BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
On June 26, 2018 the Board adopted the County Cannabis Ordinance which provides for the regulation and establishment of commercial cannabis uses including testing, distribution, delivery, cultivation and retail sales. The ordinance became effective 30 days after adoption by the Board, but will not become operative until voter approval of the County's cannabis tax measure (Measure R) is certified. The most recent published tally of the vote shows more than 72% of the electorate voted in favor of the measure.
The ordinance requires approval of a land use permit for all commercial cannabis uses. In addition to requiring a land use permit, the ordinance also places a cap on the number of retail storefront permits at four (4), commercial cultivation permits at ten (10) and permits for manufacturing in an agricultural zone at two (2). For the uses subject to a cap, the ordinance requires the establishment of a solicitation and selection process for identifying the best proposals for processing of a land use permit for one or more of the capped permits. Per the ordinance, the solicitation and selection process is subject to Board review and approval.
Staff is in the process of developing a detailed Request for Proposals document for review by the Board in December, but would appreciate receiving initial guidance from the Board now on key features of the selection process. Staff has included as part of this Board Order copies of the cannabis selection Request for Proposal (RFP) packets for other jurisdictions, including Alameda County and the Cities of Benicia, Hayward, Alameda and Emeryville.
In addition to the RFP packets from other jurisdictions, a table comparing the approaches used by other jurisdictions for selecting limited cannabis permits has been attached for review. The table can be used by the Board to understand in very broad terms the selection process utilized by other jurisdictions specifically in terms of the body responsible for final selection of proposals, the group responsible for review and scoring of the proposals, the appeal process, whether jurisdictions require a Letter of Intent and the general scoring criteria used.
Regarding the concept of requiring applicants to submit a Letter of Intent prior to a full proposal, this approach would enable the County to waive the need for a full proposal and a selection process if the number of interested parties is less than the cap. It may also enable early screening of fatally-flawed concept proposals, saving applicants time and money. However, it could add time to the overall selection process.
The bottom row of the table identifies staff's recommendations for the County's selection process. The table was shared with all of the other County departments involved in preparation of the Cannabis Ordinance and incorporates any comments received.
Staff also prepared a draft timeline showing major milestones in the cannabis permitting process. Two versions are shown; one for permit types that are subject to the RFP and one for those that aren't.
Staff is requesting input from the Board on the recommendations provided in the comparison table with regards to the selection body, the review panel, the appeal process, Letter of Intent component and the general categories considered when scoring proposals.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Staff will not have guidance on preparing a selection process for commercial cannabis businesses subject to a cap on the number of permits.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Greg Kremenliev, NORML; Ashley Bargenquast, Tully & Weiss Attorneys at Law; Jim Gonzalez, resident of Sacramento; John Thiella, resident of Richmond; Israel Martinez, resident of Brentwood; Oscar Burrola Jr., resident of Brentwood; Larry Johnson, U.S. Four Gods Management; Kevin Yao, resident of Antioch; Nate Landau, Showtill; John Kinikin, U.S. Four Gods Management.
The Board Agreed with the recommendations presented by staff today in the Comparison of Approaches table (attached):
The Board will be the selection body;
The review panel for applications would be an interdepartmental committee composed from Conservation and Development, County Administrators Office, Health, Agriculture, and Fire Protection District;
Denial of Request for Proposal has no appeal;
A Letter of Intent will be required;
The scoring criteria will include: business plan, community benefits, economic benefits, location/equitable geographic distribution, odor control, oral interview/site visit, qualifications/operating plan, security plan, social equity, sustainability measures.