February 23, 2026
When California legalized adult-use cannabis under Proposition 64, the state allowed cities to decide how or whether to regulate commercial cannabis activity. That local control created a patchwork system across the state.
A peer-reviewed study analyzing 539 California jurisdictions found that only 276 allow some form of retail cannabis, covering about 58% of the state’s population. That means nearly half of the state still restricts or bans local sales altogether.
Redwood City took a different approach. Instead of rushing into retail storefronts or issuing broad bans, the city built a phased cannabis strategy focused on zoning control, compliance safeguards, and gradual expansion. For municipalities across the U.S. especially in California this model offers practical lessons.
One reason Redwood City stands out is its structured rollout.
The city began by allowing limited cannabis activity, including delivery services and personal cultivation. It avoided opening walk-in retail storefronts immediately. This gave regulators time to understand operational challenges and community concerns.
Next, Redwood City requires delivery operators to obtain business licenses and comply with tax regulations. This step established oversight before expanding access.
The city later permitted nursery operations but with limits. Nurseries could grow and sell immature starter plants, not full-scale mature cultivation. Retail expansion remained cautious and conditional.
This staged approach reduced political pressure and allowed policymakers to adjust rules as issues surfaced. For cities drafting cannabis ordinances today, a phased strategy can lower legal risk and build public trust.
Zoning plays a central role in municipal cannabis regulation. In Redwood City, one of the most debated issues involved buffer zones between cannabis businesses and schools.
Some community groups pushed for a 1,000-foot separation requirement. State law sets a minimum of 600 feet. The city ultimately adopted the 600-foot standard.
Why does that matter?
Buffer distances directly affect how much viable property exists for cannabis businesses. When cities adopt larger buffer zones without mapping eligible parcels first, they may eliminate nearly all available commercial locations.
Before setting zoning rules, cities should:
Overly restrictive zoning often creates unintended consequences, including limited competition and potential litigation from denied applicants.
The statewide data reveals another important pattern: 114 California jurisdictions allow delivery-only retail, while prohibiting storefront dispensaries. Some jurisdictions prohibit delivery altogether.
Redwood City initially leaned toward delivery models before expanding retail access. Delivery-only frameworks reduce neighborhood visibility and foot traffic, which often addresses community resistance.
For cities hesitant about full retail storefronts, delivery-only models provide a middle path. They allow regulated access while limiting the physical presence of cannabis businesses.
Redwood City’s approach fits within broader statewide trends.
According to the same peer-reviewed study:
This data shows that local governments still experiment with regulatory models. There is no single template. Cities that build defensible, transparent policies reduce exposure to lawsuits and regulatory reversals.
Municipal cannabis ordinances often face legal scrutiny. Redwood City’s debate highlighted several areas of risk.
Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) often trigger appeals. If application scoring lacks transparency, denied applicants may claim unfair treatment.
Clear evaluation criteria reduce these risks.
Cannabis projects may require environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Delays can occur if documentation lacks thorough analysis.
Cities should involve environmental counsel early in the drafting stage.
During council discussions, concerns surfaced about collecting medical patient information and ensuring cybersecurity protections. Even when cannabis is legal locally, sensitive data must remain protected.
Competitive licensing systems can spark administrative law challenges. Objective scoring and documented review processes help defend city decisions.
Municipalities often focus on compliance but overlook market feasibility.
In Redwood City, operators raised concerns about:
If legal frameworks unintentionally block viable operators, illicit markets may persist. Cities should evaluate whether regulations align with realistic business conditions.
Municipalities across California and other U.S. states can apply the following steps when drafting cannabis ordinances:
Engage residents early. Gather public input before drafting final rules.
Use geographic mapping tools to calculate viable parcels under proposed buffer rules.
Define application categories, scoring weights, and evaluation processes in writing.
Outline security requirements, employee background checks, and operational limits.
Anticipate administrative appeals and document decisions thoroughly.
Cannabis policy evolves quickly. Schedule regular ordinance reviews to address emerging issues.
Business owners preparing municipal cannabis applications should:
Cities may cap permits, require public hearings, and enforce strict documentation standards. A strong application reflects both regulatory compliance and community benefit.
Redwood City demonstrates that cannabis legalization does not require extremes. Cities do not need to choose between prohibition and uncontrolled retail expansion.
A phased rollout, clear zoning standards, and transparent licensing create a framework that balances public safety and economic opportunity.
For municipalities navigating cannabis legalization, careful drafting can prevent costly disputes and policy reversals. For operators, understanding local rules can mean the difference between approval and denial.
Cannabis (4)Drug Crimes (2)DUI (18)Expungements (3)Felony (5)Juvenile Justice (2)Local Insights (4)Marijuana Laws (3)Miranda Rights (1)Misdemeanor (1)Penal Code 4019 (1)Probation (1)TAKE IT DOWN Act (2)Traffic (6)Uncategorized (0)Warrants (3)
(650) 242-0021
