County should work with interested investors to offer low-interest startup and business finance loans to “equity applicants.” Part E The County should create an incubator program, which would provide start-up, business development, access to capital, and other assistance to “equity applicants” seeking to establish a business in the competitive cannabis marketplace. Part F The County should conduct an assessment of the equity program after five years.

Page 56 of 76


63. Equity Disadvantaged worker hire

The County should consider incentives for cannabis businesses that hire a minimum percentage of employees who were formerly incarcerated or convicted.

64. Equity Oversight Committee

The County should establish a permanent Cannabis Equity Oversight Committee to monitor and guide implementation of all equity programs and policies related to cannabis, including tracking and analyzing cannabis-related enforcement, including but not limited to citations, arrests, and business closures. The Cannabis Equity Oversight Committee should issue public reports on its findings at least once per year and be representative of a diverse group of community interests with no more than one representative from a law enforcement agency, such as an officer serving in a program like Community Safety Partnerships.

Page 57 of 76

ATTACHMENT III: MAPS Set 1: Retail–Store

(C-3 and higher zones, all buffers) Set 2: Microbusiness-Store

(M zones only, all buffers) Set 3: Retail–Delivery-Only, Tester

(C-3 and higher zones, some buffers) Set 4: Cultivator–Indoor, Manufacturer–General, Manufacturer–Processor,

Distributor–General, Distributor–Transporter, Microbusiness-No Store (M zones only, some buffers

IN DEVELOPMENT

Page 58 of 76

County of Los Angeles INTERNAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

1100 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, California 90063

SCOTT MINNIX Director “Trusted Partner and Provider of Choice”

Telephone: (323) 267-2101 FAX: (323) 264-7135

November 21, 2017

TO: Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, Chairman Supervisor Hilda L. Solis Supervisor Sheila Kuehl Supervisor Janice Hahn Supervisor Kathryn Barger

FROM: Scott Minnix Director

NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO NEGOTIATE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH SUNPOWER CORPORATION, SYSTEMS

This memo is to comply with Board Policy 5.100, Sole Source Contracts regarding contracting policy requirements for sole source contracts. The Internal Services Department (ISD) intends to enter into negotiations for new sole source Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with SunPower Corporation, Systems (SunPower) for the installation, operation, and maintenance of solar panels at three County facilities.

BACKGROUND

Southern California Edison (SCE) conducted a public bid process for its Local Capacity Resource (LCR) program. SCE awarded its ‘Renewable’ segment of the program to SunPower. Under the LCR program, no other vendor can install renewables for SCE, whereby customers would achieve the benefit of a discounted PPA rate.

To be eligible in the LCR program, the ideal sites must fit the following profile:

Facility operations with a significant load, seven days a week

Behind-the-meter (non-export). Energy can only offset current load

Carport and large, newer roofs (>150,000 square feet) for >1MW system

Roof, parking, and land combined installation if size is >1MW

No permanent structures within perimeter of system to hinder energy generation

Solar system must be installed and in operation no later than February 2019

ISD reviewed all potential County sites within SCE’s LCR-approved boundaries that met the criteria with the optimal solar installation configurations. The following County sites

Page 59 of 76

meet the LCR program criteria and were identified as viable candidates for the LCR program:

Harry Hufford Registrar/Recorder Office

Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital

Internal Services Department Headquarters

The three County sites listed above are currently undergoing cost analysis to determine its feasibility under Government Contract Code section 4217 (Gov. Code section 4217).

JUSTIFICATION

Given that SunPower is the only vendor that can install renewables for SCE under the LCR Program, a sole source contract is necessary for the County to avail itself of the program. Participation in the LCR program would allow the County to significantly reduce the County’s current utility rates. Anticipated costs to the County for electrical energy under resultant PPAs would be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the County of energy that would have been consumed by the County in the absence of those purchases, pursuant to Gov. Code section 4217.12.

CONCLUSION

ISD will proceed with negotiations of PPAs with SunPower unless otherwise instructed by your Board within the next 30 days. ISD will work closely with both County Counsel and the Chief Executive Office during the contracting process.

If you have any questions, please call me at (323) 267-2101, via email: [email protected], or your staff may contact Joe Sandoval, General Manager of Purchasing and Contract Services, at (323) 267-2109, via email: [email protected].

SM:DC:JS:YY

c: Chief Executive Officer County Counsel Executive Office, Board of Supervisors ISD Board Deputies

Page 60 of 76



Department of Consumer and Business Affairs California State University Long Beach Consumer Counseling Call Center Partnership Summary Los Angeles County Department of Consumer & Business Affairs (DCBA) proposes to partner with the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) Department of Family and Consumer Sciences to establish an internship pilot program on the CSULB campus. Consumer Affairs is an undergraduate option in the Department of Family and Consumer Sciences and is one of the leading programs in the field. A ‘Consumer Counseling Call Center’ will be established on campus; where 6-8 CSULB student interns per semester will counsel clients via telephone regarding consumer and business related issues. One experienced DCBA Counselor will conduct initial training and be on site with the interns at the CSULB Call Center. DCBA estimates operating the Call Center 8-10 hours per week. The on-site Call Center pilot will serve as a model for delivering consumer and business services in other areas of the County. Both the County and CSULB benefit from this partnership. Presently DCBA averages 350 calls per day or 1750 calls per week. Establishing a Call Center at the Long Beach campus will allow DCBA to serve more County clients in Long Beach and the surrounding areas through education, advocacy, and complaint resolution. CSULB students who enroll in the Internship will receive field experience in a professional work setting. Objectives developed by the student and DCBA supervisor, and approved by the CSULB major advisor, form the basis for evaluation. Furthermore, DCBA will have the added benefit of identifying young adults will a passion for consumer advocacy. The agreement will allow DCBA to partner with CSULB for a one year pilot period. CSULB will provide a dedicated office space for a minimum of 16 hours each week to operate the Consumer Counseling Hotline, provide workspace and the necessary equipment, and work with DCBA on the administration of the pilot program. DCBA will provide a counselor to train the students, provide oversight, work with CSULB on the administration of the program, and incur some set up costs not to exceed $5,000.00. By investing in this program, Los Angeles County can increase DCBA services offered to the public. The additional access will help clients resolve major issues that affect their credit, their housing, and their quality of life.

Page 61 of 76

January 9, 2018 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS TO ENTER INTO A PARTERNSHIP WITH CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY LONG BEACH TO ESTABLISH A CONSUMER COUNSELING CALL CENTER

(All Supervisorial Districts) (3 Votes) SUBJECT The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) requests your Board’s approval to enter into a partnership agreement California State University Long Beach (CSULB) to establish a consumer counseling call center on campus. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD: 1. Approve and authorize the Director to sign the enclosed agreements or

substantially similar agreements with California State University Long Beach to

establish a consumer counseling call center on the CSULB campus.

2. Delegate authority to the Director, or his designee, to negotiate and execute

amendments to the agreement described in paragraph 1, to make technical changes

and extend the agreement terms as may be needed to implement and sustain efficacy

of the programs, upon approval as to form by County Counsel, with the requirement that

DCBA report to your Board and CEO within 30 days of execution.

PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs has been assisting citizens of Los Angeles County since 1976. While the number of services to the community have expanded, our core competency has always been providing consumers with the necessary tools to resolve their problems. As part of the effort to increase our services,

Page 62 of 76

DCBA is forming a partnership with the CSULB Department of Family and Consumer Sciences to establish an on-campus counseling call center internship program. The recommended action meets your Board’s directive to increase public services to the community. The County and CSULB will both benefit from this partnership. DCBA presently averages 350 calls per day and 1750 calls per weeks. Establishing a call center on the Long Beach campus will increase the number of calls that can be taken to serve the public. The initiative will develop a program that provides additional consumer counseling and access to County services. Consumer counselors will provide guidance on issues such as general consumer rights, credit assistance, landlord/tenant issues, and automobile sales. The program will create an innovative partnership, allowing student interns to gain valuable experience, and provide a service to the community under the direction of an experienced DCBA counselor. Under the direction of DCBA, the program will allow CSULB student interns to provide guidance on consumer related issues to clients. With these added resources, consumers will be able to receive direct DCBA services on the CSULB campus. This will correspond with the Board’s goal of increasing services to the public while providing extraordinary client service. Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals This request supports the County strategic plan as follows: Goal 1 - Make Investments that Transform Lives: By investing in this program, Los Angeles County can increase the services offered to the public. The program will add additional access to County services to help clients resolve major issues that affect their credit, their housing, and their quality of life. Goal 2 – Foster Vibrant and Resilient Communities: The target audience for this program includes all community members that have issues with consumer rights. The partnership will enlist CSULB to bring additional resources to the public to foster vibrant and resilient communities. By providing consumers with education and assistance, we increase growth and development in individuals and the community. Goal 3 – Realize Tomorrow’s Government Today: This innovative program will partner the County and CSULB to develop young, collegiate individuals that have an interest in public service. These students are studying Consumer Affairs, and may one day be employed by the County. By providing real world experience and guidance from experienced County counselors, we can realize tomorrow’s government by investing in young adults today.

Page 63 of 76

FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING Participation in the County Call Center project will not result in any new significant costs to the County. Costs to the County not to exceed $5,000.00. The Department has sufficient funding within their FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget to finance these costs. The funds will be used during the FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. IMPACT ON CURRENT SEVICES (OR PROJECTS) The approval of this recommendation will not reduce services currently provided by DCBA. Approval of this request would help bring a much needed additional services to the community. As the Program Coordinator, DCBA would:

Provide at least one (1) counselor to train and supervise FCS interns on the days

and times set forth in this Agreement.

Provide interns with necessary website(s) and access to DCBA’s counseling

system.

Along with CSULB, administer intake and scheduling procedures for those

interns who wish to sign up for the program.

Reimburse CSULB for preparation expenses needed to upgrade or modify the

room to be used for the Consumer Counseling Hotline, in an amount not to

exceed the purchase order amount approved by both parties. The estimated

cost, including labor and materials is $3,047.02.

Reimburse CSULB for outgoing calls made from the Consumer Counseling

Hotline telephones, as indicated in the monthly invoice submitted by CSULB.

Legal considerations:

Counseling performed by student interns will be subject to the same standards of

review as counseling performed by Los Angeles County Department of

Consumer and Business Affairs staff. Counselors do not provide legal advice.

CONCLUSION Upon Board approval, please return one adopted copy of this letter to the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN J. STIGER Director

Page 64 of 76

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN S ERVICES

AGREEMENT

Long Beach State University, on behalf of its consumer affairs program in the Department

of Family and Consumer Sciences (LBSU) and the County of Los Angeles (County), by

and through its Department of Consumer & Business Affairs (DCBA), each individually a

"Party" and collectively, the "Parties," agree to work together to pilot a consumer

counseling hotline program at Long Beach State University that benefits the County,

supports the development of consumer affairs students, and supports faculty research

across the College.

PURPOSE

This pilot project will provide a DCBA Consumer Counseling Hotl ine at LBSU to

allow consumer affairs students to obtain practical field experience and to explore how

the hotline can generate data to support larger research initiatives within the College of

Health and Human Services. Experienced DCBA staff will train and supervise a t l eas t six (6) LBSU interns on

campus. The Consumer Counseling Hotline will operate approximately 16 hours per

week between Monday and Friday each semester. The days and hours of operation will

be coordinated by DCBA and LBSU staff, and determined each semester. LBSU students who enroll in the Internship (CAFF 492C) will receive field experience in

a preprofessional role and work setting. Objectives developed by the student and DCBA

supervisor, and approved by the LBSU major advisor, form the basis for evaluation. LBSU faculty and DCBA will work together with the College of Health and Human

Services Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Research to explore how Consumer

Counseling Hotline data can be collected and managed to support faculty research

interests and broader initiatives within the College.

Page 65 of 76

A. TERM

1. This Agreement is effective upon execution by the Parties for one year. After one

year, the project will be evaluated by the College of Health and Human Services

and DCBA. Based on this evaluation, the agreement may be renewed for an

additional year.

2. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason upon

sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party's designated contact set

forth in this Agreement.

B. AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT

1. Any proposed changes to this Agreement shall be made thirty (30)

days in advance for consideration prior to implementation.

2. No amendment, modification, alteration, or variation of the terms of this

Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by authorized

representatives for the parties, and no oral understanding or agreement

not incorporated herein shall be binding on the Parties.

C. ROLE and RESPONSIBILITIES OF LBSU

Consumer Affairs is an undergraduate option in the Department of Family and Consumer

Sciences, and is one of the leading programs in the field. It offers an interdisciplinary study

of the financial, legislative, legal, international, psychological, sociological, and cultural

factors involved in consumerism. Areas covered are Consumer Advocacy and Protection,

Consumer Law and Legislation, Consumers in the Global Marketplace, Consumer Behavior,

Financial Planning and Counseling, Crimes against Consumers, Housing, Consumers and

Technology, and Product Safety. In addition, course work in Consumer Affairs can be

complemented by minors in several areas including Business, Economics, and Marketing.

LBSU agrees to:

1. Provide a dedicated office space for a minimum of 16 hours each week to

operate the Consumer Counseling H o t l i n e (for example, Tuesdays and

Thursdays from noon to 5:00 pm and Fridays from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm).

2. Provide six (6) computer workstations with Internet access.

3. Provide six (6) land-line telephones with designated phone numbers.

4. Provide bookshelf and lockable cabinet space.

5. Along with DCBA, assume the primary role of administration, intake and

scheduling procedures for those interns who wish to sign up for the program.

6. Submit a monthly invoice and telephone usage report to DCBA for the

Page 66 of 76

Consumer Counseling Hotline's telephone expenses.

7. Submit a detailed invoice to DCBA, with supporting documentation, for

reimbursement of preparation expenses needed to upgrade or modify the room

to be used for the Consumer Counseling Hotline.

LBSU will coordinate preparation of the space to be used with its facilities

management department.

D. ROLE and RESPONSIBILITIES OF DCBA

The County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) is

the local consumer protection agency serving Los Angeles County. The agency serves

consumers, businesses, and communities through education, advocacy, and complaint

resolution. The agency works to educate consumers and small business owners about

their rights and responsibilities, mediate disputes, and investigate consumer fraud

complaints. DCBA averages 350 calls per day, or 1750 calls per week.

DCBA staff will work with LBSU to ensure the IT and phone systems are compatible and

fully operational.

DCBA agrees to:

1. Provide at least one (1) counselor to train and supervise FCS interns o n the

days and times set forth in this Agreement.

2. Provide interns with necessary website(s) and access to counseling system.

3. Along with LBSU, administer intake and scheduling procedures for those interns

who wish to sign up for the program.

4. Work with the consumer affairs faculty and the College of Health and Human

Services associate dean for faculty affairs to determine how consumer

counseling data can be collected, shared, and managed for research purposes.

5. Reimburse LBSU for the preparation expenses n e e d e d t o add four (4) data

lines, six (6) voice lines, and six (6) analog phones in the Consumer Counseling

Hotline room. The estimated cost, including labor and materials is $3,047.02. A

detailed invoice, with supporting documentation, will be provided to DCBA

regarding the final cost of preparation expenses.

6. Reimburse LBSU for outgoing calls made from the Consumer Counseling Hotline

telephones, as indicated in the monthly invoices submitted by LBSU. LBSU will

also provide monthly telephone usage reports.

E. INDEMNIFICATION

The County and LBSU are both public agencies as defined by the laws of the state of

Page 67 of 76

California. To the extent permitted by law, each Party shall assume financial and legal

responsibility for the negligent acts or omissions of its own officers, employees or agents

in connection with or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. Each Party shall

indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other Party, its officers, directors, employees,

and agents from and against any and all claims (including attorney fees and reasonable

expenses for litigation or settlement) for any damage, demand, cause of action, loss, cost,

expense or liability in proportion to the extent such damages are caused by the Special

Districts, officers, directors, agents or employees of each respective Party, in the

performance of this Agreement. Each Party shall have the right to participate at its own

expense in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding. Each Party shall promptly

notify the other upon receipt of any demand, claim notification, action or proceeding and

will cooperate with the defense thereof. The Parties agree that Government Code

sections 895.2, 895.4, 895.6, and Civil Code sect ion 2778 shall apply to this

Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as imposing liability on any

Party in excess of what is authorized by statute.

F. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement and any exhibits and documents incorporated herein and made applicable

by reference, represent the full and entire Agreement between the Parties concerning the

Consumer Counseling Hotline, and supersedes any and all prior agreements,

representations, understandings or communications, whether written or oral, that may have

existed.

G. WAIVER

Any waiver by any Party of any default, breach or condition precedent shall not be

construed as a waiver of any other default, breach or condition precedent, or any other right

hereunder. No interpretation of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding upon any

Party unless agreed in writing by each Party and their respective attorneys.

H. SEVERABILITY

If any terms or provisions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or

circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this

Agreement, or the application of such term and provision to persons or circumstances other

than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and

every other term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforced to the

maximum extent permitted by law.

I. POINTS OF CONTACT

Page 68 of 76

LBSU Contact DCBA Contact

Name: Name: Albert Navas

Title: Title: Administrative Deputy

Phone: Phone: (213) 974-9756

Address: Address: 500 W. Temple St. Room B-

96, Los Angeles CA 90012

Fax: Fax: (213) 974-9756

Email: Email: [email protected]

LBSU DCBA

Dr. Monica Lounsbery, Dean [DATE] Brian Stiger, Director [DATE]

College of Health & Human Services Andrew Calderon

Contract Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

MARY C. WICKHAM

County Counsel

By ________________________________

Deputy County Counsel

Page 69 of 76


DRAFTJanuary 9, 2018 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PUBLIC BUILDINGS CORE SERVICE AREA VARIOUS HALL OF RECORDS PROJECTS

APPROVE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND PROJECT BUDGETS,

AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND USE OF JOB ORDER CONTRACTS

SPECS. 7478; CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 87365 SPECS. 7475; CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 87257 SPECS. 7476; CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 87431

(SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1) (3 VOTES)

SUBJECT The County is proposing to perform projects on three floors at the Hall of Records building. Approval of the recommended actions will find the Hall of Records - 7th Floor Renovation, Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment, and Plaza Structural projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; approve the capital projects and budgets; authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to approve and execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement Contract Number AO-17-400 with the Smith Group JJR to increase the contract sum and extend the contract term to provide additional design services for the Hall of Records 7th Floor Renovation project; and authorize the Director of Public Works or his designee to use a Board-approved Public Works Job Order Contract(s) to deliver the projects. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD:

1. Find that the Hall of Records - 7th Floor Renovation, Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment, and Plaza Structural projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for the reasons stated in this letter and in the record of the project.

Page 70 of 76

DRAFT2. Approve Capital Project No. 87365 - Hall of Records 7th Floor Renovation

project, and total project budget of $7,700,000 which includes design costs, construction, change order contingency, consultant services, miscellaneous expenditures, and County services.

3. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to approve and execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement Contract No. AO-17-400 with the Smith Group JJR to provide additional design and support services for the Hall of Records 7th Floor Renovation Project, Capital Project No. 87365, by augmenting the Maximum Contract Amount by $300,000, from $470,000 to $770,000 for the term of the Agreement and extending the term of the Agreement from January 31, 2018 to June 30, 2019, upon approval as to form by County Counsel.

4. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to approve and execute amendments for the Hall of Records 7th Floor Renovation project, Capital Project No. 87365 to Professional Services Agreement Contract Number AO-17-400 with Smith Group JJR during the term of the Agreement to increase the contract sum up to ten percent of the total Maximum Contract Amount, if necessary, to accommodate any unforeseen design or construction issues, provided that sufficient funding is available and subject to approval by County Counsel as to form.

5. Approve Capital Project No. 87257 - Hall of Records Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment project, and total project budget of $6,014,000 which includes design costs, construction, change order contingency, consultant services, miscellaneous expenditures, and County services.

6. Approve Capital Project No. 87431 - Hall of Records Plaza Structural project, and total project budget of $7,088,000, which includes design costs, construction, change order contingency, consultant services, miscellaneous expenditures, and County services.

7. Authorize the Director of Public Works or his designee to use a Board-approved Job Order Contract(s) for the demolition and the renovation of the various Hall of Records projects. These projects are identified as Capital Project No. 87365, 7th Floor Renovation, Capital Project No. 87257 Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment, and Capital Project No. 87431, the Plaza Structural project.

Page 71 of 76

DRAFTPURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Approval of the recommended actions will find the Hall of Records (HOR) - 7th Floor Renovation, Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment, and Plaza Structural projects are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; approve the project scopes and budgets, authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to approve and execute an amendment to supplement the contract sum by $300,000 and extend the contract term to June 30, 2019 for professional services contract with the architect/engineer to provide additional design services for the HOR - 7th Floor Renovation project; and authorize the Director of Public Works or his designee to use Board-approved Job Order Contracts (JOC) to deliver the project. The Hall of Records (HOR) is a prominent building in the Los Angeles Downtown Civic Center located at 222 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, completed in 1962. It was designed by the iconic mid-century architect Richard Neutra, in partnership with fellow architect Robert Alexander. It is recognized as a rare example of a built high-rise office building designed by the architects. The building provided records storage space and clerks’ offices for the County. Planned as part of the 1957 Civic Center Master Plan, the HOR replaced the old 1911 HOR and was a centerpiece of the County precinct of the Los Angeles Civic Center west of Broadway. The HOR retains a remarkable degree of design integrity, both on the exterior and interior. HOR - 7th Floor Renovation project The Hall of Records 7th Floor Renovation Project is a pilot project to implement the new LA County Space Standards. In the last 15 years, the industry trends for space planning have evolved with open office floor planning, operational efficiencies, and life-cycle cost optimization in new workplace design strategies. The County is updating its 2001 workplace guidelines considering these industry trends. The HOR - 7th Floor currently has approximately 18,000 square feet of vacant space after the District Attorney’s Office was relocated to the Hall of Justice (HOJ). As part of the planning for the HOJ project, some divisions of the Chief Executive Office (CEO) employees would move from existing leased spaces into the HOR, and the savings from leasing would help to reduce the debt service for the HOJ tenant improvement work. The proposed project scope of renovation work on the HOR 7th floor includes the following; demolition, and abatement of hazardous materials on the east and west wings of the building, elevator lobby renovation, construction of a new cloud ceiling grid, new flooring, new paint, upgraded mechanical, electrical and plumbing infrastructure, Americans Disability Act compliant restrooms, plus new furniture, fixtures, and equipment. The total project cost is estimated to be $7.7 million.

Page 72 of 76

DRAFTApproval of the recommended actions will find that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to approve and execute an amendment to supplement the contract sum by $300,000 and extend the contract term to June 30, 2019 for Professional Services Agreement Contract Number AO-17-400 with the Smith Group JJR to provide additional design and support services for the HOR 7th Floor Renovation Project; authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to approve and execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement Contract Number AO-17-400 to increase the contract sum up to 10 percent of the total maximum contract amount; and authorize the Director of Public Works or his designee to perform demolition including hazardous material abatement/remediation work, and the renovation work for the project using a Board-approved Job Order Contract(s). HOR - Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment project Located on the ground floor, the proposed project’s scope of work consists of interior demolition; the refurbishment of existing restrooms to comply with current codes, remodeling of existing office areas, doors; paint, new flooring, new electrical and data outlets, and new cabinetry; replacement of the existing heating and ventilation system; installation of a new integrated ceiling system to comply with California Title 24, removal and replacement of electrical and data outlets, removal and replacement of existing electrical subpanels; upgrade of data telecommunications systems; purchase of furniture, fixtures, and equipment; and providing Americans with Disabilities Act access to the building. Opening up the area by removing walls will create a more flexible and appealing work environment for the staff, leading to more efficiently providing their services. HOR - Plaza Structural project Over the 55 years since being put in use, the exterior protection systems of the building plaza have exceeded their efficient life span allowing exterior water intrusion into the building and require repairs and water proofing. The proposed project’s scope of work consists of demolition; the refurbishment and water proofing of the existing basement walls, the western planter structure and repair and replacement of the plaza decking which also acts as a structural roof over half of the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs ground floor offices. The hazardous material abatement report has been completed. Demolition plans and jurisdictional approvals are underway. Upon completion of jurisdictional approvals, we plan to proceed with the make ready work of abatement, demolition work, and the renovations using Board-approved JOC(s).

Page 73 of 76

DRAFTImplementation of Strategic Plan Goals The recommended actions meet the newly adopted County 2016-2021 Strategic Plan Strategy III-3 - Pursue Operational Effectiveness, Fiscal Responsibility and accountability, Objective 2) Manage and Maximize County Assets, by developing new County Space Standards with open office floor planning and applying the new Space Standards to the proposed project. The recommended actions help to achieve these goals by converting and improving an existing structure which will provide centralized services for a quicker response to the community. FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING HOR 7th Floor Renovation project The total supplemental cost to the existing Professional Services Agreement Contract No. AO-17-400 with the consultant is $300,000, which includes additional design services for the elevator lobby, and other mechanical and electrical systems. The total cost for demolition and remediation is estimated at $535,000. The total cost of the HOR 7th Floor Renovation project is estimated at $7,700,000 including design, construction, change orders, consultant services, miscellaneous expenditures and County services. There is sufficient funding in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Capital Projects/Refurbishments Budget, under Capital Project No. 87365, to fully fund the project. Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment project The total cost for the HOR Consumer and Business Affairs Refurbishment project is currently estimated at $6,014,000 including design, construction, change orders, consultant services, miscellaneous expenditures and County services. There is sufficient funding in Capital Project No. 87257 to fully fund the project in the Fiscal Year 2016-17. There is no impact to net County cost. Plaza Structural project The total cost for the HOR Plaza Structural project is currently estimated at $7,088,000 including design, construction, change orders, consultant services, miscellaneous expenditures and County services. There is sufficient funding in Capital Project No. 87431 to fully fund the project in the Fiscal Year 2017-18. There is no impact to net County cost.

Page 74 of 76

DRAFTFACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the Board’s Civic Art Policy amended on August 11, 2015, the three projects include 1 percent of design and construction costs to be allocated to the Civic Art Special Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The proposed HOR 7th floor Renovation project has been reviewed and determined to be categorically exempt under CEQA in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15301, Class 1 (a), (d), and (e), and the County of Los Angeles Environmental Procedures and Guidelines, Class 1, adopted by your Board on November 17, 1987. The proposed tenant improvements at the HOR ground floor for the Consumer and Business Affairs Department, which involved interior alterations, code updates, and negligible or no expansion in use are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The actions are within certain classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment in that they meet the criteria set forth in Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 31, of the State's CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Hall of Records Plaza Structural project has been reviewed and determined to be categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15301, Class 1 (a), (d), and (e), and the County of Los Angeles Environmental Procedures and Guidelines, Class 1, adopted by your Board on November 17, 1987. In addition, based on the project records, the projects are not in a sensitive environment, and there are no cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances, damage to scenic highways, listing on hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or indications that it may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource that would make the exemptions inapplicable. Upon the Board's approval, Public Works will file a Notice of Exemption with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk in accordance with Section 15062 of the State CEQA Guidelines. CONTRACTING PROCESS Smith Group JJR was selected in September 2016, following a competitive solicitation process for procurement of qualified architectural firms for consideration to provide professional services for space planning study and space planning design. On January 10, 2017, the Board delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to execute a professional services agreement with the Smith Group JJR for

Page 75 of 76

DRAFTthe County Space Standards study and space planning for the Hall of Records 7th Floor. On February 6, 2017, the Chief Executive Officer executed Professional Services Agreement Contract Number AO-17-400 with the Smith Group JJR for the period of February 6, 2017 through January 31, 2018. The three proposed Hall of Records projects presented in this letter, include demolition and renovation, refurbishment work and will be carried out using Board-approved JOCs. IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS) We anticipate that some demolition, abatement and construction will need to be performed in the off-hours to help reduce impacts to the tenants on other floors of the building. CONCLUSION Please return one adopted copy of this letter to the Department of Public Works, Project Management Division I, and one copy to the Chief Executive Office, Capital Programs Division. Respectfully submitted, MARK PESTRELLA Director of Public Works MP:AKM:cg Enclosure c: Arts Commission Auditor-Controller Chief Executive Office County Counsel Executive Office

Department of Public Social Services (GAIN/GROW Program)

U:\pmdI\SecStaff\CMG work\HOR\BL\171130 HOR Various Projects BL

Page 76 of 76

January 16, 2017 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors:

AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE A DELEGATED AUTHORITY AGREEMENT WITH

BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING SERVICES

(ALL DISTRICTS) (3 VOTES)

SUBJECT Approval of the recommended actions will authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute a Delegated Authority Agreement with BuroHappold Engineering to provide sustainability planning services for the County of Los Angeles. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD:

1. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to execute a Delegated Authority Agreement with BuroHappold Engineering for a not-to-exceed total cost of $1,944,000 through June 30, 2019. The agreement has been approved as to form by the Office of the County Counsel.


FESIA A. DAVENPORT

Assistant Chief Executive Officer

GARY GERO

Chief Sustainability Officer

County of Los Angeles

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Chief Sustainability Office

Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 493, Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 974-1160 www.lacounty.gov/sustainabilty

Board of Supervisors

HILDA L. SOLIS First District MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS Second District SHEILA KUEHL Third District JANICE HAHN Fourth District KATHRYN BARGER Fifth District

The Honorable Board of Supervisors January 16, 2017 Page 2

2. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer, or her designee, to amend the agreement as needed, including changes to the statement of work, total contract sum, and term of the agreement, with approval as to form by the Office of the County Counsel.

PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Approval of the recommended actions will enable the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to work with BuroHappold Engineering (BuroHappold) to develop a Countywide Sustainability Plan (Plan) led by the Chief Sustainability Office (CSO) and supported by the County Sustainability Council (CSC) that will serve as a data-driven, people-oriented countywide sustainability framework. This effort, which will entail extensive public engagement, will result in a cohesive and comprehensive structure that not only ties together past, current, and planned County sustainability efforts and Board actions, but also outlines a bold, inclusive regional vision that balances the values of environment, equity, and economy. The Plan will define an actionable pathway to sustainability that supports the health and well-being of all residents, responsible stewardship of the natural and built environment, and long-term economic growth. Focus areas of the Plan include:

• Water

• Energy

• Climate

• Land Use and Transportation

• Open Space, Recreation, Habitat, and Biodiversity

• Resource Recovery and Waste Management

• Public Health and Well-Being

• Air Quality

• Economy and Workforce Development

• Housing Each of the focus areas will directly address the core issues of equity and resilience. The Plan will prepare the County to successfully pursue competitive funding sources oriented towards sustainability, including positioning the County for California Climate Investments grants (the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) and other related funding opportunities.

The Honorable Board of Supervisors January 16, 2017 Page 3 The CSO, with support from the Department of Regional Planning, selected BuroHappold through a competitive solicitation process as the appropriate party for this assignment given its experienced and dynamic team, which includes subconsultants with deep expertise on the above-listed sustainability topics. The subconsultants include Liberty Hill Foundation, Studio-MLA, Estolano LeSar Perez Advisors, Fehr and Peers, Raimi + Associates, Gladstein, Neandross and Associates, as well several entities within UCLA including the Center for Sustainable Communities, the Sustainable LA Grand Challenge, and the Emmett Institute. This team demonstrated a combination of local knowledge and an international track record of thought leadership on sustainability, which will produce a best-in-class plan informed by data and robust stakeholder engagement. Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals The recommended actions support County Strategic Plan Strategy II.3 (Make Environmental Sustainability Our Daily Reality), Objectives 1-5: Improve water quality, reduce water consumption, and increase water supplies; Foster a cleaner, more efficient, and more resilient energy system; Address the serious threat of global climate change; and Reduce waste generation and recycle and reuse waste resources, by developing a Countywide Sustainability Plan. FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING The funding that would be utilized for the agreement with BuroHappold has already been approved by the Board in the CEO’s 2017-18 budget. The agreement with BuroHappold will be set at a contract sum not to exceed $1,944,000. The agreement will be funded by $1,744,000 in net County cost and $200,000 in previously approved funding from a Southern California Association of Governments Sustainability Planning Grant. Further, to the extent that additional funding is available through philanthropic and other external sources, such monies may be utilized, where appropriate, to supplement County cost expenditures. FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS On March 2, 2016, the Board approved a motion establishing the position of Chief Sustainability Officer to be housed within the Chief Executive Office. The motion directed the Chief Sustainability Officer to create and implement a Countywide Sustainability Plan that incorporated the CSC’s framework created in 2015, but also a set of new, aggressive sustainability goals in consultation with the CSC.

The Honorable Board of Supervisors January 16, 2017 Page 4 The motion specified that the Plan should include final and interim goals, metrics, and timelines, as appropriate. It also directed the Chief Sustainability Officer, working with department heads and the CSC, to prepare an annual report on Countywide and departmental compliance with the Countywide Sustainability Plan once it is established. The Statement of Work in the agreement includes the delivery of the motion-specified components of the Plan. The Statement of Work also addresses the motion’s requirement to incorporate accountability and public reporting. In response to the motion, the Chief Sustainability Officer has conducted a context and framework analysis to identify international best practices related to the development of comprehensive sustainability plans. This assessment directly informed the Statement of Work developed for the competitive solicitation process used to select BuroHappold to develop the Plan. The agreement with BuroHappold would utilize the standard CEO Delegated Authority Agreement template and contain terms and conditions supporting the Board’s ordinances, policies, and programs, including, but not limited to: 1) Child Support Compliance Program; 2) Contractor Responsibility and Debarment; 3) Contractor Employee Jury Service Program; 4) Defaulted Property Tax Reduction Program; 5) County’s Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) and General Relief Opportunities (GROW) Programs; 6) Report of Improper Solicitations; 7) Contract Language to Assist in Placement of Displaced County Workers; and 8) Notice to Contract Employees of Newborn Abandonment Law (Safely Surrendered Baby Law). CONTRACTING PROCESS The Countywide Sustainability Plan Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on August 30, 2017. A Mandatory Proposers’ Webinar was conducted on September 14, 2017 that included 113 registered participants. Thirty-six (36) organizations provided follow-up information after the webinar to continue their participation in the solicitation process. Eight (8) proposals were submitted in response to the RFP by the due date of October 6, 2017. All eight (8) proposals met the minimum requirements stated in the RFP. An evaluation committee, including members of the Chief Sustainability Office and the Department of Regional Planning, evaluated the proposals. Evaluators individually scored the business proposals in accordance with County Contracting Guidelines, conducted an independent review of the proposals, and then participated in a group discussion. Two of the proposers were interviewed to provide clarification on the written proposals. Scores for each proposal under this portion of the evaluation were developed using the Informed

The Honorable Board of Supervisors January 16, 2017 Page 5 Averaging Methodology. Cost proposals were separately reviewed and scored by CEO staff. BuroHappold was the highest scoring proposal. CEO negotiated an agreement with BuroHappold and is now seeking Board approval before executing a Delegated Authority Agreement with BuroHappold. IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS) Approval of the recommended actions will position the County to be a national leader in sustainability by providing a unifying vision for and coordinated approach to current and future County policies, programs, and services while supporting regional solutions. Respectfully submitted, Sachi A. Hamai Chief Executive Officer SAH:JJ:FAD GG:KTP:jg c: Executive Office, Board of Supervisors County Counsel Public Health Public Works Regional Planning Internal Services Community Development Commission Fire Department Sheriff Parks & Recreation Beaches & Harbors

Documents

County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE OPERATIONS ...file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/ceo/agendas/1030996... · Members of the Public may address the Operations Cluster on any agenda