City Council Rejects Cannabis Location Restrictions in Split Vote

The City Council deadlocked Tuesday night on cannabis restrictions that would have banned dispensaries from downtown and Midtown neighborhoods while pushing cannabis shops farther from parks — leaving the city's current regulations unchanged after councilmembers failed to muster the four votes needed for approval.

The June 17 vote capped months of debate over whether to restrict where cannabis businesses can operate in California's 12th-largest city, which initially banned most marijuana operations in 2019 before opening the door to retail sales and other commercial cannabis uses in 2023. Cultivation remains prohibited.

At issue were amendments that would have prohibited commercial cannabis businesses in two key neighborhoods and increased the required distance between retail cannabis shops and parks from 600 feet to 1,000 feet.

The proposed changes emerged from direction the City Council provided March 25, following concerns about the compatibility of cannabis businesses with existing operations and efforts to prevent concentration of cannabis permits in key revitalization areas.

During public comment, Dana Cisneros, representing co-counsel for several ranked cannabis applicants, criticized the process and questioned the transparency of the council's actions.

"We believe that the police report and the council's actions as well as the findings contained in the staff report are nothing more than pretext for selecting now only two winners to operate within the city of Riverside, Stiiizy and Embarc," Cisneros said.

Stiiizy operates dispensaries throughout California, including locations in nearby Jurupa Valley, Corona and Moreno Valley. Embarc runs multiple California dispensaries, though none currently in Riverside County.

Kyle Werczynski, senior project manager in the Economic Development Division, presented the proposed changes to the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission had previously recommended approval of the ordinance with the modification increasing the park distance requirement.

"Commercial cannabis businesses would be prohibited within this area boundary," Werczynski said, referring to the downtown neighborhood. The Planning Commission had recommended approval with the increased park distance requirement, but council debate focused on whether non-retail cannabis businesses, such as testing laboratories, should face the same restrictions as retail storefronts.

Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes initially moved to approve the ordinance as presented, stating her position had been clear in previous meetings about her dissatisfaction with how the process had developed.

"For the sake of us not losing all the hard work that has gone into this over years of time, I will support the recommendation," Cervantes said, while acknowledging frustration from those unable to move forward.

However, the discussion became complicated when Councilmember Sean Mill suggested separating non-retail cannabis businesses from the retail restrictions, arguing they have different community impacts.

"I don't see non-retail uses having the same impact as retail. So I personally don't have a problem with them being separate," Mill said. "They completely have a different impact on a community."

Cervantes withdrew her support after Mill's amendment, causing both the amended version and the original ordinance to fail without the required four-vote majority.

Councilmember Jim Perry opposed the entire proposal from the beginning, stating he had not supported cannabis regulations previously and would not start now.

"I haven't supported this from the very beginning, many years ago, and I don't think I'm going to start now," Perry said. "I am also not in favor of having two large neighborhoods cut out of this. I think what we do for one, we do for all."

The failed vote leaves the current cannabis regulations in place without the proposed geographic restrictions or increased distance requirements. Councilmembers did not indicate when or if they might revisit the amendments.

The meeting highlighted ongoing tensions between supporting economic development in the cannabis industry while addressing community concerns about the location and concentration of cannabis businesses in certain neighborhoods.