Created: 2024-10-03 11:59:38 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25, Update 1)
Created: 2024-10-03 11:59:38 [EST]
(Supp. No. 25, Update 1)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3750 UNIVERSITY AVE., STE. 250
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(951) 826-5567
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RIVERSIDE, CALI FORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.77 THE
RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CANNABIS BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES.
The City Council of the City of Riverside does ordain as follows:
Section 1: Section 5.77.100.C of the Riverside Municipal Code is amended as follows:
“Section 5.77.100 Maximum number and type of authorized cannabis businesses permitted.
C. The maximum number of cannabis storefront retail uses that shall be permitted to operate in the City shall be no more than fourteen (14) permittees. A maximum of one (1) permit per ward.” Section 2: Section 5.77.140A of the Riverside Municipal Code is amended as follows:
“Section 5.77.140 Exercise of a cCannabis bBusiness pPermit.
A. A cCannabis bBusiness pPermit shall be exercised within 12 months of the final selection process, as defined by the procedure guideline and review criteria. A c Cannabis bBusiness pPermit shall be considered exercised shall be when anyall of the following occur:” Section 3: Section 5.77.270 of the Riverside Municipal Code is amended as follows:
“Section 5.77.270 Transfer of cCannabis bBusiness pPermit.
A. The owner of a cCannabis bBusiness pPermit (“transferor”) shall not transfer ownership or control of the permit to another person or entity (“transferee”) unless and until the transferee obtains an amendment to the permit from the City Manager Council stating that the transferee is now the permittee.
1. Such an amendment may be obtained only if the transferee files an application with the City M
anager in accordance with the provisions of this chapter (as though the transferee were applying for an original cCannabis bBusiness pPermit).
2. The transferee’s application must demonstrate that the transferor has exercised its Cannabis Business Permit as provided in Section 5.77.140 and been in continuous operation with the full ownership team/structure as identified in the tr ansferor’s Cannabis Business Permit application for a minimum of one year before the transfer application was submitted.
23. The proposed transferee's application shall be accompanied by a transfer fee in an amount set by resolution of the City Council (or if not set, shall be the same amount as the application fee).
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3750 UNIVERSITY AVE., STE. 250
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(951) 826-5567
34. The transferee's application will be treated as a new application and will be evaluated according to procedures adopted by the City Manager, pursuant to Section 5.77.440450, and must result in a score equal to or greater than the score received by the transferor.
B. Cannabis bBusiness pPermits issued through the grant of a transfer by the City Manager Council shall be valid for a period of one year beginning on the day the City ManagerCouncil approves the transfer of the permit.
. . .”
Section 4: Section 5.77.320 of the Riverside Municipal Code is amended as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 5: S ection 5.77.340.D of the Riverside Municipal Code is amended as follows:
“Section 5.77.340 Records and recordkeeping.
D. Each owner and operator of a cannabis business shall maintain a current register of the names and the contact information (including the name, address, and telephone number) of anyone owning or holding an interest in the cannabis business, and separately of all the officers, managers, employees, agents, and volunteers currently employed or otherwise engaged by the cannabis business. The register required by this paragraph shall be provided to the City Manager upon request for review on April 15 and December 15 of each year.”
Section 6: The City Council has reviewed the matter and, based upon the facts and information contained in the staff reports, administrative record, and written and oral testimony, hereby finds that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule), as it can be seen with certainty that approval of the project will not have an effect on the environment.
Section 7 : The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with Section 414 of the Charter of the City of Riverside. This ordinance shall become effective on the 30th day after the date of its adoption but shall not be operative and enforced by the City of Riverside until approved by the voters of the City of Riverside in compliance with California law.
/ /
/ /
/ /
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3750 UNIVERSITY AVE., STE. 250
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(951) 826-5567
ADOPTED by the City Council this _________ day of _____________, 2025.
___________________________
PATRICIA LOCK DAWSON
Mayor of the City of Riverside
Attest:
_____________________________
DONESIA GAUSE
City Clerk of the City of Riverside
I, Donesia Gause, City Clerk of the City of Riverside, California, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the _______ day of _______________, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Riverside, California, this ________ day of ______________, 2025.
_________________________________
DONESIA GAUSE
City Clerk of the City of Riverside
\\Rc-citylaw\cycom\WPDOCS\D017\P043\00934528
22-2104.82 TAT 04/17/25
EXHIBIT “A”
“Section 5.77.320 Location and design of cannabis businesses.
A. A cannabis business must meet land use and building standards pursuant to Title 16, Title 17, Title 18, and Title 19 of this Code, including:
1. Conform with the City's general plan, any applicable specific plan, master plan, and design requirements.
. . .
4. A cannabis business shall not be located on a parcel that is within 1,000 feet of another parcel containing a cannabis business, measured in a straight line from the closest property line of the proposed location to the closest property line of the parcel containing the other cannabis business. In addition, no cannabis business shall be located within 1,000 feet on another cannabis business, measured from entrance to entrance, even if located on the same parcel.
5. The located and design of a cannabis business shall be compatible with a business operating under the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) rules and regulations rendering an existing ABC business non-compliant.
6. A cannabis business is prohibited from operating within the boundaries of the Downtown and Midtown areas as identified of the following figures.
Figure 5.77.320.A.6-1: Downtown Boundary Map
Figure 5.77.320.A.6-2: Midtown Boundary Map
B. A cannabis business must meet the following rules relating to proximity to sensitive uses:
1. The use shall be no closer than 600 or 1,000 feet from any parcel in the City designated as a sensitive use under this section that is in existence at the time the permit is issued. . . .
3. Sensitive uses and corresponding minimum separation distances include:
a. A school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, (whether public, private, or charter, including pre-school, transitional kindergarten, and K- 12) (1,000 feet).
. . .
d. A park (600 feet).
4. Exceptions.
a. Pursuant to its authority under California Business and Professions Code Section 26054, the City hereby establishes a zero-foot radius buffer for youth centers for cannabis businesses permitted under this chapter.
. . .
c. During the annual Cannabis Business Permit renewal process, a permitted Cannabis Business shall not be deemed non-compliant as a result of sensitive uses that came into existence after the issuance of the Cannabis Business Permit that is being renewed.”
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
From: Dana Cisneros
To: Tinio, Maribeth
Cc: Lilley, Jennifer; Caldera, Edgardo; Warsinski, Kyle; Taylor, Matthew; Aguilar-Crunk, Nancy; CityClerkMbx; Arthur F. Coon; Matt Henderson
Bcc: Sean Maddox; [email protected]; Lauren Fontein; Tony DeSimone; Kris Luu; Kelly Khuu Subject: RE: Appeal from actions taken in PLANNING CASE PR-2025-001795 Date: Friday, May 16, 2025 3:15:00 PM
Attachments: You"ve been sent large files.msg
2025-05-16 Appeal to City Council of Riverside of Planning Commission decision.docx Exhibits to Appeal.pdf
Dear Ms. Tinio,
Thank you for your email.
While you reference a potential City Council meeting on the subject in mid-June, it appears to me that the matter is on calendar for May 20, 2025.
Can you please
confirm we are talking about the same file?
Thank you for clarifying and confirming that no appeal is necessary.
Notwithstanding,
attached is our draft appeal that we had intended to file on Monday (given that the end of the ten day appeal period falls on Sunday). In the event that you are mistaken in the process or the City changes its mind with respect to the availability of appellate review, please inform us immediately.
@CityClerkMbx please include this email correspondence as well as the attached letter appeal in all council and planning files related to the commercial cannabis business process in the City of Riverside, including, but not limited to Council file for item 28 on the May 20, 2025 City Council meeting agenda and case number PR-2025-001795 and Planning file 25- 1637.
Sincerely,
Dana Leigh Cisneros, Esq.
The Cisneros Firm
155 N. Riverview Drive, Suite 1100-106
Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
Phone:
(714) 660-9045
Cell:
(949) 500-3240
eFax: (949) 258-9332
[email protected]
www.cisnerosfirm.com
WARNING/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt, or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies and attachments.
The Cisneros Firm is a green company and uses every effort to engage and encourage paperless practices. Please use email whenever possible and consider the environment before printing this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email please delete it. All confidentiality, rights and privileges are expressly preserved.
From: Tinio, Maribeth <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 10:42 AM
To: Dana Cisneros <[email protected]>
Cc: Lilley, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Caldera, Edgardo <[email protected]>; Warsinski, Kyle <[email protected]>; Taylor, Matthew <[email protected]>; Aguilar-Crunk, Nancy <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Appeal from actions taken in PLANNING CASE PR-2025-001795
Hello Ms. Cisneros,
Thank you for your email.
Pursuant to Riverside Municipal Code section 19.680.020 - Appeal authority, “Where the Planning Commission denies legislative cases initiated by an applicant, the action is final unless appealed to the City Council. For City-initiated legislative cases, the Planning Commission is a recommending body and the City Council's action is final.” There is no appeal from a recommendation, and none is needed as the matter will be heard by the City Council in any event. Although no appeal is necessary, you can provide comment (written, e- comment, in-person) when the item is considered at City Council.
The item is tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on Tuesday, June 17,2025.
With regards to CEQA determinations, the information is included within the agenda and staff report and can be found here: Agenda
. Any filings for CEQA determinations will occur after consideration at the City Council, if finalized and acted upon.
Thank you,
Maribeth Tinio | City Planner
City of Riverside
Community & Economicy Development - Planning Division
d: 951-826-2307 | planning info: 951-826-5800
riversideca.gov
From: Dana Cisneros <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:30:09 PM
To: Taylor, Matthew <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal from actions taken in PLANNING CASE PR-2025-001795
Dear Mr. Taylor, My clients will be appealing the planning commission’s decision and actions with respect to PLANNING CASE PR-2025-001795, which notably did not contain reference to my co-counsel’s 32 page analysis and objections.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Riverside. It was not sent by any City official or staff. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Mr. Taylor,
My clients will be appealing the planning commission’s decision and actions with respect to PLANNING CASE PR-2025-001795, which notably did not contain reference to my co- counsel’s 32 page analysis and objections.
Please provide any and all appeal filing and processing information we may need to perfect the appeal as the staff report directs aggrieved parties to contact the planning department.
Additionally, please provide a copy of any and all CEQA notices, files, findings, determinations or exemptions for PLANNING CASE PR-2025-001795 as well as the relevant State Clearing House (SCH) number.
Our deadline to file the appeal is May 18, 2025 so we anticipate filing no later than this Friday.
Thank you for your anticipated timely response.
Sincerely,
Dana Leigh Cisneros, Esq.
The Cisneros Firm
155 N. Riverview Drive, Suite 1100-106
Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
Phone: (714) 660-9045
Cell: (949) 500-3240
eFax: (949) 258-9332
[email protected]
www.cisnerosfirm.com
WARNING/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt, or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies and attachments.
The Cisneros Firm is a green company and uses every effort to engage and encourage paperless practices. Please use email whenever possible and consider the environment before printing this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email please delete it. All confidentiality, rights and privileges are expressly preserved.
Stay in-the-know with all things Riverside! Connect with us at RiversideCA.gov/Connect.
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
CITY OF RIVERSIDE STOREFRONT RETAIL COMMERCIAL
CANNABIS BUSINESS PERMIT – PREFERRED LOCATIONS
Satisfaction of Preferred Location
Pursuant to Section III.D.2.a(ii)(b) of the City of Riverside Storefront Retail Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Procedure Guidelines and Application Review Criteria, below is a list of the preferred locations for the 14 top ranked Cannabis Business Permit Applicants.
Beginning with the applicant that is ranked number one (1) during Phase 1, the Independent Facilitator review ed the applicants’ preferred location s and confirmed that the location s have not been identified and selected as a preferred location by a higher ranked applicant.
The posting of this notice on the City’s website does not constitute written evidence of permission given by the City of Riverside or any of its officials to operate a Cannabis Business at the listed preferred locations, nor does it establish a “permit” within the meaning of the Permit Streamlining Act, nor does it create an entitlement or vested right under the Zoning or Building Code.
RANK BUSINESS NAME PREFERRED SITE LOCATION WARD
1 STIIIZY Riverside LLC
Preferred Location Unavailable
Resubmittal due October 16th, 2024 TBD
2 SGI Riverside LLC 2870 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507 1 (APN: 211-132-025) 3 C4TP Retail A Inc. 3674 Sunnyside Drive, Riverside, CA 92506 3 (APN: 225-124-012) 3 Riverside Community Retail LLC 10919-10921 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, CA 92505 6 (APN: 142-261-009) 5 Community Oriented Riverside Retail LLC 1175 E. Alessandro Blvd. Riverside, CA 92508 2 (APN: 297-031-002) 5 Riverside Responsible and Compliant Retail LLC 3225 Market Street, Suite 104, Riverside, CA 92501 1 (APN: 213-071-001) 7 Blaine St. RS LLC 1345 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507 2 (APN: 250-190-006) 8 OTC Riverside City LLC 3666 Van Buren Blvd. Riverside, CA 92503 5 (APN: 234-112-034) 9 Packs Riverside LLC 3652 Van Buren Blvd. Riverside, CA 92503 5 (APN: 234-112-062) 9 Riverside West Coast Retail LLC 9901 Indiana Avenue, Suite 106, Riverside, CA 92503 5 (APN: 234-074-004) 9 TAT LLC 4920 Jackson Street, Riverside, CA 92503
(APN: 191-030-002) 3
12 Catalyst Riverside Equity LLC 3847 Pierce Street, Riverside, CA 92503 6 (APN: 142-180-040) 13 Haven Riverside LLC 10081 Indiana Ave, Suite A1, Riverside CA 92503 5 (APN: 234-064-013) 13 Catalyst Riverside LLC 1778 Columbia Avenue, Suites C1&2, Riverside, CA 92507 1 (APN: 210-043-047) 1 From: Biggerstaff, Connor <[email protected]> Sent: 3/21/2024 11:43:38 AM
To: Christopoulos, Chris
Cc:
Subject:
Let me know if you need my participation in any other cannabis meeting, happy to help. In my opinion, Frank's concern is warranted, but if, say, Stiiizy had submitted three applications for three locations in the City, and all were well-received and are high-end, I don't see an ethical issue; they went through the same scoring system, they shouldn't be penalized for high-performing proposals. With that said, we should keep an eye out for shenanigans.
Exhibit H
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/10/nyregion/new-york-cannabis-vapes- investigation.html
Regulators are looking into whether several cannabis companies are making illegal products for sale in New Y ork. The products may be worth more than $10 million.
Listen to this article · 5:47 min
Learn more
By Ashley Southall
May 10, 2025
New York State has paused sales of millions of dollars of top-selling cannabis vapes and pre-rolled joints amid an investigation into whether they were made with legally approved ingredients produced in the state, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.
In a series of orders issued on April 23, the Office of Cannabis Management, which oversees businesses that grow and sell cannabis in the state, directed dispensaries to remove from their shelves mostly vapes and pre-rolled joints from the companies Stiiizy and mfused, among other products.
The orders offered a window into the cannabis agency’s investigation of companies accused of pumping weed from unlicensed growers into licensed dispensaries, which is illegal. The Times obtained two of the documents through a public records request and another order from two people with whom they were shared.
New Y ork Pauses Sales of Popular Cannabis
Vapes Amid Investigation
The strategy of using unlicensed growers, known as “inversion,” undercuts promises that legalization offers consumers a safe supply of cannabis products that can be traced back to local farms. It is a federal crime to transport marijuana across state lines, so legal weed has to be grown and sold in the same state through licensed businesses.
According to the orders, investigators were questioning the origin of cannabis oil that was used to fill the vapes and the accuracy of lab tests that certified all of the mfused varieties as safe. Stiiizy, based in Los Angeles, and mfused, based in Seattle, are two of the biggest cannabis brands in America.
Their vapes were among the 10 best sellers in New York in April, according to Headset, a data firm that crunches cannabis sales numbers. The quarantined products, which are being held in factory warehouses and dispensary vaults, have a retail value exceeding $10 million, according to batch records and retail pricing.
If investigators find evidence of inversion, the products could be seized and destroyed in a recall. In the most severe case, regulators could revoke the license of the processing company that made the vapes and ban the brands from New York. If the investigation finds no wrongdoing, the products could be released for sale.
In a statement, mfused said that it stood by the integrity of its products, while Stiiizy said it was confident the investigation would find no evidence of inversion on its part. Kaycha Labs, a state-licensed laboratory that did the testing for mfused, did not respond to an email seeking comment.
The brands each have contracts with Omnium Health, a state-licensed processing company that makes their vapes in New York. Omnium records reviewed by inspectors with the Office of Cannabis Management, or O.C.M., in connection with an audit on April 7 indicated that the vapes were filled with oil that had been extracted at a site associated with Omnium that hadn’t been approved for processing of the oil, the order said. Officials barred Omnium from using the oil until it could prove it was extracted legally.
An order served on a different processor , Adonis Distribution in Gloversville, N.Y ., also froze sales of some pre-rolled joints infused with terpenes, the compounds that give cannabis its smell and flavor , that were not properly logged.
In a statement, Omnium said the situation boiled down to a clerical error . “The confusion arose from the address listed on the document being Omnium’s corporate address rather than the actual site of extraction,” the company said. “It was confirmed that all extraction occurred at an approved location, which was inspected by the O.C.M. and verified to have proper extraction equipment on site.” The O.C.M. said in a statement that its investigation was still active, adding that Omnium had submitted a plan for correcting the issues outlined in the orders. The quarantine remained in effect on Thursday .
Thousands of the vapes have already been sold to consumers, particularly around April 20, the date of the unofficial annual celebration of cannabis that is typically the biggest sales day for retailers.
In an email to retailers on April 23, Omnium said the quarantine order also applied to products under the brands Animal, Bodega Boyz, Muha Meds, Smoke and To The Moon.
The quarantine has left the state’s licensed dispensaries in a lurch.
Brandon Carter , a co-owner of Trends in Long Island City , Queens, said that dispensaries place larger orders ahead of April 20, expecting to conduct more sales on the day and as the weather warms. The quarantine has forced them to hold onto weed they can’t sell to customers who are looking for it, he said. “That’s a lot of extra inventory that people have to sit on that we can’t make any money on,” he said.
At The Flowery on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a chunk of shelf space that housed mfused’s product display sat empty last Sunday . The brand had been a best seller . Lenox Hill Cannabis on the Upper East Side said the quarantine affected about 15 percent of the store’s inventory .
Wei Hu, a co-owner of Lenox Hill Cannabis, said his store put in a big order for Stiiizy’s vapes and pre-rolled joints after they were released in New York in February. He said he expected the brand to sell well because it was already popular on the West Coast and in the street market. Half the order was sold by the time the quarantine went into effect, he said, but the other half is stashed in a vault.
Customers “are asking for Stiiizy,” he said. “They’re wondering why it’s not on the menu.”
Ashley Southall writes about cannabis legalization in New York.
A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 21 of the New York edition with the headline: State Pauses Sales of Popular Cannabis Vapes
Exhibit I
Exhibit J