Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff costs for administering the selection process are included in DCD's budget and paid for out of the fees required of those who submitted proposals. The cost of reviewing future applications will be paid by applicants. Upon issuance of a land use permit and after establishment of the selected commercial cannabis businesses, the County will begin generating tax revenue in accordance with the County's Cannabis Business Tax Ordinance approved by County voters on November 6, 2018.

Per Section 88-28.404 of the County is cannabis zoning ordinance, in order to apply for a land use permit for a commercial cannabis use where the number of permits is limited by code, land use permit applicants are required to participate in a selection process that has been approved by the Board. The Cannabis Ordinance allows for the establishment of four (4) storefront cannabis retailers, ten (10) commercial cannabis cultivators, and two (2) commercial cannabis manufacturers in agricultural zones.  
  
On February 12, 2019, the Board approved the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Opportunity to Apply for a Commercial Cannabis Activity Land Use Permit (attached) which was then released to the public on February 14, 2019. The 24 page RFP laid out the selection process including timelines, due dates, required formatting of proposals, as well as describing the evaluation process, scoring criteria and ranking process. The RFP identified a due date of April 4, 2019 for letters of intent and June 27, 2019 for full proposals.  
  
In response to the RFP, 60 letters of intent were received by DCD, of which 53 were invited to submit proposals. Of the 53 invited to submit proposals, 40 full proposals were received, 21 for storefront retail and 19 for commercial cultivation. Although the code provides for the establishment of two cannabis manufacturing businesses in agricultural zoning districts, no proposals for the establishment of commercial manufacturing in agricultural districts were received.  
  
Links to the 40 full proposals are provided for reference in Attachment 7. Additional information on the selection process is described in detail in the attached slide presentation and summarized below.  
  
Commercial Cannabis Review Panel  
  
As a part of approving the selection process, the Board also approved the makeup of the Cannabis Review Panel (Panel) that would be responsible for evaluating, scoring and ranking the proposals for final consideration by the Board. The Board directed that staff from each of the following County departments or agencies participate on the Panel: County Administrator's Office; Department of Agriculture; Contra Costa Fire Protection District; Health Services Department and DCD.   
  
A total of ten staff members from the departments/agencies listed above served on the Panel and participated in the review of the proposals. The Panel met on 15 separate occasions and reached a general consensus on the scoring and ranking provided in this report.  
  
Review of Proposals by Cannabis Panel  
  
All of the qualifying proposals for both storefront retail and commercial cultivation were reviewed, scored and ranked by the panel.  
  
In addition to evaluating the written proposals, the panel also interviewed applicants/owners for all 21 of the storefront retailer proposals. Interviews of commercial cultivation applicants/owners were deemed unnecessary by the panel since fewer than 10 proposals can meet code requirements.  
  
The Panel utilized the scoring criteria and key metrics described in the RFP to assign scores. The RFP identified seven scoring categories, each with a specific point value. The categories and point value in the RFP were identified as follows: 1. Cover letter/Ownership Qualifications (200 pts.); 2. Location (200 pts.); 3. Business and operating plan (200 pts.); 4. Security plan (200 pts.); 5. Sustainability (100 pts.); 6. Community/Economic benefit (200 pts.); 7. Equitable geographic distribution (100 pts.). Interview performance was incorporated into the Cover letter/Ownership qualification section of the scoring criteria.  
  
As a note, the Panel found Section 7 of the scoring criteria in the RFP, “Equitable geographic distribution”, to be presumptuous at this point in the process since the scoring of any one of the proposals would have an effect on the scoring of the others. Therefore, the panel decided to score Section 7 “Equitable geographic distribution” the same for all proposals (100 points). To address the concept of equitable distribution, the Panel recommends the Board consider alternative scenarios identified by the Panel that allocate the potential businesses to different regions of the county.  
  
Ranking of Storefront Retailers  
  
Proposals for storefront retailers were received in the following communities: Bay Point (2); Clyde (1); Pacheco Boulevard (10); El Sobrante (7); and North Richmond (1).  
  
In some instances, multiple storefront retailer proposals were submitted for the same location by different applicants. In these cases, the applicants are competing for the same retail space or building where only one permit can be issued. Also, a number of storefront retailer proposals were located on properties within 500-feet of each other, which is prohibited under the Cannabis Ordinance.  
  
The result of the Panel's work to rank and score the retail storefront proposals is summarized in the attached scoring summary table and explained in the slide presentation and in the two-page summaries provided for each of the proposals.  
  
To address geographic distribution of the retailers, the Panel developed the following alternate ranking scenarios for the Board’s consideration:  
  
Scenario #1 - 1 in El Sobrante, 1 on "north" Pacheco Blvd., 1 on "south' Pacheco Blvd., and 1 in Bay Point  
Scenario #2 - 1 in El Sobrante, 2 on “south” Pacheco Blvd. and 1 on “north” Pacheco Blvd.  
  
It should also be noted that One Plant in El Sobrante was established prior to the County's 2007 ban on medical dispensaries and is presently operating a medical-only dispensary. One Plant has submitted a proposal to become a full service retail storefront, including adult use cannabis. If One Plant is not selected, it may continue to operate in addition to the four retail storefronts that may be permitted elsewhere by the County.  
  
Ranking of Commercial Cannabis Cultivators  
  
The majority of commercial cannabis cultivation proposals were located in the East County area, though three were located in North Richmond. Of the 19 proposals submitted for commercial cultivation, 11 proposals were deemed ineligible because the subject properties are not in the service area of a retail water supplier as required by code. One proposal for commercial cultivation received a failing score due in part that the proposed cultivation is within one mile of the urban limit line, which is prohibited by code (the proposal failed to meet several minimum scores).  
  
Since the operation of a commercial cultivation business is significantly different than that of a retail storefront business, the scoring and ranking of commercial cultivation proposals was done separately from storefront retailer proposals and on a different basis.  
  
The result of the Panel's work to rank and score the commercial cultivation proposals is summarized in the attached scoring summary table and explained in the slide presentation and in the two-page summaries provided for each of the proposals.  
  
Since fewer proposals were received than the maximum number of commercial cultivation businesses to be permitted, the Panel is recommending that all seven eligible proposals be invited to apply for land use permits.  
  
It should be noted that the RFP explains that the Board is not required to invite or permit any commercial cannabis businesses, let alone the maximum number.  
  
Additional Considerations  
  
The Panel's scoring of the proposals was based on very specific details regarding the operation, security, design, proposed community benefit, and other features of the proposed businesses. The panel expressed concern with ensuring that the selected businesses operate in accordance with the details described in their respective proposals on an ongoing basis. Based on this concern, the Board may wish to specify that invitations to apply for a land use permit must be based on the details of the proposal submitted.

If the Board does not select land use permit invitees for the limited commercial cannabis activities, no land use permits for storefront retail or commercial cultivation will be issued for the county unincorporated area. Failure to establish a legal and regulated cannabis market in the county unincorporated area might encourage an illicit cannabis market to flourish, and would deprive county residents of local access to tested and properly packaged and labeled cannabis products, as well as security and restricted access to minors as provided by the legal, regulated cannabis market.

Renee´ Lee, CCNORML, Rossmoor Medical Marijuana Club; Thomas Krehbiel, AGP/BENTO; Christian Wiedeman, AG Partners/Bento; Tom Lawson, Contra Costa Building Trades; Anne M. Ritchie, Knightsen; Patricia Kimbrell, resident of Brentwood; Rick Andreotti, resident of Knightsen; Jane Andreotti, Knightsen; Ignacio De La Fuenta; Bill Koziol, The Flower Shop; Antwon Cloird, Richmond; Frank Fard, San Jose; Hector Melgoza, Knightsen;  Flaire Garcia, Knightsen; Josh Anijer, Contra Costa Labor Council; Jason Burrels, Shoot the Moon; Estella Burns, Shoot the Moon; Hanci Hamedi; Perry Messued, Richmond; Debbie Allsup, Knightsen; George Mateos, Brandon Evans, Richmond; Ayoka Nurse, Richmond; Guillermo Rios, Winn Silbermon; Keith March, Pacheco Town Council; Shareef El-Sissi, Garden of Eden; Laurie Light, Garden of Eden; Matt Light, Garden of Eden; Nicholas Rose; George Miller, Embarc Contra Costa LLC; Erin Hallisy, Crockett; Darren Gacicia; Laura del Castillo, Garden of Eden; Pamela Epstei, Garden of Eden; Nate Laudau; Greg Kremenliev, NORML; Jessica Cry, UFCW Local 5; Maria Michel-Ramirez;, Casa Rasta Farm LLC; Jason Molinelli, Royal Craft LLC; Devon Julian, Elemental Wellness; Timothy Byars, Radicle Health; Lauren Carpenter, Embarc Contra Costa; Brian Mitchell, Authentic 925; Bob Nunn, Diablo Valley Farms; Rose Fisk; Caity Maple, Perfect Union, Jim Farley; Noralea Gipner.

Written correspondence was received from (attached): Harvey Yurkovich, Knightsen School District; Brian Eliff; Elaina Garcia, Knightsen; Maureen Brennan, Rodeo; Rebecca Byars, MSHR; Gina Austin, Austin Legal Group APC; Shareef El-Sissi, Garden of Eden; Jasun Molinelli, Hanson Bridgett LLP; Laurie Light.

Staff will return on December 10, 2019 with additional information on a) the Board’s options for amending its ordinance to restrict the transfer of a  land use permit for commercial cannabis business;  b) the assertion by Royal Craft, LLC that their proposal should have also been considered as a proposal for stand-alone manufacturing; c) information on the location of proposed or existing cannabis storefronts in neighboring jurisdictions; and d) additional information on the existing medical-only dispensary in El Sobrante.