23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Office of Daniel S. Miller Daniel S. Miller, State Bar No. 199086 412 Olive Avenue #620 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Telephone: (714)342?5992 Facsrmile: (714) 415-5535 Attorney for Petitioner WISDOM APPARATUS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WISDOM APPARATUS, a California corporation, Plaintiff 8: Petitioner, LORI AJAX Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control, City of Victorville, and DOES 1 through 10 Defendants Respondents. Petitioner and plaintiff WISDOM APPARATUS petition seeking alternative and peremptory writs of mandate, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and declaratory relief against? defendants and. respondents and alleges as follows: 1. Wisdom seeks to compel the Bureau Of Cannabis Control to issue a Temporary Cannabis Event License to WISDOM so that it can host the 2018 Chalice California Festival at the San Bernardino County FairgrOunds WISDOM applied for a LICENSE on May 1, 2018 and has provided and/ or is capable of providing all of the necessary documents and approvals necessary for the issuance of the LICENSE. BCC has failed to exercise its mandatory duty to issue the LICENSE and, despite telling -1- CASE NO. Assigned to Dept. PETITON FOR 1 Peremptory Writ, 2 Writ Mandate, 3 Declaratory Relief Petition BYFAX ., ?mm?WF?r?f?vr??W?W1' A i WISDOM it had until July 13, 2018 to withdraw the application, the BCC denied the LICENSE on June 13, 2018. PARTIES 2. Wisdom Apparatus is a California corporation in good standing that for the last 2 years has hosted an event called the CHALICE FESTIVAL at the San Bemardino County Fairgrounds WISDOM is the applicant for a Temporary Cannabis Event License to whom BCC owes the duty to fairly exercise its discretion to approve or deny the application. I Respondent LORI AJAX is the Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control com-4.010145le which is a, state agency responsible for issuing licenses pursuant to Business and Professions Code 26200 10 11' 1i 13 4. ReSpondent City of Victorville IS a real party 1n interest since it has refused to either grant authorization for the event and or recognize the sovereign 14 immunity of the BAA to have events like the CHALICE FESTIVAL on the 15 FAIRGROUNDS. 16 5. Does 1 - 10 are persons or agencies whose identity and interest in this 17 proceeding is currently unknown to plaintiff and are therefore named by these 18 fictitious names. . - 19 INTRODUCTION 20 . 6. . The CHALICE FESTIVAL is the California?s largest Art, Music and 21' Cannabis festival attracting more than 35 ,000 people to the High Desert Region of 22? ut?her?Cal?ifornia during a three-day period' in July each year Chalice California 13 23 in its fifth year of operation, with the past two years being held at the San Bernardino 24 County Fairgrounds in Victorvilie. To date, there have been no 25 arrests, hospitalizations, incidents of violence, or other issues reported at the event, or 26 due to the event in the surrounding communities. In addition to being an incident free 27 event, CHALICE FESTIVILE has benefitted the local economy and has brought in an 28 Petition Hgg'ggr'g?gmmwamammgdo '33 estimated $33,580,635 in positive economic impact to the local economy.1 7. The FAIRGROUND is State Property and is under the sovereign jurisdiction of the 28th District Agricultural Association As a DAA, the Fairground is a "state institution" created by statute and is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors, who'are state officers appointed by the Governor. Food 8: Agricultural Code ??3951,_ 3953, 3956, 3959. The governmental purposes are to: . Hold fairs and expositions, to exhibit all of the industries, resources, and products of every kind or nature of the state; and to construct, maintain, and operate recreational and cultural facilities of general public interest. Food 8: Agricultural Code 3954. A DAA, when operating within this governmental capacity, enioys immunity from local . city and county regulations. Borne v. City ofDel (200,1)36 Cal,App,4th 1346,? 173153;: 7, . see560psCaIAttyGen 210. This immunity further "extends to those private entities with which [a leases or contracts in order to put on consumer product i I exhibitions and shows." Bame v. City of Del Mar (2001) 86 CaljilppAlh 1349 at 1358. 8. On May 1, 2018, with the approval of the 28th DAA and FAIRGROUND, WISDOM submitted its application for a LICENSE. 9. Business and Professions Code 26200 states: This division does not prohibit the issuance of a state temporary event license to a licensee authorizing onsite cannabis sales to, and consumption by, persons 21 years of age or older at a county fair or district agricultural association event, provided that the activities, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision that all otherwise consistent with regulations promulgated and adopted by. the bureau governing state temporary event licenses. These temporary event licenses shall only be issued in local jurisdictions that authorize such events. - 10. Between May 1, 2018 and the present, the organizers of the CHALICE 1 Chalice Calimeia 2017 SAFEIC Report, attached as Exhibit 1.. .3- Petition FESTIVILE have been working to with the BCC to obtain the LICENSE. During that process, the BCC in an email dated May 14, 2018 stated also noticed that the local authorization that you provided is from the actual fair grounds that the event will be held at. We are going to need authorization from either the city or the county in which the event will be taking place.? n. WISDOM, the CHALICE FESTIVAL promoters, and the FAIRGROUD have all informed the BCC that FAIRGROUND enjoys immunity for events at their property that are designed to carry out the express governmental purpose, including events like the 12; Despite its belief that the only local approval required is from the FAIRGROUND, WISDOM the CHALICE FESTIVAL promoters, and the FAIRGROUD have attempted to obtain local approval from the City of Victorville. On May 23, 2018, Geoff Hinds, Chief Executive Officer of the 28th DAA, requested that Chalice California be placed on the agenda for the June 5, 2018 Victorville City Council meeting, so that the Council may receive information and consider authorizing the event. copy is attached as Exhibit 2. a 13. Keith Metzler, City Manager of Victorville denied the request by letter dated May 31, 2018. Mr. Metzler stated that the City did not desire to "formally agendize the matter." A copy is attached as Exhibit 3. 14. WISDOM is informed and believes that on June 1, 2018, Victorville contacted the BCC and informed it that Victorville would not grant local approval for the CI-IALICE FESTIVAL. Victorville made this contact with BCC despite the fact that attempts were still being made to resolve the issue of sovereign immunity with Victorville and the BCC and/ or obtain local approval from Victorville by proactively petitioning the local government for assistance. 15. On June 1, 2018, WISDOM was informed by the BCC that application was still active and they had "the option to withdraw this application prior to July 13, 2018, the first day of the event, in order to prevent the Bureau from denying .4. Petition . ?whgm??y m. nee?W .mm wt :wrwe??w A we the license.? A copy is attached as Exhibit 4. 16. On June 5, 2018, WISDOM, the CHALICE FESTIVAL promoters, and member of the attended Victorville?s June 5, 2018 City Council Meeting despite being improperly denied being put on the agenda. During the public comment period, they spoke about the CHALICE FESTIVAL and again requested to be put on the agenda for the next Council Meeting. That request was denied. 17. On June 8, 2013, Christine Vana, Staff Counsel for the DAA sent a letter to the Mayor and 'each Council Member specifically requesting 19, 2018 agenda. The letter also provided information regarding the sovereign immunity of the FAIRGROUND. A copy is attached as Exhibit 5. 18. On June 13, 2018, the BCC denied application. A copy of the denial 15 attached as Exhibit 6. 19. During the course of attempting to obtain this LICENSE, WISDOM has learned that the BCC has failed to treat applicants for a Business and Professions Code 26200 license equally, has issued a temporary cannabis event permit for an event that was not held at a county fair or district agricultural association event, and has failed to provide applicants with clear policies necessary to obtain a license. Specifically, the BCC improperly granted a state temporary event license to Trans High Corporation for an event held at the Cal State Expo, which was neither a county fair nor a DAA event 20. Business and Professions Code 26200 limits state temporary event BBRREQB licenses to events held at either a county fair or district agricultural association event. Given this restriction, there are only 74 possible locations for cannabis events to take place. However, should the BCC be allowed to continue to- ignore the sOvereign immunity and require local ?IapproVal other then the there are only two possible locations where DAA could have cannabis events to fulfill part of their state mandate. The myriad city and county bans on cannabis events is having a direct impact on the ability to carry out its purpose. Bans on cannabis events at -5- Petition ?mn?mw?w county fairs or DAA events must take into account the regional impact of such a ban. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. This Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 2. Venue is proper because 8805 main of?ce is located in this county, and petitioner? 5 application was denied in this county CCP 393(b) and CCP 401 23. . Petitioner has a clear, present and beneficial right to the performance of BBC to issue a temporary license for the event. . 24. Petitioner has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. 25. Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies. BBC does not have procedures to appeal a denial of a temporary license FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION . Peremptory Writ of Mandate Against all respondents 26. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth above. I . 27. Petitioner has met all requirements under the law for BCC to issue a temporary license to petitioner, but BCC has failed and refuses to issue the temporary, license. 2 28. The only reason BCC has given for its failure to issue the temporary 21 license is that BCC believes that the City in which the Fairground is located must give 22?approvai for the event before the BCC may issue the license. 29. reason is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and is contrary to the law. Based on the sovereign rights of the FAIRGROUND, authorization from the FAIRGROUN on which the event will be held is the only authorization needed for the BCC to issue the temporary license under the law. 30. Petitioner is damaged by the failure and refusal to issue the temporary license. Petition 1 31. A peremptory writ of mandate should issue to compel the BCC to issue the temporary license, and allow petitioner to hold the event as currently scheduled. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Writ of Mandate Against all respondents 32. Petitioner rea-lleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth above. 33. Petitioner has met all requirements under the law for BCC to issue a temporary license to petitioner, but BCC has failed, and refuses to issue the temporary 10 11 13 license. 34. The only reason BCC has given for its failure to issue the temporary . license 18 that BCC believes that the City which the Fairground 18 located must give approval for the event before the BCC may issue the license. 14 35. reason is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and is 15 contrary to the law. Based on the sovereign rights of the authorization from the FAIRGROUND on which the event will be held is the only authorization needed for the BCC to issue the temporary license under the law. 16 17 18 19 36. Petitioner is damaged by the failure and refusal to issue the temporary license. 20 37. A peremptory writ of mandate should Issue to compel the BCC to' issue 21 the temporary license, and allow petitioner to hold the event as currently scheduled. 22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 23 Declaratory Relief 24 Against all respondents 25 26 27 28 38. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth above. . 39. BCC and the other respondents contend that under the law, the BCC may not issue a temporary license to petitioner, unless the local city authorizes the -7. Petition event and issuance of the license. 40. Petitioner contends that under the law, the BCC may issue a temporary license to petitioner, regardless of whether the local city authorizes the event; and to the contrary petitioner contends that based on the sovereign rights of the authorization from the FAIRGROUND on which the event will be held is the only authorization needed for the BCC to issue the temporary license under the law. Petitioner furthercontends that if the agency regulations provide otherwise, the regulations must be held to be invalid because they are contrary to the above stated law that gives sovereignty in these matters to the Fairgrounds on which the event will be held. 41. Respondents disagree with petitioner contentions. 7_ I 42. Petitioner therefore requests that the court make a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties under the laws of the State of California, and declare that the BCC does not need to get approval from any county or city to issue a temporary event license as long as the where the event will be held has approved of the event. . PRAYER WHEREFORE, Petitioner pray for judgment as follows: 1. Under the First Cause Of Action, that this Court' Issue [either a peremptory writ of mandate or alternative and peremptory writs of mandate] commanding Respondent BCC to Issue a temporary event license for petitioner?s event San Bemardino County Fairgrounds. 2. 2. Under the Second Cause of Action, Petitioner requests that the court make a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties under the laws of the State of California, and declare that the BCC does not need to get approval from any county or city to issue a temporary event license as long as the where the event will be held has approved of the event. 3. That this Court grant Petitioner such other, different, or further relief as the -3, Petition Court may deem just and proper. DATED: June 18, 2018 Law Office of Daniel S. Miller Wisdom Apparatus . r, Counsel for Petitioner -9.- Petition 1 .. 1 I, Doug Dracup, am and of?cer of petitioner WISDOM APPARATUS in this 1 action and am authorized to sign this verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing Answer and it is true of my own knowledge Except as to those matters stated on information and belief which I believe to be true. the foregoing is true and correctdeclare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that 7 8 FXecuted this 18 day of June, 201-8 9 10 ec aran Doug Dracup ~10- Petition II Exhibit 1 Festival Economic Impact Calculator Report Using reporting criteria: Tourism events attraCt new money into the impact region The Victor Valley and surrounding area 4? and create direct and indirect impacts through re- Spending of the initial injection, Boonom'i'c impact studies, and calculators, attempt to answer the question: "If the event had not taken place, what would the loss of economic activity to the impact area have been?? The results presented in this report were produced using SAFEIC criteria, Specifically for cultural festivals and events. sane-1c provide ermine; conservative ectimutes at theeconomic topic: or festivals and events - and is open to all organizers of events and festivals fromsmall to large. The reliability and validity of results rely, crucially, on data entered into the SAFEIC. This data includes: De?ning the impact area; . Attendee numbers; and Organizer data on nonvlocal sponsorship and earned income Based on the entered data and the underlying model, SAFEIC results show that Chalice California had the following economic impact on the High Desert Region of Southern California in 2017': a. Total spending on accommodation by festival visitors in the host economy was 0 $2,700,000 The total spent by festival organizers in the host economy, not including local sponsorship, was 0 $1,820,000 - Taking into account out?ows and the multiplier'effect, the total economic impact of the festival on the host economy was 0 $33 580,635 The economic impact ?gure represents the additional expenditure that the host ecOnom?y would lose if the festival or event had not taken place. As such, it does; not include spending by local residents (who are likely to have spent the money in the town or city, even if the event had not taken place), or spending by organizers that was sourced from local sponsors. This report uses critical elements and quantitative data to generate a conservativeimpact estimate. The three main outcomes outlined above are the results of these inputs. Hist 'lrliuk?i?/bl' g? fix-l licpt?u?i Please more that this report is not a comprehensive economic impact assessment (BIA) nor should it take the place-of a full EIA. The sole purpose of the SAFEIC Report - is to provide a credible, conservative estimate of the ecpnomic impact of festivals and events. The reliability and validity of results is solely dependent 'on the data entered into the SAFEIC. As a resultthe SACQ takes no responsibility for either the inputs or the results generated from usage of the n0r can the SACO be held legally or otherwise responsible for the information generated by the SAFEIC. The SACO accepts no liability for the information generated by the reports or the presentation of its results to interested parties as the SACO is unable to independently verify the. initial input data. '"Intensities;insisted opinionsexpressed on this repurtshould notbe "regarded as professional advice or information nor the of?cial opinion. Calculator reports supplied are for indicative values only, and the SACOsh?all not be responsible nor liable for any inaccuracies or miscalCulations arising out of defects or incorrect use. BACKGROUND The City of Victorville is home to an estimated population of 122,235 residents according to 2m 6 census data. In 2008, the US Census designated Victorville the second fastest growing city in the country. Victorville has, experienced incredible growth in a short time due in large part to the support of it elected, leaders regarding sustainable economic growth throughout the community. The traditionally business friendly council and supporting policies has continued to attract business to the area at a steady clip. I Victorville, taken with the population of neighboring communities including Hesperi a, Apple Valley, Adelant?o and unincorporated communities governed by San Bernardino County -.knowo colleeti've?ly as the Victor Valley is conservatively estimated to have a population of more than 400,000 residents. increased by one third, every hotel within 50 air miles was reportedly sold out and several restaurants ran out of fond. Despite this incredible in?ux, the San Bemnrdino County Sheriff?s Victor'ville Station Spo?kes'woman reported that there were no serious incidents or arrests. .. . 2 l?a (I: This report is intended to further corroborate numbers that have been independently reported regarding the positive economic impact of the Chalice event on the City- of Victorvill'e and surrounding communities. A. Description of Chalice California ,7 Chalice California is the world?s largest Art, Music and Cannabis festival attracting more . than 35,000 people to the High Desert Region of Southern California during a three-day period 0 in July each year._ Chalice California is in its ?fth year of Operation, with the past two years being held at the San Bernardino County Fairgrounds in Victorville. To date, there have been no arrests, hospitalizations, incidents of violencle?,vor other issues reported at theevent, or due to the event in the surrounding oommunities.~ Methodology: Spending by local residents, producers and sponsors, (that is people and organizations in the impaet area) is not counted as part of economic impact. This is beCaase their spending does not represent "new" money coming into the area, and if the festival or event had not, taken place, their spending is still likely to have occurred, albeit on something else. ., Main'EventiNnmberof?DaysSupplemental Days Pro and Post in Impact Area 2 Total Event Days Combined 5 Avg. Visitor Length Of Stay Not in Paid Accommodation 2.5 Nos. of Nights Stay of Alg. Paid AcCommodation Visitor 2.5 Pepn'lation of LonalCommMity 4 3. Description of Audience/Attendee This section takes a deeper look at visitors and audience of the Chalice. California event: How many came to the event, how many were local and how many came from outside the impact area. Methodology: The Data in this section is based on the total number of daily tickets sold. Visitors from out of the area were determined. using a data search of online tickets sold, and an analysis of the zip codes in which tickets were purchased in/from. Tickets purchased more than 50 miles from the Event Location Zip code of 92395 were considered Non Local Attendees. Total number or attendees 30,000 .PereentAAttendeesNon?isoeal . . 80 Totalnum'ber of Noni-Local Visitors 24,000 Percent Visitors Staying in Paid AccommodatiOn 50 Total number of Visitors Staying in Paid Aeoommo'dati?on 12,000 ViSitors in Hotel/Paid Accommodation Primarily for Event 45 Tetal number of Paid AccommOdation ViSitors DUE to Event 5 ,400 Total Visitor Paid accommodation Room Nights 13,500 Percent? Visitors not in Paid Accommodation - 50% Bipnge Total Visitors not staying in Paid Accommodation 1 2 ,000 Paid Accommodation VisitOrs Primarily for Event 45% Total non-paid Accommodation Visitor Days 13,500 C. Visitor Non?Ticket Spending by Day (Spending is divided into two categories: Spending per person per night on accommodation (for - those who stayed overnight in paid~for ancommodation) and spending on other things (such as food and drinks, shopping and souVenirs within the localcconomy). Note: spending on event ticketin is not included here - (counted as part of organizer earned income, if applicable) Average Paid Accommodation Room RatelNight/Person $200 Non-AccommOdation Per Person Spending/Day $25 Per Person Spending/Day Paid Accommodation Visitors $225 D. Visitor Non-Ticket Total Spending This section Provides the total attendee festival or for, . daily expenditure on food, travel, drinks, souvenirs and a combined ?gure. This section includes spending by noon local artists, vendors, and other non?ticketed Total Paid Accommodation Visitor Spending for Accommodation $2,700,000 Total Paid Accommodation Visitor $337,500 Spending Paid Accommodation Visitor Total Combine-d Spending $3,037,500, Non-Paid Accommodation Visitor Total Spending $750,000 Total Visitor Non-Ticket Spending $3,787,500 E. Non Locachndor, Artist and Producer Spending This section includes spending by non? local artists, vendors, and other non~tickcted attendee?s, and provides an: analysis of their econoinic impact. (Note, due to the high number of out of area. vendors at the Chalice California event, these numbers report higher than industry averages). of NOn-Local Artists and Producers 500 AVeEaggIcngm ofStay of Artists 3.5 of NonwLocal Artists etc. MdvAccommodation 50% Number of Artist Visitor Non-Paid Accommodation Days . 875 Number- of Artist Visitor'Paid Accommodation Days 87,500 Per Day Spending of Non~local Artists/Vendors not in Paid 3550 Acconunodations . Per Day Spending. for Paid Accommodations $200 Total Spending by ArtiSts not in Paid Acc?onim?oddtibns. $43,750 . Total Spending by Artists for Paid Accommodations $17,500,000. Total Other Spending by'Paid AccommodatiOn Artists $4,375,000 i 4 l?ttgc Total Spending by artists, vendors and producers F. Non Local Media Visitor Spending 21,918,750 This section de?nes the impact of paid and unpaid media attendees of the Chalice California 7 Event. %'of Visiting Media Staying in Paid Accommodations 50 Total Spending lay-Media Not in Paid Accommodation $3,750 Total Spending by Media for Paid Accommodation $25,000 (3. Total Visitor Spending Totals Total Paid Accommodation Visitor Spending for Paid $2 700,000 Actommodation Total Paid Accommodation Visitor Non~Paid Accommodation $337,500 Spending - Total Combined Spending for Visitors with Paid Accommodation 3,037,500 Total spending fer Visitors with Non?Paid Accommodation $750,000 - -- Total Spending by Artists and Producers $21,918,750 A Total Spending by Visiting Media $32,500 Total Visitor Non?Ticket Spending $25,738,750 Non-Local Sponsorship Funding from outside impact area $0 Total Earned Incume - $3,500,000 Earned mcome from (non- local) visitors and producers 52300000 Total non-Ideal organizer revenue $2,800,000 Total Organizer Spending on Event (from non?local sources) $2,800,000 Percent Olganizer. Revenue Spent Locally 0.65 Total Organizer Amount Spent Locally $1,820,000 Total Visitor, Pruducer Media non- ticket Spending $25,738,750 Local Capture Rate for Visitor Producer Media Spend 0.72 H. Indirect Multipliet Effect Impacts SAFEIC uses an output multiplier (based on the size of the impact area) that captures the re spending of the new money in the host economy, and the data entered to calculate the total economic impact of each event. This ?gure answers the question: If the festival or event had not taken place. whatjs the ?nancial loss that the unpact area would have soffered Local Output Multiplier . 1.65 Total Economic Impact: Chalice California 2017 $33,580,635 Exhibit 2 Honorable Mayor Gloria Garcia Victorville City Hall 14343 Civic Dr. . Victorville, CA 92392 May 23, 2018 Dear Mayor Garcia, On behalf of the 28?? District Agricultural Association/SEC Fair, as well as countless residents and business owners in Vic-torville and the surrounding region; we would appreciate the opportunity to address the council with a presentation and conversation regarding Chalice California and similar events held at SBC Fair, at a YQLIEI 1:11.18, SliwCuitydiacussed at our Meeting on May 10th, the SBC Fair has created a rigorous vetting and review process prior to agreeing to host an event of any kind. Since its inception this process has been reviewed and approved by our board, and'has been Copied and duplicated at many other Fairs and ?venues throughout the State. Our decision on What events will be contracted, and hosted at SBC Fair is guided by a four?way measure that considers. the following four Items: 1. Legality 2. Safety 3. Financial lmpact .4. Community Impact. In considering events and opportunities that are presented to us, we thoroughly and rigorously evaluate each event based on all four of these measures, In addition, we also do our best 'to ensure that we can partner with Victorville .and the surrounding communities so that any event hosted on our property bene?ts both the City i of Victorville, as well as the region as a whole; The SEC Fair is proud of its history of hosting and i producing safe, and successful events, prOud to offer- events that have bene?tted Victorville, its residents and its business community and has enjoyed Working with the city for more than 70 years. understand that thus issue is not black and white, and that many folks have signi?cant differences of opinion on what they perceive this "event to be. We Would like a chance to provide more information about What we have seen Over the past two years of hosting Chalice, and approximately 15 other events of its type; and a chance to answer your questions,.and to dispel any rumors. No matter one?s opinion of Cannabis,?there can be no doubt however that this festival has proven to be one of the safest events on record, and is an event that provides much needed, signi?cant economic impact into our entire region, with signi?cant positive and no reperted negative impacts to the City of Victorville or surtpunding coininutiities'. Each year, Chalice California, and other'eve?nts like it sells out every hotel room within 50 air miles of the Fairgrounds in Victorville, bringing guests who eat in our restaurants, ?ll up atour gas Stations, and utilize the-se?rVices of our local businesses. 28??Di5trict Agricultural Bernardino Cetmty Fair An Agency of the State of'California 14800 7?h Street Victorville CA 92395 com This year?s Chalice California is expected to attract nearly 45,000 attendees, with many coming from out of state, and, some even from other countries. This expected attendance is increased over the number that attended last year where it is estimated that the event created more than $30 million of direct economic impact for businesses in odr community. Not Only does this event, and eyents of its type create massive economic impact, they. also serve as a catalyst to attract thousands, but also provides an oppOrt?unity to showcase the City of Victorville and the entire High Desert region to thousands of festival attendees who may have never visited before. We will gladly go into more depth regarding the positive community impacts created by events of this type, the past safety record of the events that have previously been held in both the City ofVictorville and the region; as well as the we go to ensure the attendees and the surrounding community are safe. As you the..State.ofCaliforniahas createda very detailed review process for the participationinthis space, and'we would like-the opportunity to brief the council on this process. Our goal isto provide the council information on the extensive- vetting process any event producer, and participating organization must go through in order to assure that these events are. legal, safe, and provide the most positive experience possible; a process that includes review and input by the Victorville Police/San Bernardino County Sheriff?s Department, and multiple other levels of review locally and at the State level. As part of this discussion, we would also respectfully request that you consider including on the June 5th Agenda, a discussion and line item for consideration and possible approval of either an amendment, a variance Or an exemption for state property located within the City of Victorville to allow for the continued hosting of State approved cannabis events. We look forward to a healthy discussion and ultimately hope we can work with the city to create the best Opportunity for all parties, especially the continued success of local businesses during these events. Sincerely; Geoff R. Hinds CEO cc: Victorville City Council CC: City Manager Keith Metzler CC: 281}] District Agricultural Association, Board of Directors .28m District ASsoclation/San Bernardino County Fair An Agency of the State of California 14800 7'b Street Victorville CA 92395 . ?m?r??wxw? ??lrt? . . Exhibit 3 760.955.5000 FAX 760.245.7243 vvilic @cixicturvillc.cn.us CITY OF 14343 Civic Drive PD. Box 5001 Victorvillc. Cali?trnia 92393-5001 May31,2018 Geoff Hinds, CEO 28?h District Agricultural Association 14800 7?h Street Victorville, CA 92395 . Re: Response to letter dated May 23, 2018 Dear Mr. Hinds, On May 23, 2018, Mayor Gloria Garcia received your letter requesting that the City Council consider including as a part of its agenda on June 5, 2018 a discussion item for consideration and eventat the SanBemardino Cgumy Fairgrounds referred .. to its Chalice California.? The Mayor has asked that I review the letter and consider the appropriateness for this item to be discussed. As you know, Victorville has recently given great consideration to the laws approved by the State of California commercializing cannabis for recreational use. The subject has been deliberated quite extensively by the Victorville Planning Commission and the Victorviile City Council. and with the cooperative efforts of both the Planning? Commission and the City Council, Vi'ctowille has adopted an ordinance prohibiting all commercial aspects of cannabis within its jurisdictional boundaries eXcepting permissidn fur residents to grow six cannabis plants indoor to their residence and allowing for the transport for medicinal purposes through ourjurisdiction using lucul streets. Upon reccit'ing and reviewing your letter, I have determined that there is not a desire for the Victorv?ille City Council to formally ngendize this matter. Therefore, at this time, the City of Victorville will not be issuing a letter supporting cannabis themed events at the San Bernardino County Fairgrounds and therefore does not suppert such an activity. It is my understanding that a permit application for the Chalice event has recently been submitted to the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC). Because the requisite City of Victorville approval letter will not accompany such application, 1 anticipate the event permit will not be issued by the BCC. As, such, I expect would be an unpermitted, and therefore unlawful, event. If you have any questions please don?t hesitate to contact me at (760) 9556029. Sincerely, Keith C. Metzler City Manager CC: Victorville City Council Sdphie Smith, Deputy City Manager George Harris, Deputy City Manager Rick Bessinger, Police Captain Andre de Bortnowsky, City Attorney 'Sue Jones, Public'Information Of?cer Page 2 Exhibit 4 From: Robison, Karen@DCA