33
GeoPackages
Spatial source and derived-data packages in the current project checkpoint.
GIS Site Selection & Expansion Intelligence
Eligibility screening + site appeal dossiers for internal planning
Internal toolDossier layer in development
Screen weak sites earlier, rank the viable ones, and give ownership a concise dossier before more acquisition time and money are committed.
Why ownership should care
GreenPharms does not need another map for the sake of having a map. It needs a faster way to answer a much more expensive question: which locations are worth spending diligence money on?
The GIS tool is designed to reject obvious losers before broker time, consultant work, site visits and management attention compound. Sites that survive the hard zoning and distance checks can then be compared by business appeal so the strongest candidates get reviewed first.
That creates two kinds of value: direct savings from avoiding unnecessary screening and diligence, and potentially much larger value from making a better location decision before rent, build-out and operating capital are committed.
29,103
curated parcel records
Parcel records retained for the current screening prototype.
24
rule profiles
Location-screening and constraint profiles preserved in the current project.
14
documented source layers
Parcels, zoning, municipalities and restricted-use datasets recorded in the v3 layer registry.
$3,000
manual screening equivalent
Illustrative: 20 sites × 3 hours each × $50/hour internal time.
$5,000
one weak-site diligence cycle avoided
Illustrative if an outside review / consultant cycle costs $5,000.
$10,000
two weak-site cycles avoided
The tool pays back faster when it prevents downstream work on sites that should have been rejected earlier.
Illustrative scenario math, not claimed savings. Replace the hourly and outside-diligence assumptions with GreenPharms' actual costs. The larger upside — choosing a stronger store location — should eventually be modeled from projected contribution, rent, build-out cost and cannibalization.
The site dossier
Ownership decision brief · illustrative scoring layer
Enough information to decide whether the site deserves the next dollar.
Instead of asking management to interpret raw GIS output, the dossier condenses the location into the questions that matter: is it eligible, how attractive is it, how confident are we, what is holding it back, and should we advance it?
Illustrative candidate · Mesa, Arizona
84
/ 100
Site appeal
Eligibility
Eligible
Site appeal
84 / 100
Data confidence
86%
Recommendation
Advance
Ownership read
Strong candidate driven by customer proximity, strategic coverage and convenient access. Competitive pressure is manageable. Parcel practicality is the main area to confirm before more diligence spend is approved.
Appeal factors
The score has to explain itself before anyone trusts it.
Market opportunity
Nearby customer and household opportunity.
91
Competitive position
Relative dispensary density and competitive pressure.
78
Access + convenience
Road access, customer convenience and travel context.
87
Commercial context
How naturally the surrounding retail environment supports the use.
82
Customer proximity
How close the site is to likely customer concentrations.
90
Parcel practicality
Site-level practicality such as parcel, footprint and access considerations.
71
Strategic expansion value
Coverage gain versus overlap or cannibalization with the existing footprint.
89
Jurisdiction
Mesa
Resolved from parcel / municipal context
Zoning
Pass
Configured screening rule satisfied
Sensitive-use buffers
No conflict found
Based on currently configured source layers
Manual review
Still required
Municipal, legal and acquisition confirmation
Observed
Direct source or configured GIS data
Derived
Calculated from source data
Heuristic
Business scoring assumption
Unavailable
Not scored until data is present
Put diligence dollars behind the strongest candidates first
Management rarely evaluates one property in isolation. The shortlist gives ownership a common ranking so site visits, broker follow-up and outside diligence can begin with the candidates that offer the best combination of eligibility and business upside.
The shortlist below is illustrative. It demonstrates the intended product behavior, not current live acquisition recommendations.
CandidateScorePriorityQuick read
1Mesa candidate A
88ExcellentStrong opportunity + low overlap2Mesa candidate B
84StrongHigh customer proximity3Mesa candidate C
79StrongGood access; more competition4Mesa candidate D
71ModerateUseful coverage; parcel review needed5Mesa candidate E
58WeakLimited strategic gainHow the product creates that value
The sequence is intentionally simple: do not spend business-analysis time on a parcel that fails a hard rule. Clear eligibility first, then compare appeal. That keeps a high market score from disguising a site GreenPharms should never have advanced.
01
Start with a candidate site
Enter an address, coordinates or a prepared batch of locations.
02
Reject weak sites early
Resolve the parcel and jurisdiction, then check zoning and configured sensitive-use distances before more diligence money is spent.
03
Compare the sites that survive
Layer competition, customer proximity, access, commercial context and strategic fit onto candidates that clear the eligibility gate.
04
Spend time on the best candidates first
Return a dossier with score, confidence, reasons and recommendation, then place the site into a ranked shortlist for ownership review.
What GreenPharms already owns
The dossier is an expansion of real work already completed: parcel resolution, municipal context, zoning logic, distance calculations, prepared source layers and preserved outputs. The business-scoring layer adds value on top of that foundation instead of starting over with another vendor report.
Address geocoding and nearest-parcel resolution
Municipal jurisdiction and county-island classification
Zoning and restricted-use buffer evaluation
Distance calculations and parcel screening
Interactive map generation
Single-site and batch evaluation with exportable results
Built over time instead of bought as a one-off report
The GIS work predates the current repository. That matters commercially because the source preparation, notebooks, rules and spatial layers are accumulated internal capability: each new screening starts from a stronger base instead of paying to recreate the same foundation.
14
notebook revisions
Nine Eligibility Generator v2 revisions and five GP Eligibility v3 revisions preserved from the earlier working archive.
995 × 28
source workbook
Structured establishment and geocoding data preserved in the supporting spreadsheet record.
2.45 MB
interactive map export
A working Folium and Leaflet city/county-island map artifact created in October 2025.
≈1 GB
county parcel source
Maricopa County parcel data preserved alongside municipal, zoning and exclusion layers.
April 2025
Source preparation and geocoding
Establishment addresses, coordinates and early dispensary source files established the tabular base for spatial screening.
June–July 2025
Municipal layers and buffer outputs
City boundaries, restricted-use layers and multiple distance-buffer GeoPackages were assembled and tested.
October 2025
Interactive map output
A working city/county-island map was exported with embedded polygon geometry for interactive review.
December 2025–March 2026
Eligibility Generator v2
The Colab notebook evolved through nine preserved revisions covering parcel lookup, jurisdiction, zoning, distance checks and map output.
March 2026
GP Eligibility v3 rebuild
The project was reorganized around canonical sources, bounded parcel loading, explicit CRS handling and clearer rule separation.
Current
Internal evaluator and preserved work record
The current project keeps the screening logic, curated spatial packages and rule profiles while the interface is treated as an internal GreenPharms tool.
See the preserved artifact record
Google Colab notebook
Eligibility Generator v2
Address geocoding, parcel resolution, jurisdiction identification, zoning review, constraint distances and output generation.
Nine preserved revisions in the working archive.
Rebuilt notebook architecture
GP Eligibility v3
Canonical layer registry, bounded parcel loading, CRS conventions, zoning integration and externalized rule data.
Five preserved revisions in the working archive.
Interactive HTML artifact
City/county-island map
A standalone Leaflet map with embedded polygon geometry and interactive navigation.
2.45 MB export dated October 22, 2025.
GeoPackage and GeoJSON collection
Spatial source archive
County parcels, municipal boundaries, zoning, dispensaries, schools, childcare, parks, libraries, worship and behavioral-health sources.
Canonical, derived and rules directories preserved in the archive.
Derived spatial work
Buffer-distance outputs
Generated distance layers preserve iterative screening work at several configured thresholds.
GeoPackage outputs preserved across the 2025 project archive.
Spreadsheet record
Establishment source workbook
Address records with derived latitude and longitude values supporting the earlier mapping and screening workflow.
995-row, 28-column workbook structure preserved.
What this can replace — and what it cannot
Internal GreenPharms asset
The evaluator is built for GreenPharms planning, which means the screening logic and accumulated source work can be reused instead of repurchased for every search.
Private inputs can stay private
Parcel sources, rule profiles and derived spatial files can remain in controlled storage while management receives the decision output it needs.
It narrows diligence; it does not replace it
The tool helps decide where legal, municipal, broker and acquisition attention is worth spending. Final approval still requires current professional review.
Proof behind the product
The portfolio shows the product, workflow and preserved development record without exposing private working datasets. The older raw v2 notebook is also kept out of the public presentation because a historical revision contains a legacy API credential. Screening results remain decision support and should be confirmed through current municipal, legal and acquisition review.
Open the work record →