Trust lacking in process for licensing medicinal pot businesses

Truesdell abstained on or voted to reject more than half of the dispensary applications that made it to the city’s planning commission, where he is a member. Many, however, survived that step in the process. The City Council, which has final say, ended up licensing about 75 percent of applicants — 27 out of 37 put up for a vote.

Truesdell, a commercial real estate broker with a financial interest in two dispensaries, abstained from voting on nine permit applications, including those in which he or a family member has a direct financial interest.

But unlike Mayor Carolyn Goodman, who didn’t vote on any licenses because her son was involved in one dispensary application, Truesdell had no qualms in opposing 13 pot shop proposals.

That has led some to suggest that Truesdell had an indirect financial interest in wanting to kill applications brought forward by his tenants’ would-be competitors. They wonder why the commissioner didn’t also bow out of the city’s pot permit hearings.

“(Truesdell) should have abstained from the entire process,” would-be medical pot shop operator Mark Bradley said Tuesday. “If Carolyn did, why shouldn’t he?”

Truesdell, president of Corner­stone Companies, cited everything from concerns over traffic flow to worries over building size in his opposition to applications heard by the planning board in September.

The three-term planning commissioner voted to deny four dispensary applications within two miles of his own company’s pot shop tenants near Paradise Road and East Sahara Avenue.

He stands by each of those votes.

Reached for comment Thursday, Truesdell said he was advised by counsel that he didn’t have to abstain from pot land use hearings because the planning commission is merely a recommending body, not one that issues a final decision on the city’s medical marijuana applicants.

He said he recalls “one or two” occasions where he took a vote after dis­closing a prior business or personal relationship with an applicant, but he said he abstained on every item the city attorney advised him against hearing.

“I’m very comfortable with my votes,” Truesdell said. “The difference between the mayor and myself is (the planning commission) is only a recommending board. That’s what I was told going into this process.”

City Attorney Brad Jerbic, who is responsible for helping both Goodman and Truesdell steer clear of potential conflicts of interest, did not respond to requests for comment.

COFFIN ‘DISAPPOINTED’ IN PLANNING BOARD

Bradley, the president of spurned Las Vegas pot shop applicant Green Leaf Farms Holdings, said the planning commissions’ recommendation in September to deny the company’s special use permit hurt its bid to secure a city business license last month.

But he said problems with the city’s pot land use hearings go beyond who did or did not vote on the recommendation.

Green Leaf, which was awarded two pot cultivation and production licenses in North Las Vegas, had sought planning board approval for a shop at its preferred Las Vegas home, near Sahara Avenue and South Valley View Boulevard.

City planning staff recommended approval for the dispensary, determining it met the criteria for an “appropriate and harmonious” land use.

Green Leaf partners suspect opposition from residents of the nearby Spanish Oaks neighborhood killed the company’s bid, though another pot shop just one block away was approved.

None of the city’s elected leaders or planning commissioners had a direct financial interest in approving Green Leaf’s Sahara Avenue rival, which is owned by longtime Las Vegas pawn shop operators Bill and Erminia Drobkin.

Bradley doesn’t think his bid for the location was spoiled by anything other than a few vocal neighborhood opponents. He just wishes he could rule out the possibility that city leaders and their appointees wanted to reject Green Leaf’s proposal.

“The planning commission deals with land use, that’s all its (hearings) are supposed to be about,” he said. “I don’t think it was anything personal, but at the end of the day it didn’t matter what (planning) staff recommended, it was about whether (commissioners) wanted it in that location.”

Bradley’s not alone in raising concerns about the planning commission’s handling of pot business applicants.

City Councilman Bob Coffin points to a pot shop in his ward that was rejected by the planning commission in part because Truesdell felt the proposed building was “too small.”

Coffin questioned whether building dimensions had anything to do with the viability of the permit application, which the city eventually approved.

“Did the planning commission have any other concerns, or did they just focus on the size of the building?” Coffin asked. “I’m disappointed in the planning commission on this. … They should have done their job better.”

Truesdell disagrees.

The planning board, he said, does consider building code-related issues and neighborhood concerns.

“Staff deals with the rigidity of the code, but we can take other things into account, like neighborhood compatibility,” Truesdell said.

“If 20 people show up and say they don’t want this in their neighborhood, that should have an impact on those decisions.”

LAWSUITS POSSIBLE

Green Leaf consultant Michael Pratter said the company might still take legal action over its Las Vegas pot shop application, joining a growing chorus of unsuccessful dispensary applicants.

NuLeaf CLV, a Las Vegas pot shop hopeful run by longtime California-based dispensary operators at Berkeley Patients Group, was ranked as the city’s third-best applicant by state regulators.

Yet the group was denied a permit on a 4-2 vote late last month. NuLeaf attorney John Sande has said the company is “looking at all options” in appealing.

Moe Asnani, a partner with Phoenix-based Arizona Dispensary Solutions, said he’s in the same boat.

Representatives with his group, Cannabis Renaissance Group, LLC, sprinted through the city’s land use and preliminary business license hearings, only to see their application killed by city leaders skeptical of the group’s business bonafides.

Asnani, who helps run a half-dozen pot shops and grow houses in Arizona, says he remains hopeful that he won’t have to sue to get the city to reconsider. He doesn’t object to the way his application was handled by Truesdell and other planning board members, nor does he dismiss complaints raised by other applicants.

“I know some games were being played at the planning commission, but not with my group,” he said. “I know when one applicant, (Anthony) Deluca, showed up, all of his neighbors were against him. They changed the course of that permit.

“So if I’m on the planning commission, or if I have a competing application and I don’t want you there because you’re a competitor, it looks like all I have to do is get all of the neighbors to oppose it and get some people to show up at the meeting. … That’s all it takes.”

Contact James DeHaven at jdehaven@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3839. Follow him on Twitter: @JamesDeHaven.