Auburn Council directs staff to hold public outreach on retail cannabis; staff recommends one storefront and one delivery license

The Auburn City Council on Tuesday directed staff to undertake public outreach and return with draft ordinance language to consider allowing retail and delivery cannabis operations in the city.

Jonathan Wright, the city’s economic development director, told the council that staff’s current recommendation is to permit retail storefronts and delivery rather than cultivation, manufacturing or events. Wright said staff favors a limited, competitive selection process using requests for proposals and development or revenue agreements so the city can set security, odor-control and community contribution conditions.

The direction follows a 70-minute presentation and discussion in which Wright reviewed state licensing types, local land constraints and regulatory tools. “At this point, staff is only recommending really that we look at the retail license side, which would allow for a retail storefront and delivery,” Wright said. He noted that cultivation and large-scale manufacturing are unlikely in Auburn because the city has little industrial land and that some cannabis activity is already being delivered into the city from neighboring operators.

Wright summarized draft policy elements the city could require: a buffer from schools, nondescript storefronts without plant signage, strict indoor odor controls for multi-tenant buildings, an approved security plan signed off by the police chief, and limits on loitering. He also recommended using an RFP process so the city can evaluate applicants on community contribution, site design and operating plans; selected applicants could then enter a development agreement subject to annual review.

Chief Brian Morrison of the Auburn Police Department, who toured Grass Valley’s dispensary with council members, described the experience as favorable. “I, to be quite honest with you, I was quite impressed with, the Grass Valley location, the storefront, the manner in which they, provided security,” Morrison said, adding that Grass Valley had reported “little to no, increase in crime.”

Council members and members of the public raised location, timing and outreach concerns. Councilmember Davis asked that staff remove specific parcels across from E. B. Kane (the Palm Avenue/Highway 49 shopping area) from the list of potential candidate sites; council consensus was to exclude those parcels because of proximity to youth-oriented uses, including Auburn Gymnastics. The packet had identified three general areas for potential retail/delivery uses: the Nevada Street corridor, the Palm Avenue/Highway 49 corridor, and the High Street/Upper Lincoln Way corridor.

Public speakers urged both prompt action and careful community engagement. Resident Colin Madall said a local storefront would keep tax dollars in Auburn and praised nearby examples in Nevada City and Grass Valley. Jacob Schmidt, who identified himself as the owner of a Sacramento retail dispensary, offered to help draft an ordinance and told the council a locally operated dispensary could bring revenue and foot traffic. Downtown business owner Cinnamon Pryor urged single-tenant sites to limit odor migration and recommended a substantial application fee to screen serious applicants.

Wright highlighted revenue and grant opportunities other cities have used, referencing CHP (California Highway Patrol) cannabis enforcement grants and Prop 64-related grant programs. He noted a recent rule change dated 06/27/2025 that affects some grant qualifications and said jurisdictions are using grant funding in varied ways: “Nevada City right now is building a skate park. That’s what they spent their money on as well as the flock cameras,” Wright said; he also referenced larger grants in the region and an example that Marysville had received $3,000,000.

Council members agreed to at least two public workshops — one in-person evening session and one virtual or hybrid session — and asked staff to include an online survey so residents who cannot attend can give input. Councilmembers asked staff to aim to complete public outreach and return with a draft ordinance and recommendations by October 2025. The council also endorsed staff’s recommendation to explore a combination of land-use permits, an RFP selection process and development agreements, and to limit city-recognized license types to retail storefronts and delivery only (medical or recreational to be discussed at outreach events).

No formal ordinance vote was taken at the meeting; the council’s action was direction to staff to proceed with outreach and drafting. Earlier in the meeting the council approved the agenda and the consent calendar by voice and roll-call votes.

Looking ahead, Wright said staff would prepare zoning options, draft ordinance language, and a public outreach schedule; any ordinance would go through the normal planning commission and council hearing process, including environmental review and notice requirements, before licenses are issued.