From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Dave Aleshire; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comments - Open Session prior to Closed Session - Closed Session Item C.1. - Point Molate Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 10:52:52 AM
Attachments: 12.5.23 Upstream Letter re City Obligation to Remedy Entitlements.pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Clerk,
Please have the City Council read the enclosed letter presenting Upstream's public comment during open session into the record and place the enclosed letter into the record of public comments with regard to the above-referenced agenda item. Thank you.
Best regards,
Garet D. O'Keefe
O'Keefe & O'Keefe LLP
1068 Cragmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
(510) 282-0319
O'KEEFE & O'KEEFE LLP ATTORNEYS
1068 CRAGMONT AVENUE BERKELEY, CA 94708 510.282.0319 PHONE [email protected] EMAIL December 5, 2023 Via Email David J. Aleshire, City Attorney City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Drive Richmond, CA 94804 Email: [email protected] Re: City’s On-Going Obligation to Secure and Defend the Entitlements at Point Molate Dear Dave: This letter is written to the City of Richmond (the “City”) on behalf of our client Upstream Point Molate LLC (“Upstream”) to coordinate regarding the City’s on-going obligations to comply with CEQA as to the City approvals necessary to entitle the development of, and construction on, the Point Molate development areas to carry out the sale and transfer of such development areas to a third party pursuant to the Amended Judgment. Given the City’s extensive work on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and the City’s vigorous defense of the entitlement process at the trial and appellate Courts, we are equally surprised by the recent decision by the Court of Appeal. While it seems to us like an unjust and poorly reasoned decision, it is the decision we all must work with to complete the land use entitlement and CEQA compliance process per the Amended Judgment. Despite the delay this decision causes, given the very limited scope of concerns raised in the Court of Appeal’s decision, there should be no barriers for the City to remedy these SEIR deficiencies through the limited corrective actions required by the Court’s decision. Based on our reading of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the City’s efforts to produce, circulate and certify the Point Molate 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the “SEIR”) passed legal muster except for cultural resources and evacuation response mitigation measures that the Court found deficient. As a result of those two deficiencies, the Court of Appeal ordered that the September 2020 EIR certification and the related project entitlements to develop approximately thirty percent (30%) of the site be voided until corrected. As you know, in accord with the Base Reuse Plan and the Amended Judgment, seventy percent (70%) of the site would remain in open space. We assume that the City will undertake the corrective action needed to address these two mitigation measures without any prompting from the Tribe and Upstream. However, we nevertheless write to O'KEEFE & O'KEEFE LLP David Aleshire December 5, 2023 Page 2 remind the City of its ongoing obligation to correct the two minor CEQA mitigation deficiencies that the Court of Appeal identified, and to urge the City to do so without delay, so that the City can protect the value of the Point Molate property, which was the economic basis of the Amended Judgment. Corrections to the mitigation measures and the process are readily available, and we believe that they can be implemented in a matter of a few months. Corrected mitigation measures will only enhance the City’s previously certified EIR, and project approval decisions made by the Richmond City Council in September of 2020. As such, we are hopeful that the City will recertify the SEIR with adjusted mitigation measures and re-approve the project entitlements diligently and in good faith, and not repeat the City’s prior practice of abrogating agreements made on behalf of the City by a prior City Council. That practice has not worked out for anyone involved, and was the basis of the Tribe’s and Upstream’s claims against the City that led to the Amended Judgment. Please let us know your plans and schedule for taking the corrective action and re-approving the Point Molate project with additional mitigation. As you know, our clients are engaged in discussions concerning a potential acquisition of part of the development footprint by East Bay Regional Park District. That potential acquisition relies upon an appraisal of the property at entitled values, and the new EIR deficiencies have thrown a wrench into those discussions. Our clients are similarly engaged in discussions with other third-party developers to purchase the Historic District and other remaining development areas, again, subject to the right to develop pursuant to the entitlements that were issued by the City in compliance with the Amended Judgment, which entitlements the City remains obligated to issue and defend. It is unfortunate that the City’s efforts were not confirmed by the Court of Appeal, but we expect this next round will not be subject to a similar challenge, given the relative simplicity to fix the issues identified by the Court of Appeals. We trust that the City will take immediate action to correct the two mitigation issues, so that our clients can continue to move forward in accordance with the Amended Judgment. As always, you can count on cooperation from our clients and our offices. Based on the City's actions going forward, we will determine whether to seek advice or rulings from the federal court as to whether a tolling of time limits under the Amended Judgment or other remedial orders may be necessary.
O'KEEFE & O'KEEFE LLP David Aleshire December 5, 2023 Page 3 As always, thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Garet D. O’Keefe Cc: Christian Marsh Linda Klein From: Michael Derry
To: City Clerk Dept User; Lisa Linder
Subject: Public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session - Closed Session Item C.1. - Point Molate Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:07:29 AM
Attachments: GV to COR Letter December 5, 2023.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Clerk,
Please have the City Council read the enclosed letter presenting the Guidiville Tribe's public comment during open session into the record and place the enclosed letter into the record of public comments with regard to the above-referenced agenda item.
Thank you.
Michael Derry
Tribal Council Liaison,
Guidiville Rancheria of California
707-391-1665
1487 W. State Route 89A Suite 8 Sedona, Arizona 86336 Phone: 425 802 5369 Email: [email protected] CROWELL LAW OFFICE Tribal Advocacy Group December 5, 2023 Via Email David J. Aleshire, City Attorney City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Drive Richmond, CA 94804 Email: [email protected] Re: City’s On-Going Obligation to Secure and Defend the Entitlements at Point Molate Dear Dave: This letter is written to the City of Richmond (the “City”) on behalf of the Guidiville Rancheria of California (the “Tribe”) to coordinate regarding the City’s on-going obligations to comply with CEQA as to the City approvals necessary to entitle the development of, and construction on, the Point Molate development areas to carry out the sale and transfer of such development areas to a third party pursuant to the Amended Judgment. Like you, we are surprised by the recent decision by the Court of Appeal. The City’s lawyers did a great job defending the entitlements in the trial court and responding to the appeal. While it seems to us like an unjust and poorly reasoned decision, it is the decision we all must work with in order to complete the land use entitlement and CEQA compliance process per the Amended Judgment. This decision on appeal should serve only as a delay, and not a setback, given the very limited scope of concerns raised in the decision that the City must remedy through the limited corrective action required by the Court of Appeal’s decision. Based on our reading of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the City’s efforts to produce, circulate and certify the Point Molate 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the “SEIR”) passed legal muster except for cultural resources and evacuation response mitigation measures that the Court found deficient. As a result of those two deficiencies, the Court of Appeal ordered that the September 2020 EIR certification and the related project entitlements to develop approximately thirty percent (30%) of the site be voided until corrected. As you know, in accord with the Base Reuse Plan and the Amended Judgment, seventy percent (70%) of the site would remain in open space. We assume that the City will undertake the corrective action needed to address these two mitigation measures without any prompting from the Tribe and Upstream. However, we nevertheless write to remind the City of its ongoing obligation to correct the two minor CEQA mitigation deficiencies that the Court of Appeal identified, and to urge the City to do so without 2 delay, so that the City can protect the value of the Point Molate property, which was the economic basis of the Amended Judgment. Corrections to the mitigation measures and the process are readily available, and we believe that they can be implemented in a matter of a few months. Corrected mitigation measures will only enhance the City’s previously-certified EIR, and project approval decisions made by the Richmond City Council in September of 2020. As such, we are hopeful that the City will recertify the SEIR with adjusted mitigation measures and re-approve the project entitlements diligently and in good faith, and not repeat the City’s prior practice of abrogating agreements made on behalf of the City by a prior City Council. That practice has not worked out for anyone involved, and was the basis of the Tribe’s and Upstream’s claims against the City that led to the Amended Judgment. Please let us know your plans and schedule for taking the corrective action and re-approving the Point Molate project with additional mitigation. As you know, our clients are engaged in discussions concerning a potential acquisition of part of the development footprint by East Bay Regional Park District. That potential acquisition relies upon an appraisal of the property at entitled values, and the new EIR deficiencies have thrown a wrench into those discussions. Our clients are similarly engaged in discussions with other third-party developers to purchase the other development areas, again, subject to the right to develop pursuant to the entitlements that were issued by the City in compliance with the Amended Judgment, which entitlements the City remains obligated to issue and defend. It is unfortunate that the City’s efforts were not confirmed by the Court of Appeal, but we expect this next round will not be subject to a similar challenge, given the ease with which the Court of Appeal’s express instructions may be complied. We hope that we can trust the City to take immediate action to correct the two mitigation issues, so that our clients can continue to move forward in accordance with the Amended Judgment. As always, you can count on cooperation from our clients and our offices, and we look forward to continuing to work with you and the City’s outside legal counsel, including Christian and his team. Based on the City's actions going forward, we will determine whether to seek advice or rulings from the federal court as to whether a tolling of time limits under the Amended Judgment or other remedial orders may be necessary. As always, thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, /s/ Scott Crowell Scott Crowell Legal Counsel for the Tribe Cc: Christian Marsh Linda Klein From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments-Open Forum
Date: Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:17:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good Evening, Mayor Martinez, Council Members and Staff, I AM Submitting the Following Comments into the Record:
1. For a Future Agenda, The Council Should Direct Staff to Work with Chancellor Christ's Office to Schedule a Joint Meeting with Richmond City Council and UC Berkeley in the Spring of 2024 to Hear Updates
2. Also To Reinstate Standing Committees to Address the Financial Aspect of the City of Richmond
3. Also To Have Danny Wan To Present on the Port of Oakland Sincerely
Cordell
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- P.1 Budget Session
Date: Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:22:29 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Mayor Martinez, Council Members and Staff,
I AM Asking That the Council to Approve the Resolution as Presented by Staff Sincerely
Cordell
P.S, I AM in Full Support of Having Additional Staff for Community Groups From: Airyka Bolds
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: Public comment; Y1 cannabis ordnances
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:21:56 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:19 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
To the Richmond City Council,
The issue of cannabis retail density is not just a matter of economics or business —it's a matter of public health, especially concerning our youth. The high THC levels found in many cannabis products today can lead to profound negative effects on adolescent brain development, and thus must be regulated with utmost caution.
Programs like the Pride & Purpose project offer a beacon of hope, demonstrating successful strategies in youth education and prevention of substance abuse. Any changes to the cannabis ordinance should not only maintain but enhance the capacity for such programs to operate and flourish.
I trust that you will make decisions that protect the wellbeing of all citizens, especially our younger generation.
Kind regards,
Airyka Bolds
From: Arwa Asif
To: [email protected]; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item R1.
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 8:02:41 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Richmond City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Arwa Asif, and I am the West County Alcohol Policy Coalition Coordinator with Bay Area Community Resources. I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed amendment to the cannabis ordinance, specifically regarding the addition of non-storefront establishments that exclusively provide delivery services.
While I acknowledge the potential benefits of expanding access to cannabis products through delivery serviices, it is crucial to consider the potential negative impacts on our communities, particularly youth access and overall public safety.
One primary concern is the potential increase in youth access to cannabis if adequate protocols are not in place to prevent individuals under the legal age of 21 from ordering or receiving cannabis products. Given that cannabis can have detrimental effects on the developing brain, it is imperative that any amendment to the ordinance includes robust safeguards to prevent inadvertent youth access.
If the city of Richmond chooses to proceed with this amendment, it is essential that the updated ordinance incorporates comprehensive measures to protect youth and the community at large. This may include stringent age verification processes for online orders, secure delivery protocols, and increased enforcement to deter illegal sales to minors.
Furthermore, it would be prudent to involve local community organizations and leaders in the development of these protective measures to ensure that they are tailored to the specific needs and concerns of our community.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the city of Richmond to prioritize the well-being of our youth and community by including stringent protections in the proposed cannabis ordinance amendment. By doing so, we can strike a balance between providing access to legal cannabis products for adults and safeguarding against potential negative consequences.
Thank you for considering my concerns, and I appreciate your commitment to maintaining a safe and responsible cannabis regulatory framework.
Sincerely,
--
Arwa Asif
She/Her
West Contra Costa Alcohol Policy Coalition Coordinator
Bay Area Community Resources
M (510) 559-3077 ext. 94123 E [email protected]
W www.bacr.org
Information in this message, including all attachments, is intended ONLY for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any hard copy print-outs.
From: Eleazar Galeano
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item R.1
Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:51:56 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Council Members,
My name is Eleazar and I am a Richmond resident. I am writing in opposition to amend the cannabis ordinance and allow the opening of non-retail storefronts in Richmond. From a public health standpoint, I think it is obvious that having such locations open in Richmond could pose as a threat to the wellbeing of our youth.
Unless there is proper legal language and protocols put into place, this can very quickly turn into a problem for the city by increasing the risk of accessibility to minors and at-risk demographics in Richmond. I urge you to vote in opposition of this amendment.
Best,
Eleazar
From: katherine l
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item R.1
Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:19:32 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Greeting Richmond City Council,
My name is Katherine and I’m a lifelong resident of Richmond. As someone who grew up in Richmond, I have first hand experience with the increase of both liquor and cannabis retailers in my city, and I can tell you that the rates of youth who have come to access substances such as alcohol and cannabis has become alarming. In regards to Item R1 to make amends to the cannabis ordinance, I am in opposition, and I hope you can understand why you should be too.
Increasing the amount of non-retail cannabis locations will not only pose a negative impact to our youth but to people who may run those delivery services. Delivery workers are often targets for theft and Richmond already sees a large amount of unattended crime. Instead of putting our resources towards a recreational drug, we should turn to fund public health programs and community safety programs. I understand that cannabis businesses can benefit from the additional business of delivery sites, however I ask you- Is it worth the potential harm to Richmond as a whole? Is the health of our youth not worth taking a stance of opposition to recreation?
Please take my voice into consideration as you make your decision. Thank you for your time.
Katherine
From: Kayla McCullough
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Q1. Public Comment - Opposition to Cannabis Ordinance Amendment Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:32:34 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
To the Members of the Richmond City Council,
The current amendments to the Richmond Municipal Code related to cannabis commercial use, including the expansion of retail and non-storefront permits, present a complex issue that demands our careful scrutiny. As a Richmond resident and advocate for youth health, my primary concern lies with the direct impact that retail density has on the likelihood of cannabis use among minors.
With the introduction of highly potent THC products into the market, the risk to our youth's neurological development is exacerbated. Furthermore, the current form of the amendments does not address the pressing need for stronger protections against substance use disorders for our young people.
As we progress towards making Richmond a better place for business, let us not do so at the expense of our future generation's health and safety. I implore the Council to amend this ordinance to include specific strategies and programs that will mitigate these risks.
Thank you for your dedication to our community's welfare.
Best regards,
Kayla McCullough
Copy of Public Comment.docx
Shameka Bolds
Organizational Leadership, MS
(She/her/hers)
Environmental Programs Supervisor
Community Health for Asian Americans
Phone: 510-2333-7555x23
Email:
[email protected]
3919 Macdonald Ave
Richmond, Ca 94804
www.chaaweb.org
From: Aylin A.
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment: Cannabis Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:27:27 AM
Attachments: Public Comment.docx
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Richmond City Council Members,
I write to you regarding Item Y1: the first reading of the ordinance amending cannabis commercial uses in our community. It's imperative that as we discuss the introduction of more storefront and delivery-only cannabis permits, we also consider the welfare of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
The proposed increase in cannabis retailer density without concurrent enhancement of youth protections fails to address the very real concern of heightened exposure and potential substance use disorders among teens. High THC products have been proven to adversely affect youth brain development, and this is an issue that cannot be overlooked.
Therefore, I urge the Council to ensure that any amendments to our cannabis regulations include strict measures that shield our youth from increased cannabis availability and its repercussions. By doing so, we can pursue economic development without sacrificing the well-being of our community members.
Respectfully,
Lindsay Aylin Argueta
From: Lonnell Walker
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Y1
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 11:21:36 AM
Attachments: PC_Walk.docx
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Richmond City Council,
As a concerned parent and long-term resident of Richmond, I am reaching out regarding the proposed amendments under Item Y1 concerning the increase of cannabis retail permits. While I support the idea of promoting equity through increased business opportunities, I am apprehensive about the potential impact this could have on our community—particularly on our youth.
The introduction of more cannabis businesses increases the density of these establishments, which in turn raises the accessibility of cannabis to minors. Even with the best enforcement, the risk of diversion and the normalization of cannabis can lead to higher rates of experimentation and use among teenagers. I urge the council to consider not just the economic implications but also the societal impact, especially as it pertains to our youth.
In the process of adopting these amendments, I strongly advocate for additional measures to be included that will help prevent underage use and protect the well-being of our young citizens, such as increased funding for education programs on drug use and stricter zoning laws for cannabis businesses.
I trust that the Council will make a decision that balances economic growth with the health and safety of all Richmond residents.
Yours faithfully,
Lonnell Walker
From: Nabila Sher-Oliver
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment agenda item #Q.1
Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 1:20:39 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Council members,
The Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drug(AMPD) Coalition oppose the proposed Cannabis Ordinance Amendments for several reasons:
I write to express my reservations about the proposed Cannabis Ordinance Amendment, considering various aspects that could impact our community negatively.
1. Public Health and Safety: Increasing the number of cannabis retail permits raises concerns about public health, especially given the documented link between cannabis use and emergency room visits. The potential for increased accessibility may inadvertently contribute to health-related issues.
2. Impact on Youth: The escalating use of cannabis among young people is alarming, and expanding the number of retail permits might make it easier for underage individuals to access cannabis. It is crucial to consider measures to mitigate the potential impact on our youth.
3. Zoning and Neighborhood Impact: Studies have indicated that clustering cannabis stores can lead to decreased property values and neighborhood disruptions. It is imperative to evaluate the potential zoning and neighborhood impacts to maintain the integrity of our communities.
4. Equity and Social Responsibility: While promoting equity in the cannabis industry is commendable, concrete steps, not just promises, are needed to address existing disparities.
The proposed amendments should ensure tangible support for equity applicants rather than token gestures.
5. Local Control: Granting local municipalities the flexibility to regulate the cannabis industry according to their specific needs is vital. One-size-fits-all approaches may not account for the unique characteristics of each community, and local control allows for a more tailored response.
I urge the Council to carefully consider these factors and reassess the proposed amendments to ensure they align with the best interests of our community.
Sincerely,
Nabila Sher-Oliver
Alcohol and Other Drug Policy Coordinator
Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drug (AMPD) Coalition Coordinator Bay Area Community Resources
11175 San Pablo Ave
El Cerrito, CA 94530
510-559-3004
[email protected]
From: Raquel Antolin
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comment Agenda item Q.1
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 12:49:03 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Richmond city council members,
My name is Raquel Antolin and I'm here today with Bay Area Community Resources and as a concerned Richmond resident.
My main reason for being here is to express my strong opposition to the proposed Cannabis Ordinance, specifically concerning the issue of increased access to cannabis by our youth. I firmly believe that it is our duty to protect our young population from potential harm and adverse effects associated with cannabis use and it should be a top priority for our community.
As a concerned member and parent of this community, I am deeply troubled by the potential consequences of the proposed amendments. It is well-documented that early exposure to cannabis can have a significant impact on the developing brains of our youth, leading to cognitive impairments, mental health issues, and an increased risk of substance abuse in the long run. Therefore, I am deeply concerned that these amendments might contribute to these adverse outcomes.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed amendments and take into account the potential harm they could inflict on our youth. Instead, we should focus on adopting policies that prioritize the health and well-being of our younger citizens and implement robust measures to restrict their access to cannabis. This includes strict regulations, education programs, and age verification procedures at cannabis dispensaries.
Furthermore, I encourage our local authorities to seek input from healthcare professionals, addiction specialists, and youth advocates when making decisions that could have far-reaching consequences on the future of our youth.
Our community's future relies on the choices we make today, and I implore you to make the right decision by rejecting the proposed Cannabis Ordinance Amendments in their current form. Let us work together to create policies that safeguard the well- being of our youth while addressing the legitimate concerns of our community.
Thank you for considering my perspective on this crucial matter. I look forward to seeing a safer, more responsible approach to regulating cannabis in our community.
Sincerely,
Raquel Antolin
Raquel Antolin
Pronouns: She/Her
Program Coordinator
Discovering the Reality of Our Community
Zoom phone: (925) 331-1993
Call/text: (510) 998-7009
From: Shameka Bolds
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Subject: Q1. Public Comment - Opposition to Cannabis Ordinance Amendment Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 12:05:01 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
To the Honorable Members of the Richmond City Council,
As an active member of the Richmond community, I write to express my views on the proposed amendments to our cannabis ordinance. The prospect of adding more storefront and delivery-only cannabis permits presents a challenge that goes beyond business development; it touches on the fabric of our community's health and resilience.
We must consider the message we send to our children when we increase the visibility and availability of cannabis. As research suggests, there is a relationship between the number of dispensaries and cannabis use among youth. Therefore, it is imperative that we proceed with caution.
I stand with equity applicants and the expansion of opportunities for all. However, I also stand for a Richmond that does not compromise the safety and development of its younger generation for economic gain. Could the Council ensure that strong, evidence-based youth prevention and education programs are embedded into these ordinance amendments?
Your leadership in balancing these complex issues is crucial. I am hopeful that the result will reflect not only the needs of today's entrepreneurs but also the future well-being of Richmond's youth.
With respect,
Shameka Bolds
Organizational Leadership, MS
(She/her/hers)
Environmental Programs Supervisor
Community Health for Asian Americans
Phone: 510-2333-7555x23
Email:[email protected]
3919 Macdonald Ave
Richmond, Ca 94804
www.chaaweb.org
From: Winnie Li
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item R.1
Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:54:53 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Richmond City Council,
My name is Winnie, and as a RIchmond resident I believe that we should be opposed to opening non-storefront sites for cannabis. As such, we should be opposed to amending the cannabis ordinance to allow for such sites to open. This can increase the risk of unauthorized access to youth as delivery-only services may lack the physical barriers and age verification processes essential to preventing underage individuals from obtaining cannbis products.
Without direct face-to-face interaction, there is an elevated risk of individuals under the legal age of 21 successfully placing orders and receiving deliveries without proper verification. This lack of oversight could inadvertently contribute to a rise in youth access to cannabis, posing potential risks to their health and well-being. To protect our youth and maintain a responsible cannabis industry, it is essential to implement robust safeguards and age verification measures fore all delivery services. Unless we can ensure these protocols, we must oppose the amendments presently.
Best,
Winnie