Antioch Council meeting on marijuana business ban gets contentious, accusations fly

Councilmembers not happy with lack of action and information by city staff, commission

By Robbie Pierce

What turned out to be a necessary unanimous vote by the four members present at their special meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 1, the Antioch City Council discussion of a second extension of the ban on commercial recreational marijuana operations turned contentious. During the emergency meeting, called for by Mayor Sean Wright, it was both Councilmember Tony Tiscareno and Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe who expressed their angst and frustration with city staff and the city’s Economic Development Commission for not having a final ordinance to vote on.

With Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock absent, Wright, Thorpe and Councilmembers Tiscareno and Monica Wilson debated whether or not to extend for a second time the temporary moratorium, or prohibition, on non-medical commercial marijuana cultivation, manufacture, sales and deliveries in the city. It was adopted Nov. 8, 2016 and extended for the first time Dec 13, 2016 in the wake of the passage of state Proposition 64. That measure legalized such usage and commercial operations, and set up the framework for the State of California to begin issuing licenses to sell marijuana Jan 1, 2018. It also gives cities and counties the power to regulate the commercial operations.

Also present at the meeting were Acting City Manager Nickie Mastay, as City Manager Ron Bernal was out of town.

The meeting was the council’s last opportunity to extend the moratorium, as a third extension would not be allowed, and it required a super majority of four of five council members. With Ogorchock absent, the council members present needed to vote unanimously in order to pass an extension of any kind – an additional year was what was proposed as the Recommended Action by staff.

The moratorium was originally enacted so that city staff could have one year to gather data and statistics on how non-medical marijuana legalization would affect the city of Antioch, and what laws and regulations the city legislature should enact. Interim City Attorney Elizabeth Perez, of the Cota Cole & Huber LLP law firm, explained that the additional extension was now being proposed “so that we may complete our analysis of the financial impacts and negative impacts that regulating non-medical marijuana use within city limits would create.”

The public hearing attracted three speakers with Jeffrey Klinger and city Economic Development Commissioner Tim McCall both speaking in favor of it. Each asserted similar points that the moratorium gives the council time to properly evaluate the situation and the proper response.

“This will give the council, staff, police department… the time necessary to research and make correct decisions for the city of Antioch on its residents,” McCall stated.

The council had two items on the matter to consider. “Item #1) Accept and approve the report from the City Attorney and provide direction regarding a permanent ordinance regulating non-medical marijuana uses and; Item #2) Adopt the second extension of the interim urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on non-medical marijuana uses.”

Tiscareno, Thorpe Challenge Staff Report

Following public comment, Tiscareno requested separate discussion on agenda items 1 and 2, noting that he had “some discussion” on the former but “not much problem” with the latter.

He expressed some issues with the staff report given to the council, claiming it was “one-sided” and “doesn’t tell the trueness” of what voters were “trying to accomplish” when they passed Prop 64. According to several council members, 73% of Antioch residents voted in favor of it last November. Tiscareno wished that it had been “more open-minded” so that the council could have the proper information to make “conscious decisions on what reflects our voters and also protect our city,” and ultimately stated that he was “not in favor of the staff report as written at this point.”

Thorpe chimed in that he “[didn’t] disagree one bit with… Councilman Tiscareno” on the notion of the report being biased, and also lamented that the staff had been given a year already and was now asking for another year despite having given them no new information. He complained that the report attached to the meeting agenda was a year old.

“What concerns me… is that we gave staff a year last time,” he said. “I haven’t heard any of what we asked of staff.”

Thorpe referred to previous, unfulfilled requests they gave to staff, such as that they co-operate with the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and hold community outreach workshops to gauge public opinion. He and Wright claimed those requests occurred at council meetings in January and March. However, it was at their May 9 meeting that the council discussed having an an ad hoc committee of the council and commission discuss and hear from the public on the matter. According to EDC Chair Keith Archuleta, that ad hoc committee was never formed.

“We weren’t elected… to figure out whether voters were right or wrong, we were elected to implement the policy that voters wanted to implement,” he explained, outlining his hesitancy over more or less blocking a state-wide initiative for another year due to a lack of data on it.

Wilson echoed the sentiments of Tiscareno and Thorpe, calling the staff’s work up to date “disappointing.”

Ultimately, the council, seeing approval of the report as more “symbolic” than anything else in the words of Mayor Wright, voted 4-0 to “receive” the report, not approve it, with the direction that staff “come back with a report that more reflects both sides of the story.”

Commission Didn’t Get the Matter Until June

Following the Nov. 1 council meeting, EDC Chair Archuleta said that the commission didn’t get the moratorium matter “until June, officially and had the chance to deliberate on it.”

“The EDC meets every other month but didn’t have a meeting in August. So, the next meeting was held in October,” he explained. “At that meeting, we recommended to the council they extend the moratorium.”

“At our next meeting in December we will discuss options,” Archuleta continued. “We are considering outcomes from Colorado and other cities in California…of what the cost benefits are.”

“The public can make comments at our December meeting. We didn’t have any members of the public who commented at our first two meetings,” he said. “The public is welcome at any of our meetings.”

“We are hoping by February we will have a set of recommendations we can put forward to the council,” Archuleta added.

Discussion Becomes Contentious

As for Item 2, the council was firmly unified on the idea that they wanted to leave having passed something, but became hotly and contentiously divided on just how long they ought to extend the moratorium. Thorpe wanted a mere six-month extension to “put more meat” on their decision and pressure the staff to act fast, with Tiscareno and Wilson slowly rallying to his position. Wright continued to push for a full, one-year extension to ensure that they had all the required time, having confirmed that they could cancel the moratorium at any time with a majority vote.

At the urging of McCall from the audience, public comment was re-opened for the notion of a six-month extension, with another speaker named Julia speaking in opposition of extending the moratorium at all. Klinger and McCall both speak in favor of a full year extension.

After much debate, discussions with both Mastay and EDC Member McCall to determine how much time they needed, and two failed motions, the council eventually compromised and passed 4-0 a measure to extend the moratorium for nine months, with direction to staff to give them a new report on the status of their research every two months.

“I’m voting no,” Thorpe joked before voting in favor of the third and final motion, ensuring a successful, required four favorable votes for passage.

The meeting ended with the mayor and him shaking hands and laughing.

An attempt to reach Ogorchock for the reason she was absent was unsuccessful before publication time. Please check back later to read her response. Please also see related article with background on the ordinance from the Nov. 1 council meeting, here.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 


4 Comments to “Antioch Council meeting on marijuana business ban gets contentious, accusations fly”

  1. Renee Sparks says:

    So they added another year on the moratorium because the commission that was supposed to have done their work in the last year did absolutely nothing. Furthermore the commission was supposed to meet in August but didn’t. Are these people paid employees? If so they should be fired. If they’re volunteers they should be replaced. They had a year to make a report and did nothing. What a waste of Antioch’s resources.
    The law passed. The marijuana is already in Antioch. It’s not that hard to make a decision. Is Antioch going to allow Stores , yes or no? Is Antioch going to allow delivery? And is Antioch going to allow any cultivation?
    Why are you wasting 1 year and 9 months on meetings?
    I would like to thank the Mayor, Lamar Thorpe, and the Council members that showed up to the meeting and are working so hard to try to make Antioch better. I like that you hold people accountable and really ask the hard questions.
    Please don’t let this group have any more time writing up a report. They need to work now.
    Thank you

    • Arne says:

      Commissioners, committee and board members are volunteers ad do not receive any stipend whatsoever. It is important to keep in mind that during this past year that the City Council fired the City Manager, the Police Chief retired and the City Attorney left for another city, all in the month of May.

  2. Stanley Cordoba says:

    This is totally unsatisfactory. Our city is going to miss out on an opportunity to receive tax money to rebuild schools, infrastructure money for downtown etc. Get off the ball and make the best of this new chance for our city to rebuild with a new tax base. Kudos to Sean and LaMar for trying to go forward on this. Pay attention supervisors. Won’t be long before there is another election.

  3. Julio says:

    Incomplete, insufficient and erroneous staff reports have been a problem in Antioch since I have been around. They always tend to be one sided also.

Leave a Reply