Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business applicants and residents clash with council over proposed rollback of Riverside cannabis permit limits
Summary
Applicants and community members told the council that proposed ordinance changes — cutting the number of retail cannabis permits and limiting ownership transfers — would break promises, harm small businesses and risk legal action; council did not approve the related consent item.
Riverside City Council heard sustained public opposition Tuesday to proposed amendments that would reduce the city’s planned cannabis retail permits and limit ownership transfers for provisional license holders.
Dozens of applicants and business owners told the council the changes — proposed after the city paused permit processing — would upend investments they made in reliance on the city’s earlier rules. Several speakers said the city should keep the original promise of up to 14 retail permits and objected to new one-per-ward limits and transfer restrictions.
Vincent Hallick, an applicant, told the council he and others have searched for viable properties in Wards 4 and 7 and found none that meet the city’s sensitive-use zoning standards. "If the council insists on moving forward with the one-per-ward rule, will the city assist applicants who are forced to relocate, find a viable property, or will the city be available to adjust sensitive-use criteria?" Hallick asked.
Other applicants warned of legal action. Lauren Fontaine, an owner of a top-ranked applicant, said the city’s pause in processing and the proposed ordinance changes violated legal and equitable principles and could prompt lawsuits. Attorney Matthew Henderson, representing three top applicants, told the council his clients had invested "hundreds of thousands of dollars" and urged the city not to change the rules in mid-process.
Supporters of preserving the larger number of permits said limiting awards would concentrate licenses among a few operators and reduce competition that benefits consumers. Carmen Carrillo, regional manager for a dispensary chain, said limiting awards to one license per operator "prevents a saturated marketplace without diversity and opportunity" and would create "immense financial hardship" for companies that had already received provisional approvals.
Several speakers, including long-time residents and small-business applicants, asked the council to restore the previously announced 14-permit expectation, or at least to retain a 50/50 cost or otherwise provide assistance to applicants who could not find compliant locations.
On the consent calendar vote that followed, the council recorded a split result on the cannabis-related item: the agenda notation shows item 23 was not approved during the consent vote (several council members registered "no" or abstained). The record on the floor flagged the item for separate consideration rather than approving it as presented on consent.
There was no final ordinance adoption on Tuesday; the debate and the public record leave the application process and any ordinance revisions in flux pending further council action and, potentially, legal challenges.
