Riverside council deadlocks on tighter cannabis location rules after heated debate

City of Riverside councilors failed to approve proposed amendments to the city's commercial cannabis rules after extended debate and public criticism of the permitting process. Staff presented an ordinance to amend Chapter 5.77 and Title 19 of the Riverside Municipal Code to increase certain separation requirements—Planning Commission staff recommended raising the distance between retail cannabis storefronts and parks from 600 feet to 1,000 feet—and to bar storefront sales from the city’s defined placemaking/downtown areas.

Senior project manager Kyle Wercinski, presenting staff recommendations, said the changes were intended to “ensure commercial cannabis business compatibility with existing businesses, to prevent concentration of cannabis permits, and prohibit permit locations in the city's placemaking areas,” and asked the council to find the project exempt from CEQA under the general‑rule exemption and to approve planning case PR2025-001795.

Multiple members of the public, and attorneys representing ranked applicants, said the timing and process were unfair. One caller who identified herself as counsel for several ranked applicants said the city’s pause in processing permits had left approved applicants at risk of losing their investments and warned the council that her clients were “far, far past that point” on patience and were considering litigation. She urged the council to lift the moratorium on outside‑counsel communications with the city attorney’s office and to clarify why some areas were being excluded and why only two applicants appeared likely to proceed.

Council debate focused on two questions: whether to apply identical location restrictions to non‑retail cannabis uses (testing, manufacturing, distribution), or to let state minimums apply to those non‑retail uses; and how the changes would affect 14 pre‑authorized sites already identified in the city's ranking. Councilmembers asked staff whether the city manager could extend the one‑year rankings—staff confirmed the guidelines give the city manager discretion to extend rankings for an additional year and that dates would be memorialized once the ordinance process restarts.

Councilmember Cervantes said she would support the staff recommendation to keep the process moving, while Councilmember Perry announced he would oppose the item. Attempts to pass the ordinance and a subsequent amendment to separate non‑retail uses both failed “for lack of majority” under council rules, which require four affirmative votes.

The council did not adopt the ordinance; no final zoning text was enacted at the meeting and staff will return with further direction or revised language if the council requests it. Several speakers and counsel reiterated concerns about transparency and procedural fairness; staff and council members repeatedly framed the issue as balancing neighborhood compatibility and the rights of ranked applicants.

The next procedural step will depend on council direction and any staff revisions; members of the public and affected applicants were told they may receive additional information as staff memorializes timelines and potential manager‑level extensions.