Nevada County Approves Application Process for Cannabis Dispensaries

NEVADA COUNTY – Nevada County supervisors voted October 6 to invite cannabis businesses to compete for potential storefronts in North San Juan and Soda Springs, while directing staff to return with a minimum score applicants would have to earn to advance.

The 4–1 vote approved a Request for Applicants (RFA) and a 100-point evaluation scorecard, and authorized staff to accept applications during a period of at least 30 days. District 2 Supervisor Robb Tucker cast the dissenting vote.

The action puts into motion a framework the county adopted in November 2024: up to two retail cannabis dispensaries in unincorporated areas outside city and town limits, with a maximum of one in each of the two designated rural centers.

City and town governments set their own cannabis rules. Grass Valley and Nevada City already allow storefront dispensaries. Truckee permits cannabis delivery businesses but prohibits retail storefronts.

Businesses will compete to be selected for each rural center. A selected applicant must then propose an eligible property and obtain a use permit—a county land-use approval—along with the other local permits and state licensing required to open. Eligible properties are in the two designated rural centers and have light industrial, business park, neighborhood commercial, or community commercial zoning.

At the board’s meeting in Truckee, the discussion ranged from outlets for local cannabis farmers and year-round employment to winter traffic, public safety, and how a dispensary would fit the Donner Summit community.

A Minimum Standard to Advance

District 5 Supervisor Hardy Bullock and Board Chair Lisa Swarthout questioned whether ranking would be enough if the county received only one application and it earned a poor score.

The existing selection rules invite the highest-scoring eligible applicant to apply for a use permit. Bullock wanted a minimum standard for the quality of an application as well as a ranking against other applicants.

Community Development Agency Director Trisha Tillotson suggested bringing back a revised resolution with a qualifying score. Supervisors approved Bullock’s motion to release the application package and support the scorecard, with a separate item returning to establish that threshold.

Staff agreed to aim for October 20, while explaining that the review schedule could push the item into mid-November. The qualifying score will require another board vote.

The approved application package puts the greatest weight on neighborhood compatibility and community enhancement, worth 25 of the 100 possible points. Applicants must explain how they would fit the community, communicate with neighbors, protect young people, and provide community benefits. They must also describe their ability to source locally cultivated or produced products and the share they intend to carry.

Business qualifications and the qualifications of owners and operators are worth 20 points each. Financial disclosures, operations, and labor and employment plans are worth 10 points each, while the security plan is worth five.

Applicants must identify North San Juan or Soda Springs as their proposed community; they can compete before securing a particular property. The county’s seven-member evaluation committee will review and score their proposals, with rankings considered at public meetings.

Different Views of Community Fit

Much of the disagreement centered on Soda Springs and the neighboring Donner Summit communities in Placer County.

Soda Springs property owner Dennis Carroll asked the board to pause the process. He argued that residents already travel to Truckee for many services and can obtain cannabis through delivery.

A speaker who identified herself as Colette, a full-time Soda Springs resident, questioned how neighborhood compatibility could be judged before an applicant identifies a property. She challenged the security plan’s five-point weighting and said winter access, parking, snow removal, and law enforcement response needed more attention.

Placer County Supervisor Cindy Gustafson also urged Nevada County to consider neighboring residents’ concerns in a September 16 letter. She cited traffic, fire and public safety, impaired driving, law enforcement demands, and community character.

Gustafson wrote that “the potential impacts of a project do not necessarily stop at a county boundary.”

Supervisor Tucker said he would likely support North San Juan if the two communities were considered separately, but felt differently about Soda Springs. Matt Kelley, the county’s director of code and cannabis compliance, explained that the existing ordinance covers both rural centers and that removing one would require an ordinance amendment.

Supervisor Bullock, whose district includes Soda Springs, said applications would give the county concrete information about potential operators’ finances, staffing, security, and approach to the community.

“The RFA in my mind is the way to get from where we are now with a lot of questions to some answers,” Bullock said.

Supporters argued that a dispensary could provide year-round jobs in a community dependent on snow and tourism, while creating another market for Nevada County cannabis farms. District 4 Supervisor Susan Hoek described connecting local growers with retail businesses as a goal for North San Juan.

Patricia Rockwell, co-owner of Green Gift Gardens in Penn Valley, said the scorecard’s emphasis on local products mattered to small farms. “We can grow an award-winning product, but getting it onto retail shelves remains difficult,” she said.

Nevada City Police Chief Dan Foss offered the board his experience with licensed cannabis businesses, describing positive relationships and security measures such as cameras and controlled access. Kelley said the scorecard’s five-point security category reflects requirements that operators also must meet under state regulation.

According to the county’s staff report, a selected business must undergo site-specific land-use and environmental review and obtain a use permit from the Planning Commission, which considers the application at a publicly noticed hearing. The operator must also obtain required building and development permits, an annual county cannabis permit, and state licenses before opening. A Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

Members of the public, including residents of Sierra and Placer counties, can comment during the evaluation committee’s public meetings and again when a selected applicant seeks approval for a specific property. The county posts committee information, agendas, and supporting documents on its cannabis selection webpage.