SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ITEM
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2.12
(ID # 10261)

MEETING DATE:
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
FROM : TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY (TLMA):

SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY: Receive and File

Cannabis Request For Proposals Results. All Districts. [$0]

RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of Supervisors:

1. RECEIVE AND FILE the Commercial Cannabis Request for Proposal results to allow the
top ranked proposals that have been identified in Attachment A the ability to move
forward in the discretionary land use permitting process by applying for Conditional Use
Permits and Development Agreements subject to all applicable procedures,
requirements, policies, state laws, and ordinances.

ACTION:Consent

____________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Page 1 of 5 ID# 10261 2.12

 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FINANCIAL DATA Current Fiscal Year: Next Fiscal Year: Total Cost: Ongoing Cost

COST $0 $0 $0 $0
NET COUNTY COST $0 $0 $0 $0
Budget Adjustment: No
SOURCE OF FUNDS: No cost associated with this action.
Individual development projects will pay for their own
processing costs.
For Fiscal Year: 19/20
C.E.O. RECOMMENDATION: Approve

BACKGROUND:
Summary
On October 23, 2018, the Board took action to adopt a regulatory framework to allow cannabis
businesses the right to proceed through the entitlement process in unincorporated Riverside
County, which included an Amendment to Ordinance No. 348 (Zoning & Land Use). This action
also included approval of an Implementation Process for an initial, first-year, ramp-up for
processing conditional use permits for commercial cannabis cultivation and retail sales. The first
year of the Implementation Process calls for up to 19 retailers and 50 cultivators to be
considered for approval within the unincorporated areas throughout the County.

Further, on January 29, 2019 the Board adopted Board of Supervisors Policy No. B-9 and
Resolution No. 2019-037 regarding Development Agreements for Commercial Cannabis
Activities which set forth procedures and requirements for consideration of Development
Agreements for commercial cannabis activities. This Board action also included approval of
issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) which would be used by County Staff to rank the top
19 retailers and 50 cultivation sites for the first year of implementation.

The County received 119 total RFP response packages, categorized as the following:

Category District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total

Retail 12 19 25 7 8 71
Cultivation 3 1 16 5 5 30
Microbusiness 3 3 2 9 1 18
Total: 18 23 43 21 14 119

Based on the results of the ranking process, Staff is recommending that twenty four (24) retail,
fifteen (15) micro-businesses, and thirty (30) cultivation proposals, a total of 69, be allowed to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the next step to be considered for approval. Of
these 69, up to 64 may be approved after considering the 1000-ft separation requirement for
retail operations, described in more detail below.

Page 2 of 5 ID#10261 2.12

 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

It should be noted that receiving a top ranking to apply for a County CUP does not
constitute a land use approval. Nor does receipt of this agenda item by the Board of
Supervisors constitute an approval or imply that a land use permit approval will be made
in the future. All Cannabis Activities applications will be processed, heard, and decided
in accordance with all procedures, requirements, policies, and ordinance provisions
applicable to conditional use permits and development agreements, including noticed
public hearings at the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Additionally,
all applications must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, be consistent
with the County’s General Plan, enter into a negotiated Development Agreement with the
County, obtain the appropriate State license under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act, and satisfy all other regulatory requirements prior to
commencing operation.

Ranking Methodology
Retailers: The County received 71 RFP response packages for retailers, which exceeds the 19
authorized by the Board for the first year. As a result, all retail response packages that were
submitted, and deemed to be complete, were ranked. Rankings were based upon the criteria
specified within the RFP package and each RFP response package was independently ranked
by six (6) uniquely qualified County staff. The ranker's scores were calculated and a final overall
score was obtained. All retail proposal scores are shown in Attachment A, ordered by the
highest score to the lowest.

Attachment A includes 24 retail locations that are being recommended to be allowed to process.
There are a number of retail location proposals that are within 1000 ft. of each other, which is
not allowed by our Ordinance. As such, we have expanded the number of retail proposals that
will have an opportunity to process from 19 to 24, to give the applicants that are within 1000 ft.
of each other the opportunity to move forward at-risk should they wish to do so. In these cases
of conflict, applications will be at-risk (as all applications are), and the first business to receive
Board approval will be deemed the successful applicant that sets the 1,000 ft. conflict area.

Cultivation: The County received 30 RFP response packages for cultivation, which is less than
the 50 authorized by the Board for the first year. As a result, all cultivation response packages
that were submitted may proceed forward to the next step.

Microbusinesses: The County received 18 Microbusiness RFP response packages. These all
included cultivation in their required activities. Fourteen (14) proposals for a microbusiness
included both retail and cultivation operations. Since the total number of cultivation proposals
submitted was under the first year phase-in limit of 50, these were placed in the category where
they scored highest as specified in the RFP. Because cultivation proposals were not put in
ranking order, this is the category where they scored highest.

There were three (3) Microbusiness proposals, however, that were within 1,000 ft. of the top 19
ranked retail proposals, therefore those three were treated as retail proposals. Given this

Page 3 of 5 ID#10261 2.12

 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

conflict, these three microbusiness proposals were ranked along with the retail proposals.
These ranked lower than the conflicting retail proposals, and therefore, are not recommended to
move forward.

Appeal Process
As part of the Board approved commercial cannabis regulatory framework, an appeal process
was included to give unsuccessful proposers the ability to have their proposals reconsidered by
an independent party not involved with the initial ranking. We have received seven (7) timely
appeals listed as Attachment B. The appeals were reviewed by the TLMA Director as specified
in the RFP. It was determined by the TLMA Director that six (6) of the appeals were without
merit and therefore denied. One (1) of the appeals was found to have merit due to pointing out a
potential additional conflict with the 1,000 ft. setbacks between ranked retailers. This proposal
was the next eligible proposal on the ranking list and was therefore upheld. This then increased
the number of retail proposals that Staff is recommending to move forward to 24. Of these 24 a
maximum of 21 could be approved outside of the 1,000 ft. conflict area.

Next Steps
Upon Board receipt of this ranking list, the top proposals that have been identified as being able
to move forward will have 120-days to submit a complete application for a Conditional Use
Permit and Development Agreement pursuant to Ordinance No. 348.

Impact on Residents and Businesses

The Commercial Cannabis program has been crafted to allow for Commercial Cannabis
Activities that could potentially co-exist with existing and future businesses and within
reasonable development standards that would protect residential neighborhoods. Each case will
be individually reviewed and vetted by the hearing bodies and the public to ensure that the
proposed permitted use is compatible with surroundings, mitigates potential impacts to residents
and businesses, and is in compliance with all state and local laws.

Additional Fiscal Information

All commercial cannabis activity permits are subject to compliance with Board of Supervisors
Policy No. B-9 which states that each negotiated development agreement shall include
provisions for public benefits, including baseline public benefit fees and additional public
benefits. Further, all costs and staff time incurred processing the commercial cannabis
applications will be paid by the applicant in accordance with Ordinance No. 671.

Contract History and Price Reasonableness

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A Staff Recommended Ranking list

Page 4 of 5 ID#10261 2.12

 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ATTACHMENT B Appeal Responses

Page 5 of 5 ID#10261 2.12