News

Council votes to ban storefront pot shops in Mountain View, allowing only delivery services

City Council changes course after opening applications for two retail, two delivery businesses in the city

The Mountain View City Council agreed to ban storefront cannabis businesses from opening anywhere in the city, instead allowing only delivery businesses to operate in Mountain View.

The unanimous vote restricts the more cannabis-friendly ordinance passed by the previous council in October, which had allowed up to two walk-in retail locations in large swaths of the city, including downtown, along with two delivery businesses. Last year's decision by the council sharply divided public opinion in the city, with many attending council meetings calling for a reversal.

That same crush of passionate protesters showed up in full force at the May 23 meeting, packing the council chambers, wearing armbands and holding signs calling for a full and complete ban on pot businesses. Nearly 80 public speakers weighed in, with the many calling retail cannabis a scourge on society that would take away from Mountain View's family-friendly elements and harm children.

"I think the true evil is some people trying to make money in pursuit of profit without caring about our children, polluting the air, polluting the mind of our children," said Vincent Zhang, the owner of a local tutoring center.

Emotions ran high enough that the meeting had to be called into recess partway through public comment due to numerous interruptions from the crowd.

The modified ordinance, which will return for a second reading in June, prohibits storefront retail locations but allows up to three "non-storefront" cannabis businesses in Mountain View -- essentially warehouse and delivery businesses that can't make sales to walk-in customers. These three businesses would need to be 600 feet away from any public or private school and 250 feet away from a child care center.

No cannabis businesses would be allowed in downtown Mountain View under the new rules, and businesses would be prevented from opening within 600 feet of one another. Council members also voted 6-0 to ban any marijuana businesses in the San Antonio area of the city, with council member Lucas Ramirez recused.

Mayor Lisa Matichak, who sought unsuccessfully to ban cannabis businesses altogether, made the complex motion as a compromise with several concessions. For example, storefront locations may have been completely eliminated, but the previously approved "buffers" between schools and cannabis businesses were left intact instead of being made bigger.

Matichak said residents made clear to her in recent months that they don't want any retail marijuana sold in Mountain View, regardless of what prior polls and votes may indicate. Although two-thirds of the city voted in favor of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act in 2016, she said that does not amount to a glowing endorsement for dispensaries opening within the city limits.

"For me it's very clear that our residents really don't want cannabis businesses in our city, and we should listen to our residents," Matichak said.

While Councilman John McAlister eventually voted in favor of the tighter restrictions, he cautioned that the responsibility falls on parents -- not the City Council -- to protect children and teach them about the effects and dangers of drug use.

"The first line of defense is the parents," he said. "Regardless of what we do, your children are still going to be tempted to do things."

The proposed changes to the cannabis ordinance come at an awkward time: the permitting process had already started under the old rules, with 10 businesses having submitted applications to open up shop. Six of those businesses had already been rejected by city staff for various reasons -- including clerical errors -- and four remained as of Thursday. With storefront retail businesses now banned, only one of those businesses is eligible to move forward.

The results of the application process were part of the reason the City Council sought to reconsider its new cannabis business law so soon. Owners were required to secure a location to do business before applying, and four of the dispensaries were tightly clustered in the same area of downtown Mountain View. At the same time, there were concerns that future applicants might seek to open a dispensary in the San Antonio shopping center, where the Los Altos School District plans to build a new school.

Council members were asked to pick from a range of larger buffer zones around schools and child care centers, including a word-for-word adoption of San Jose's zoning restrictions. Doing so would have effectively banned cannabis businesses from opening in Mountain View, while 750-foot and 600-foot buffers would have drastically reduced the allowable areas. The City Council ultimately voted to keep its original buffer zones intact and reject all the alternatives.

The Thursday decision is expected to cut into the revenue anticipated from Measure Q, a tax on cannabis sales in Mountain View that passed overwhelmingly in 2018. Each cannabis business is expected to generate about $200,000 each year in local taxes, along with registration fees to offset costs to the Mountain View Police Department.

Despite the tighter rules, Mountain View remains one of the few cities on the Peninsula to allow cannabis businesses at all. Palo Alto banned the businesses in late 2017, while Menlo Park has a long-term moratorium on pot shops and outdoor cultivation.

An estimated 80 percent of the city and county jurisdictions in California do not allow the legal purchase of marijuana despite the passage of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which cannabis advocates say has hindered the state's rollout of legal recreational marijuana -- including all of the money it was supposed to generate.

California's state budget office was predicting $643 million in excise tax revenue for the 2018-19 year last year, which would go toward education and substance abuse treatment, cleaning up illegal cultivation and public safety. But lower-than-expected sales slashed that number by more than half, with the May 2019 Governor's budget now showing $288 million in revenue. Back when the measure passed, Proposition 64 was expected to generate $1 billion annually by this point.

The state's Cannabis Advisory Committee concluded in its 2018 annual report that high taxes on legal cannabis sales and the difficulty in getting permission from local municipalities are the root causes behind the sluggish sales.

"The majority of local municipalities are either not issuing licenses or are slow in rolling out their cannabis programs," according to the report. "Of the municipalities issuing licenses, most are not issuing retail licenses."

The three businesses that were eligible to open storefront shops in Mountain View will be given priority to apply again for a non-storefront delivery business, and a subsequent open application process and lottery will be held to fill any remaining openings.

Council members mulled having all 10 applicants re-apply, given so much had changed, but ultimately decided that only the four deemed eligible could have priority. Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga said marijuana businesses need to be held to a high standard, and it's not the city's problem if business owners failed to double-check their paperwork. One business, for example, had put down the wrong address and inadvertently suggested they were going to put a cannabis shop in a mobile home park.

"If you didn't get your address correct, then I'm sorry, but I don't have sympathy for you," she said.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

158 people like this
Posted by Apparently Irrelevant Voter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 24, 2019 at 11:01 am

I suppose there's no point in having refereundums in this city if a vocal minority can bully the city council into changing its mind whenever it doesn't get its way! Doesn't matter what elections say if you can get a mob together.


126 people like this
Posted by Ross
a resident of Cuernavaca
on May 24, 2019 at 11:28 am

Very proud to have a wonderful Mayor and vice Mayor who are willing to fight for mountain view residents and protect our community!


134 people like this
Posted by Fear
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2019 at 11:28 am

Fear is a registered user.

This is absolutely ridiculous. A city council driven by uninformed fear, instead of the desires of voting citizens.

Let's vote again… this time to get these scared children out of office, and replace them with rational adults.


114 people like this
Posted by Nikki
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2019 at 11:35 am

this is so sad. plenty of residents do not agree with this. just like you want to go to a pharmacy or a market and deal with a live person you also should be able to do that for legal marijuana. are we going to close the liquor stores and pharmacies next? really makes me want to walk down the street puffing away :-)


117 people like this
Posted by Rich
a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 24, 2019 at 11:42 am

So the city council is scared of some old people and religious freaks. Great, so our vote to legalize doesn't mean anything. And our government has flip-flopped and cost legitimate business people thousands of dollars because of their capricious policy change.

It's literally impossible to argue that storefront weed shops hurt the citizens; we have lots of examples in San Jose and elsewhere proving this has zero impact.

I'm sure they will approve the next dozen infill projects, though, and displace more long-term renters from our city. So at least we have that.


48 people like this
Posted by TT
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 24, 2019 at 11:51 am

The cannabis business person was given extra long time to speak while other residents only got very strict 1.5 minutes to express their opinion. Is this fair?


103 people like this
Posted by Non Transparent
a resident of Cuernavaca
on May 24, 2019 at 12:28 pm

This was an extremely non transparent move by Council and erodes trust. There was ZERO indication that complete removal of storefronts was on the table for last night's meeting. The EPC had not moved any recommendation of that sort forward. If complete removal was up for discussion, this should've been carried over to a 2nd (accurately noticed and publicized) meeting.
Delivery is about city revenue; it's not an enhancement for residents, who can already get delivery from other cities.
Very poor governance process. What other surprise flips are in our future?


113 people like this
Posted by Leah
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2019 at 12:47 pm

Agree with city council that we should start the move cautiously on storefront cannabis business for “recreational use". If it’s offed in the pharmacy store with prescription, there is no argument on that. Medical use of cannabis has been supported by clinical practice and the availability is goog enough for people need it for medical reason. A pot shop down the street is not even compariable to Wallgreens.

Liquor store is another story too. Please remember that we have a long history of alcohol legislation and our society has established recommendations on alcholol drinking for any potential harm to health or safety (the limitation amount of wine should be considered for cardiovascular disease prevention or safety for pregnancy/breastfeeding, driver’s DUI test, etc.). But for recreational use of cannabis, especially the potential harm to children’s health and brain development (including second-hand smoke), we have so limited data to fully understand and better regulate that, and a lot people using cannabis are not aware of the potential impact (in contrast, they’re fully aware of the impact of alcohol and ciggerates due to long-history research). That’s why alcholol and ciggerates are legal world-wide but cannabis is only legal in a few areas in a few countries.

Although the parents have the responsibility to educate their children, our society is also responsible to protect them, especially for children who do not receive good care from their parents. Storefront shop would be a strong sign that our city supports a cannsbis-friendly community, but it’s not actually a family-friendly sign. Before we have better understanding and mature regulation system on recreational use of cannabis, and considering our neigherhood counties have banned the business, why don’t we move cautiously on this?

For the previous comments stating that MV voters firmly support to open the storefront shops, why didn’t you come to the public hearing and state your reasonings, I believe that would be more appropriate; both the consil and the people you called “religious freak”or “vocal minority" would respect your voice for sure.


78 people like this
Posted by Mmyah, K.
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 24, 2019 at 1:00 pm

Google taxes make cannabis taxes pretty insignificant so though it's just the whim of a few on the council, it's easy to go along with; no huge $ boon like other towns without MV's tech taxes would see.
Of course, Abe-Koga has shown she (IMO) listened to the voice and wallets of the Chinese national group of non residents that mounted the opposition, so that info is good to know. Knowledge is power and such.

I hate the idea of paying for it anyway. The Fall harvest of Shoreline Sunshine,(IMO again) MV's best home-grown, looks to be a bumper crop. The additional potassium really increased the budding last year so I'm hoping for another great harvest and trying out some new home made gummy recipes afterwards. I also give my extra away so no sales issues. Just call me Compliant Sam.

So before people all start lose their gorde over this, remember, nothing has really been stopped except 2 businesses from opening, but some things have been exposed wrt some of these secretive council members. File it away for future reference. Meanwhile I'm hopping off work early and walking to the park to enjoy this magical and legal spring day.


90 people like this
Posted by Informed Fear
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 24, 2019 at 1:05 pm

To FEAR
If you think uninformed fear was the reason why the city council voted to ban all dispensaries, it is the same reason why all the cities up and down the peninsula voted to ban them. Our communities are more informed than you think. thank goodness.


21 people like this
Posted by They just saved you some MONEY
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2019 at 1:13 pm

C'mon, ya'll know the rent for a shop on Castro Street. You think that shop would be price competitive with the delivery services?
You would have been paying probably 10-20% or more more per item, and when you tack on the taxes, those percentage increases really add up.

No, I'd rather pay $15 per cannabis chocolate bar and have them delivered free to my door than, first, dealing with Castro st parking and then having to pay $20 for the exact same bar. Really, I'm sure we'll all manage.

I agree that some on the council got bought out though. Career politicians is what they are. Don;t get mad if a snake bites, it's a snake.


102 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2019 at 1:37 pm

"Matichak said residents made clear to her in recent months that they don't want any retail marijuana sold in Mountain View, regardless of what prior polls and votes may indicate."

Well, that's complete nonsense, as many know. A more objective characterization would be that organized vocal minorities made such an argument, and also that Matichak has appeared predisposed toward it all along anyway. Numerous residents made equally clear that they had no objection. It is "polls and votes," not a politician's persistent second-guessing of them, that show real public opinion. This is a teachable example of politicians who "know better" than the general public.

Fear, ignorance, and allegedly, even organized disinformation on behalf of real-estate investors from China still won't stop the inevitable progress, just delay it a little. Later, almost everyone will see the recent stubborn resistance and rhetoric to be just as silly and clueless as the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified a century ago.


85 people like this
Posted by YL
a resident of The Crossings
on May 24, 2019 at 1:48 pm

How could you say it's 0 impact for storefront shop? Just last year, here in Mountain View, my car was hit by someone just use marijuana. The details is clearly revealed in the MTV police report that the men is clearly impacted by marijuana. Our car almost got total thanks for that. Delivery service is OK. But how you get to storefront shop? You have to drive there. Just make me feel unsafe.


79 people like this
Posted by Oh Please
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 24, 2019 at 1:53 pm

Drunk drivers KILL thousands each year. Do you care?


109 people like this
Posted by Well informed
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 24, 2019 at 2:08 pm

What do you think of our neighbor cities including Palo Alto, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Milpitas, Fremont, and Santa Clara who all banned recreational cannabis businesses in their cities? Are they all acting out of fear or ignorance? BTW, they also voted Yes to prop 64. Why do we pose burdens on ourselves while let the marijuana business people make profit here? Last but not least, please do not compare marijuana with alcohol or tobacco. Just because there are bad things present in our city does not justify that we should bring in new bad or even worse things!


94 people like this
Posted by Concerned Parent
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 24, 2019 at 2:09 pm

Thank you MV concil for having listened to the resident's voice.

You want to go home tonight, and proudly tell your kids that you did the right thing today!

And you can now face their smiling faces, without feeling guilty!

This is indeed very positive news to businesses and communities for MV and the neighboring cities in this area.

Kudos to the residents who showed up last night, be proud that you have saved MV from becoming shitty places such as San Francisco!


82 people like this
Posted by What's wrong with delivery services?
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 24, 2019 at 2:25 pm

What's wrong with delivery services? is a registered user.

To those who feel your civil rights are violated by not having a weed shop nearby, why isn't a delivery service a more convenient solution? Seems like everyone wants everything delivered to their door; groceries, gasoline, organic veggies, ready to cook meals, so why not weed? Is it not enough that Mountain is one of the FEW local municipalities allowing delivery services? You can't have it all, stop whining, if you don't like it move...


33 people like this
Posted by @Oh Please
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 24, 2019 at 2:28 pm

@Oh Please is a registered user.

what does your comment have to do with this issue? I will answer for you...nothing.


93 people like this
Posted by Shameful
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 24, 2019 at 2:40 pm

Great! A group of religious Chinese immigrants who escaped their oppressive government is now championing the oppression of people here in the US!

This new council is so weak. Matchiak and Koga love to pander to groups like this Most residents want and expect the council to do the right thing, so generally don’t attend meetings. When an organized group lobbies weak council members like these, they bask in the attention and completely forget their responsibility to represent ALL of their constituents.

Very sad time for MV. :(


72 people like this
Posted by ES
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2019 at 2:54 pm

I was at a previous council meeting discussing this same issue. I could not speak because there were so many Asian people saying the exact same things written out a note cards. I do believe the council members have reversed their opinion due to this organized group represented by an attorney. This is not what I expected when I voted for a new city Council. There are so much availability of alcohol which is much easier for a child to get and they do l, than to buy any pot. The city Council will not only hear from me but everyone I know in Mountain View that is against this ruling. Parents are responsible for teaching their children about drugs and the use of alcohol which is rampant.


59 people like this
Posted by There was no vote on this
a resident of North Whisman
on May 24, 2019 at 3:08 pm

Anyone paying attention knows that there was no vote of the electorate in the State or in Mountain View on whether to permit warehouses or stores in cities.

The measure on the ballot in Mountain View last November just asked whether the City Council should be empowered to impose a tax on sales in Mountain View - in the event sales are ever allowed.

Even the allowance of warehouses supported by the City Council last night creates a risk that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY PROSECUTE FOR FEDERAL FELONIES THE PEOPLE INVOLVED in selling.


60 people like this
Posted by @Shameful
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 24, 2019 at 3:14 pm

@Shameful is a registered user.

Wow, What is sad and shameful is your reference to Chinese immigrants.
Because you disagree with someone you insult their nationality? Is your name Trump by any chance? If everyone born here worked as hard as the Chinese the country would be a far better place.


93 people like this
Posted by Rossta
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 24, 2019 at 3:25 pm

Rossta is a registered user.

So much worry about this with claims of being for protecting our children. Paranoia and invented arguments because they don't like this medicine/drug. I guess I had more confidence in the intelligence of my elected council members that they could see through the arguments and do the right thing. I am very disappointed.

There is a gun shop on El Camino just 6 blocks from Graham. Guns are a REAL threat to our children - and something they are legitimately scared of. Why do we allow this? Because a similar angry minority mob would come protest if we tried to shut it down.

Am I also wrong to think our council owes some financial reimbursement to those who applied to become vendors? They required them to have a nailed down location in order to apply, costing them thousands to lease and empty site while this process has gone on for 6+ months and now they have reneged on the offer to let them open shop. That is shameful. There has been no new information to change this decision for the downtown area. Just a change of council - and I can guarantee you that this issue will have them all changed again.


80 people like this
Posted by PeaceLove
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 24, 2019 at 3:44 pm

Could the City Council be more disgusting? This has been a 20-year battle against ignorance and fear. Ever since Prop 2015 passed in 1996 (with OVERWHELMING support from the community), one City Council member after another has told us they are committed to bringing safe and legal access to their constituents. Activists have long since discovered that the "democratic" process is anything but. This is only the latest time we were told the city was committed to allowing storefronts; hell, the MV Voice printed that on their front page!

Federal cannabis prohibition is an ongoing racist crime against humanity and the Mountain View City Council, like City Councils up and down the Peninsula, are willing collaborators. I encourage all the cannabis business people who invested $10s of thousands after foolishly trusting the MV City Council to sue the city.


78 people like this
Posted by Rossta
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 24, 2019 at 3:51 pm

Rossta is a registered user.

@What's wrong with delivery services

If you are new to this medicine and don't know what you are doing, then having access to trained sales people to guide you is very important. They can guide you. Maybe you don't want to smoke something - they can tell you about edibles. Maybe they will tell you that you want CBD and not THC. It is like choosing between mail-order prescriptions and going to a pharmacist who can provide additional services, only more important because you might not have a prescription to guide you.


6 people like this
Posted by vkmo
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 24, 2019 at 4:34 pm

OH, so Safeway and other large stores won't have immensely large and beautiful window displays of Cannabis?


73 people like this
Posted by marycontrary
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 24, 2019 at 11:52 pm

marycontrary is a registered user.

What’s wrong with being Chinese? Are Chinese not allowed to speak? This is so offensive. These people clearly care about their community. If you like pot so much, why don’t you move to San Francisco-the city with a poop map.

We educate our children just fine. In fact, we’re teaching our children how to speak up for themselves, and to live a life drug free. Please do not compare weed dispensaries to Safeway. There’s a reason why codine has been pulled from the list of over-the-counter drugs. They also make drugs in a child proof container. Dispensaries are selling products geared towards kids. Products such as gummy bears that are indistinguishable from haribos.

It is my responsibility to teach and protect my children. That’s what I am doing.


78 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 25, 2019 at 3:24 am

Interested is a registered user.

Thank you to the Council for this clear and fair compromise. Now, if people are so desperate for cannabis, they can get it immediately instead of waiting a half hour for delivery from San Jose - and those of us against pot shops, will only have to accept warehouse delivery. Both sides were compromised - neither got everything they wanted - and compromise is wise.

The commercial cannabis distributorships that will be coming to Mountain View are not Mountain View residents, and are in it for corporate profit only - with no concern for the negative impact to residents or neighborhoods. Yes, the majority of MV residents voted to decriminalize marijuana, but it's a false flag to pretend that means the majority wanted distributorships here in our city. Please, that argument is embarrassing, so just stop.

Do you seriously need more than a distributorship in town? I have no pity for the buyers who feel they need a storefront salesman to hold their hand during the purchase of the type of pot they want. When they buy alcohol, does the salesman have to help them choose their whiskey?

The two previous Council people who were eager to have Mountain View become the pot shop of the Peninsula (Showalter and Siegel) were defeated in the last election. The people spoke then in rejecting them, and now this new Council listened. I'm proud that this Council voted with the desires of the majority in our city - this is what representative government is all about.


58 people like this
Posted by We did NOT vote for storefronts
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 25, 2019 at 8:35 am

We did NOT vote for storefronts is a registered user.

Where are you people coming up with the idea that we VOTED on cannabis storefronts?? As mentioned "The measure on the ballot in Mountain View last November just asked whether the City Council should be empowered to impose a tax on sales in Mountain View - in the event sales are ever allowed." What is it about that statement that you do not understand?

Residents of Mountain View sent a message to the city in November, two council members in support of storefronts lost, and the incumbent Mayor lost by a LANDSLIDE, that says it all.


54 people like this
Posted by AE
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 25, 2019 at 9:16 am

AE is a registered user.

When you don’t agree with someone, you just label them as “old people”, “ religious freaks”, “ Chinese immigrants”. But actually, there is no big difference between you and these people. You will be old people one day if not today, even you don’t share same god as others, you have your own god, and if you are not immigrants yourself, you are descendants of immigrants unless you are Indians.
It is always easier to label others as enemy, don’t listen to them, end the discussion! But we could do better than that. If there is anything I have learned from this cannabis regulation discussion, always be open-minded, be a listener to others, even I don’t agree with you, I still have respect for you.


58 people like this
Posted by MV_Voter
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 25, 2019 at 9:27 am

MV_Voter is a registered user.

While I understand the ballot initiative read "just asked whether the City Council should be empowered to impose a tax on sales in Mountain View - in the event sales are ever allowed", in order to tax something, it has to be made available. California and MTV voters obviously wanted storefronts. Prohibition is essentially over, and we need to reflect that, in business and society. We're talking about pot, here, not heroin, or cocaine, marijuana...that's all!
As for the "others" who come to voice their opinions, where were they when the voting took place? Oh! Yeah...in Milpitas, Sunnyvale, or San Jose...where they live. I don't agree with people from other cities coming to our city to tell us how we should handle legislation. I don't care about their ethnicity, age, or anything else about them, except what their involvement in MTV is...they have no place trying to dictate what goes on here, any more than we have going to their cities and doing the same.
The will of the voters has been suppressed, and I know where my vote will go (or not go) next time around...mayor, vice mayor, and many of the council will have to face the consequences of their actions on this...They obviously have their own agenda...maybe i WILL think about moving...


61 people like this
Posted by robstar
a resident of Willowgate
on May 25, 2019 at 10:11 am

robstar is a registered user.

I will certainly NOT vote to re-elect any of the current council members.


61 people like this
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 25, 2019 at 11:12 am

Common sense is a registered user.

vkmo: "OH, so Safeway and other large stores won't have immensely large and beautiful window displays of Cannabis?"

You may joke, vkmo. But when the latest Bed-Bath-&-Beyond catalog arrived in the mail a few weeks ago, with back page advertising "CBD for everyday wellness," I knew the tipping point had come, and the issue was settled. A chain retailer as mainstream as that, offering cannabis oils to "Apply topically, diffuse, or blend..."

Fundamentally the issue is settled -- a few people (and current Council members) just don't realize it yet. They will in time, and all this stubborn argumentation and "we did NOT vote for storefronts" and all the rest will look so silly.


25 people like this
Posted by mv dweller
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 27, 2019 at 6:12 pm

mv dweller is a registered user.

We may never know how much tax income the city is losing out on, but what they end up paying in the inevitable lawsuits will come out of all of our pockets. So thanks city council, can't wait to vote you out. I'm sure all the non-tax-paying private suppliers thank you too!


20 people like this
Posted by 3rdMAW
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 27, 2019 at 6:58 pm

3rdMAW is a registered user.

@mv dweller

I guess we'll never know, because it's an all cash business, millions made, taxes paid "0" , oh well. Man,it would have been awesome to be granted a monopoly by MVCC anointing 1 or 2 all cash business's on Castro Street. Truly sorry for Jean Quan and/or Lenny did not get the nod.

Compromise is key

Thank you MVCC demonstrating your spirit of compromise regarding cannabis availability options. Mountain View will be known as the "Amazon" of Cannabis delivery to your door ASAP. That's great news for the folks that need local, fast delivery of quality bud. We'll have knowledgeable people on-line helping everyone through their myriad of choices available. Sane and safe delivery to your home. Ordinances and enforcement are a good thing and providing what space is available for RV's in safe areas with hook ups, even for a small number of RV's is applauded.

Thank you MVCC demonstrating your spirit of compromise toward RV's. Our city streets are not the KOA campground for the peninsula. No hookups on city streets only invites health and safety issues. Imagine not knowing who is parked in front of your dwelling or your neighbors dwelling and the MVPD hamstrung on enforcement efforts.

Now, the 3rd compromise that must be made, for every new high density development approved (with SB50 and other reduced parking minimums in mind) those developments with <1 on site parking spot per bedroom, the city will require the developer to install 2 hour parking restrictions around the development. Why? because the city does not owe anyone ~free unrestricted permit parking. If you can't park within your footprint, you need to rethink your choices. TOD's are a fools folly when it comes to parking. New owners/tenants need to commit to the parking restrictions, not beg the city after the fact, to hand out ~free unrestricted access to city street close to downtown and Cal-train.


61 people like this
Posted by 2dogsmom
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 28, 2019 at 12:31 pm

2dogsmom is a registered user.

Like many other residents, I am extremely dismayed by the CC's seemingly capricious about-face here. I also understood the referendum I voted on to mean that storefront cannabis dispensaries were on the ballot - and I enthusiastically voted yes: yes to easy access to scientifically-proven medicine to many, and safe relaxation for others. And tax revenues for our city, to boot.
I followed the City Council elections closely and never heard anything from ANY of the candidates to indicate that they were against either legal and safe marijuana in general or storefront dispensaries specifically. I certainly would have voted much differently had I known that this entire Council would -- seemingly without sound legal backing -- undo the work of previous Councils and devastate the expectations of the several independent business owners who undertook both great time and expense to comply with what they believed to be the rules of doing business in MV.
Unlike other posters who call this a "compromise" - surely the real compromise would have been to let at least one storefront dispensary begin operations, so that both residents and the City Council could determine if any of the hysterical predictions ever came to pass.
As an actual MV resident, I will definitely remember this cowardly and backwards decision the next time I get to cast my vote for the next City Council.


29 people like this
Posted by LongTime-MV
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on May 28, 2019 at 3:10 pm

LongTime-MV is a registered user.

I was actually pleased with the city council's compromise. I have no problem with home delivery, but just as we don't need any more gun shops in the city, we also don't need any pot shops. I understand people want access - I'm supportive - home delivery provides that.

I would much rather have another restaurant vs. a pot shop in town. Interestingly enough, looks like most of the cities around Mountain View have the same view. You can whine and moan all you want - but when we voted to legalize in the state of CA we did not vote to allow a shop to open up down the street from our favorite restaurant.


57 people like this
Posted by mv dweller
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 28, 2019 at 6:04 pm

mv dweller is a registered user.

There seems to be misunderstanding regarding delivery service. MV is already covered by many delivery services. While they can be a great option for anyone who wants to wait at home for hours, and can afford to cover the minimum amount as well as the delivery fee, they are not a reasonable substitute for a storefront.

There's a bewildering list of choices, and usually very little information about the specific products and it's nearly impossible to get much help because you mainly can only communicate through texts. Often trial and error is the only way to learn, and it can be expensive.

This 'compromise' to allow only delivery service adds no value whatsoever to customers in MV, but merely adds a new taxable base for the city to profit from.

My guess is that MV users will continue to use the non-MV delivery services they already use when it's convenient, and drive to San Jose for more personal service when they can.

I hope that this information helps clarify why so many of us are offended by this 'compromise' which actually only benefits the city.


46 people like this
Posted by OldGuy
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 29, 2019 at 9:09 pm

OldGuy is a registered user.

I may be old, but I believe in freedom! I was outraged to read about this precipitous council action. Pot should be treated the same as alcohol---no more, no less. I would have attended this meeting had I known about it. I will make a point of voting against the current council at the next election, and I always vote. This is shameful. There is no valid reason why patrons shouldn't have the convenience of a storefront outlet.


40 people like this
Posted by LongResident
a resident of another community
on May 30, 2019 at 12:27 am

LongResident is a registered user.

This is very concerning and disturbing. There are signs that there was behind the scenes influencing during the election for city council. Support was engendered for certain candidates by their secret promises to turn back the modernization of the pot situation. Who knows how much money was pledged and coordinated by the lobby involved in this. It's a fact that it appears to be citizens of the People's Republic of China who are funding this effort. But it's not because they are of Chinese ethnic origin that there is concern. Imagine if a group of Danish people did the same thing. They invest in local real estate in various cities in the region. They seek to impart their prejudices regarding pot on the local communities. They network between Danish residents of the various cities. They hire a Danish to English translator to feed headphones so the Danish people can hear the translation of the council deliberations in the Danish language. They network in Danish and keep their interactions hidden from the view of the rest of the public. Some Danish are American citizens and some are not. All work together to convince the council that the majority of the community agree with them despite evidence to the contrary.

The only way to correct this appearance of impropriety is to have an actual referendum on the matter. There's also the matter of flip flopping by the city on a matter which received great public discussion and plenty of input before being decided the first time. Now with relatively little added input the decision is reversed, contrary to the first decision. Something's rotten in Denmark.


26 people like this
Posted by badgolfer
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 30, 2019 at 7:46 am

badgolfer is a registered user.

Meanwhile, at the HS the kids of the people who pressured the council are taking MDMA and pills. I have had kids at the HS and they point out that those kids don't smoke or drink as it leaves a smell. This council action protects no-one. Time to vote out the council. In the mean time, buy some clones or seeds and grow your own. It is a weed after all. No more difficult to care for than a tomato plant.


26 people like this
Posted by worth1000words
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 30, 2019 at 11:56 am

worth1000words is a registered user.

This photo from the LATC really underscores how the City Council was swayed by a coordinated campaign by a vocal minority.

Web Link


39 people like this
Posted by Chopper
a resident of Waverly Park
on May 30, 2019 at 3:23 pm

Chopper is a registered user.

Its hard for me to describe how disappointed I am in the Mountain View city council for this reversal. Its clear they kowtowed to a small vocal group driven by fear and spreading misinformation.
I am a lifelong resident with grand kids in the MV schools, I have no worries or apprehension about having stores selling POT in out city. The delivery option is all about give us the tax $$ and screw the local citizens. Being able to walk into a store, look over the products and have a Q&A with knowledgeable staff is a huge benefit that you can't get from delivery. Delivery services also have large minimum orders and they charge extra for the delivery.
I will do my best in the next election cycle to work toward none of these folks being reelected, if they so easily cave to a vocal minority on this whats next?


18 people like this
Posted by OldGuy
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 4, 2019 at 12:37 am

OldGuy is a registered user.

A large pressure group doesn't just spontaneously appear---it would have to be organized. Call me cynical, but that makes me wonder whether some business entity could gain financially from the suppression of cannabis store fronts in Mountain View and other peninsula cities. Hmm.., could that perhaps be in the interest of a home delivery business?

I hope the Voice has some good investigative journalists.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Disposing of Disposables
By Sherry Listgarten | 21 comments | 2,267 views

Couples Counseling, Al Pacino Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,743 views

Facing high kitchen turnover, Los Altos' The Post revamps majority of its menu
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 1,728 views