Thank you, Madam City Clerk. I'd like to welcome everyone to this 2pm meeting

at the Sacramento City Council. I now call this meeting to order at 2.02pm.

Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council Member Kaplan. Council Member Tao. Mayor Proto-Telomantes.

Council Member Valenzuela. Council Member Gatta. Council Member Jennings.

Council Member Vang. Mayor Steinberg will be absent. And Vice Mayor Manko.

I am here. Thank you so much. And with that, Council Member Gara, would you lead us in

the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance, please?

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern

Maidu, Valley, and Plainsmeewak, the Puttwin and Winton people, and the people of the Wilton

Rancheria. Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the native

people who come before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing

together together today in the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's

indigenous peoples, history, contributions, and lives.

Vice Flag, Salute, Pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty

and justice strong.

All right, thank you very much, Council Member. And we don't have this on the agenda, but

we did want to take this moment to have a short but special presentation for someone that's

really special to all of us up here and to the city of Sacramento. Today we're going

to be acknowledging our incredible city attorney, Susanna Alcala Wood. So she most recently

was elected as president of the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Some of our

colleagues here were able to congratulate her at the California League of Cities conference

just a few days ago. She also was recently elected president of the city attorney's department

for the League of California cities. And the city attorney's office of the city of Sacramento

was awarded a very prestigious award, which is the DEI leadership gold seal by the State

Bar of California. And the only we are the only other municipality aside from the city

of Los Angeles to receive this honor. And so I think it really speaks to your leadership.

Susanna, and I'd love to invite you up to say a few words.

Congratulations.

I brought my own audience just in case nobody else clapped. Thank you so much. And this

is all Mindy Cuppies' work because she doesn't let us not get acknowledged for the work we

do. She's a fantastic colleague. She's absolutely my rock here too. So thank you Mindy for

everything you do. I don't think we appreciate you enough. So yes, I think thank you for

this acknowledgement. I know we're going to be brief. And then I guess I'll go back and

sit in my hole and keep quiet. If I do everything right, I never have to speak at one of these

council meetings. I think that it's going to be terrific being the president of the

league city attorney's department. They absolutely wanted Sacramento's representation on there.

I think that speaks volumes to the city definitely and the need to have us be more involved

in the league certainly from the city attorney's department. We are already very involved in

a lot of the in a lot of the various organization efforts that we have as part of the department.

And we speak and present the presentations, but it's great to be present. It's going

to be really busy. I am a late international municipal lawyer, so the president elected

this year and I'll be coming in as a president next year. It's really any time you're recognized

by your colleagues obviously and elected to these positions. It means a great deal. Thank

you though for this opportunity to talk about our Gold Seal designation. Yes, were the

only other municipal office in the state that it was awarded this Gold Seal designation.

Last year, if you recall, when I presented to the PPP committee, I said we were going

to go for it and we did. I'm going to see what a gocky's here. So Steve was our champion.

He took it and ran with it and made sure that we met every we met when you get a Gold

Seal designation immediately nine out of the ten requirements. And so I think we met.

We didn't get like a award or anything. We just one day noticed, hey, we're up on the

website. And so the state, our obviously is a licensing organization regulatory body

for all of the attorneys and in our office, but also for the state. And so that's a

designation of the dedication and commitment we have to DEI efforts. I shared with you

a little bit information on the dice about what that means. Obviously, that's an issue

that's significantly important to the city of Sacramento. This council has made that a

pillar of your of everything that you do in this community. And I just wanted you to

know how much that this office takes at seriously and advances at because the more we are inclusive

of everybody in our community, you certainly want your law department to represent that

and every facet of what we do. You don't hear a lot about us. We're always in the background,

but here's a representative sample of your city attorney's about what can you guys stand?

To stand.

Please.

I do ex excellent work for the office and for the department and I'm so proud to lead them.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm a high honor, but do the high do all the work that you do. You

end your entire team. So congratulations. Another round of applause please.

It's okay, Madam Vice Mayor. May I request that we take a photo with Susana's really cool

sign here and that the city manager's office made and her team before they leave?

Certainly, yes. Let's post for a photo.

Whole team. Come on. We're going the front. Well, I think we could say back here.

Okay. We'll stay over here. We'll stay here. I think she'll go.

That's a lot of people.

We can stand back here.

Congratulations.

Yeah.

Madam City attorney.

Scoot in.

Everybody.

I also want to say, well, everybody is going in. I have to read all of us together.

I've got you.

Yes.

But somebody needs to actually sit down.

So it's going to come, but not until next week.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

On the way taking the picture. So if y'all can squeeze in, we can't let it get to the side.

Don't have to fight each other.

It's money.

You've got to be totally colleagues.

We've got to.

The younger generation can bend down.

Okay.

Okay.

I might have this hat for you guys to crunch and just a little bit.

And that's if you guys could scoot a little bit in.

Just a pass it.

Okay.

Awesome.

Ready.

One.

Two.

Three.

Cheese.

Cheese.

Okay.

I will move forward.

Okay.

Eric.

Eric, please.

Eric.

Amazing work.

Thank you so much.

You said that, Jill.

Yeah.

I'm going to get there and talk to you.

Great job, guys.

Yeah.

Good.

Jump.

No.

It's a really good idea.

I think.

Okay.

Awesome.

Good.

Awesome.

And what is waiting moment where folks file out?

All right.

Let's take just a moment.

Great.

This is the wheels of justice.

Thank you.

I want to take this moment to recognize a former senator Richard Pan in the audience.

Thanks for joining us today.

Yes.

It does a lot of work in our community and I'm sure more to come.

Okay.

So we're going to get started today with our one and only item for this meeting.

We're doing our workshop on cannabis consumption statewide and public health trends.

One of the things council members get out of the Jennings for bringing this forward for discussion.

I'd like to invite up our speaker.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and council members.

My name is Fiona Matson and I am the program specialist for the Office of Canada Management.

Today's workshop is intended to provide information on cannabis consumption statewide public health trends.

On September 17th, 2024, the Law and Legislation Committee forward the consideration of the cannabis social consumption

pilot program to council following the outcomes of this workshop.

Permitting of social consumption at storefront dispensaries would provide places for people to consume cannabis in a way that does not impact the non cannabis

consuming public and is away from those who are 21.

A pilot social consumption program will enable the city to evaluate the impacts of social consumption, including impacts on the local cannabis industry and surrounding businesses, public safety and transportation.

Today to meet the committee's request, I'm excited to present Dr. Amanda Rhyman, who is the chief knowledge officer for new frontier data.

Dr. Rhyman has been studying the relationship between people, cannabis and the greater society for over 20 years.

She is a wealth of knowledge and expert in her field and is happy to provide the council with information on cannabis consumption statewide public health trends.

I will now turn the floor over to Dr. Rhyman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

You're in here.

Can everybody see me and hear me?

We can hear you, but we can't yet see you.

There we go.

We can both see you and hear you. Welcome.

Excellent. Well, thank you so much for having me.

It's a pleasure to be here. I'm sorry that I'm not able to make it in person.

I'm not sure if you're there, but I'm going to be here for a 20-year California resident Georgie.

I moved to Tacoma, Washington haft in July, so I am joining you from the Pacific Northwest today, but really, really excited about the opportunity to share some data with you.

So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and we'll get going.

All right.

Okay, so today I'm going to be talking about cannabis and public health, and we're going to be reviewing some data on both California and nationally.

What has happened since legalization, not only with use among adolescents and adults, but also things like substance misuse.

So the goals of today's presentation are first to review the data on adolescent cannabis use from a few national and state level surveys.

Secondly, to better understand the relationship between dispensary presence and youth access.

Then we're going to look at the consumption and cannabis use disorder trends among all age groups.

And then finally, because I am a social scientist, I know that data is important, but context is also important.

So we're going to talk a little bit about the history of social consumption, especially in the state of California, and the need to balance the benefits and risks that come with an opportunity like social consumption facilities.

So I was given a brief introduction, so I won't be labor this point, but who am I?

And why was I chosen to come and give this presentation today? Well, as was mentioned, I'm a public health researcher.

I'm also a social worker, and I've been studying cannabis for over 20 years.

I started with my doctoral dissertation when I was getting my PhD at UC Berkeley in 2005 and did one of the very first studies of medical cannabis patients focused on how dispensaries were operating.

As community health service providers, which meant that I wasn't just studying patients, but I was studying the kinds of services that dispensaries offered.

And if any of you remember the early dispensaries of the Bay Area in the late 1990s, early 2000s, they offered a lot of services to the community beyond just the sales of cannabis.

I was the first chairwoman of the Medical Cannabis Commission for the City of Berkeley.

I served on the Cannabis Regulatory Commission for the City of Oakland when we developed the first equity program in the country.

And I published numerous journal articles and book chapters on the topics of cannabis regulation, harm reduction, and public health.

I'm currently the chief knowledge officer for new frontier data, which is a data and analytics company.

And I also founded a platform called personal plants about four years ago that helps people develop and maintain healthy and balanced relationships with the cannabis plant with a focus on harm reduction and mindful consumption.

So that's a little bit about why I'm here today.

So let's jump into some data.

So one of the questions I wanted to answer was has youth cannabis use increased since legalization and there are two data sources we're going to look at today.

One is a national data source monitoring the future and the most recent data we have from that source is 2023.

But I also wanted to do a deeper dive into California.

So we're going to look at the California Healthy Kids survey between the years of 2011 and 2019.

I do believe they're releasing an additional data this year, but it just isn't available yet.

So first let's take a look at monitoring the future. So they survey high school students all across the country.

This is done through the University of Michigan and they've actually been collecting this data since 1975.

And this is a really good idea of trends over time.

So here what you're looking at is past year cannabis consumption among three grade levels eighth grade in the green 10th grade in the blue and 12th grade in the red.

So they just started collecting data on eighth and 10th graders in 1990.

But as you can see the trends for adolescent consumption increased during the 1990s.

And then they remained fairly stable since then with a slight downward trajectory.

Now when we're talking about legalization Colorado was the first state to legalize in 2012.

So if you look specifically just after 2010, we see that levels of cannabis use remained fairly stable.

And they did decline during the pandemic.

So not surprising youth were not socializing.

They weren't in school. They weren't going to parties. So we did see cannabis use decline.

Now something that's interesting is that it has not rebounded. So that decline that we saw in 2020.

We have not rebounded to pre pandemic levels for any of these grades.

But let's take a closer look at California.

You know, when I was living in California doing research there folks would often say California is unique.

We really can't necessarily compare California to other states in the country.

So let's take a little bit of a deeper look at the grades in California and how consumption has changed between the years of 2011 and 2019.

So this data is going to include the turn to legalization.

As you know, California passed proposition 64 in 2016 and legal sales began at the beginning of 2017.

So this is going to capture a free and post legalization time period.

So just a brief summary according to the California Department of Public Health between 2013, 2015 and 2015, 2017.

There was a statistically significant decrease in current and heavy cannabis use among high school and middle school middle school students.

And this did decrease in cannabis use held constant for most of the demographic groups.

So that's kind of overall what we're looking at. But when we died and looked a little closer into individual grade levels, you can see that for grade seven, except for this little blip we saw in one day in the past month use that went from 0.9% to 1.6%.

Between the 2015, 2017 and 2017, 2019 time periods.

Cannabis use has been on the decline since 2011.

And this is a pattern you're going to see repeated through all of the grade levels.

So grade nine, we also see a very flattening, very much flattening of cannabis consumption.

Again, this has passed month consumption starting in 2015 and extending into 2019.

We see the same thing with grade 11, but something I want to call attention to because you know, one of the things that we're concerned about in as a public health community is what about vulnerable students, what about students that already maybe having some developmental issues, some behavioral issues,

what we may call non traditional students are they at higher risk for cannabis consumption because we do know, especially among adolescents, cannabis use can be a form of self medication, whether they're self medicating for physical, social or psychological issues.

But I was very heartened to see that when we look at non traditional students, the level of cannabis consumption, especially heavy consumption.

So here we're talking about 20 to 30 days of cannabis use in the past month has declined pretty significantly from 2011 to 2019.

Now we still see higher rates of cannabis use overall among this population, but heavy use declined from about 22% in 2011 to 2013 to about 10% in 2017 to 2019.

So I think that shows that we're doing a pretty good job, especially around dissuading and discouraging students that may be experiencing other vulnerabilities from turning to cannabis as a way to self medicate.

So the second question I wanted to answer was, is youth access to regulated cannabis an issue? So I will say that overall we really have not seen instances of youth getting access to regulated cannabis retail.

Now I want to make sure that I'm using the word regulated here because as we all know, California has a bit of a unique landscape in addition to regulated stores.

We also have quite a few unregulated stores and sometimes these stores look very similar.

But when we're talking about regulated licensed facilities, we really don't see youth gaining access to these places. While why is that?

As anybody who has run a cannabis business or has gotten a cannabis license can tell you the process, especially in California, is extremely onerous time consuming and expensive.

So risking that license to let a 17, 18 year old in who honestly probably doesn't have very much income to spend in the store is not worth it.

And when we have looked at secret shopper and decoy studies that employ miners or adults that look like miners to try to enter regulated facilities by and large, they are not successful and they are certainly less successful than entering licensed alcohol facilities.

But let's talk about some of the research on the relationship between legalization access to dispensaries and perceived access among youth.

So these studies are going to span several different states. I do have a few that were based in California.

But most importantly, they either span a time when the state went from an illegal state to a legal state, or they're looking specifically at proximity of retail outlets to use of cannabis by young people.

So the first study is a fairly small sample. It's only 146 adolescents who lived in Oregon or Washington between 2005 and 2019.

The reason I selected this study was because it does span the time when both of those states went from being illegal to being legal states. So we kind of call this a naturally occurring experiment or able to see what happens before and after a policy change.

So this study found that the number of retail stores within two, five, 10 or 20 mile radius of adolescents homes did not increase the likelihood of past year cannabis use at the within or between subject levels.

And there was no greater likelihood of cannabis use among youth who's adolescents overlap with that post recreational cannabis legalization period.

So youth that were in adolescents before and after legalization. There was no relationship either to their use before or after legalization or to the proximity of a retail outlet.

The second study was from Illinois. This is a much larger sample. This is 10,500 youth. And this is looking specifically at medical cannabis dispensary. So I want to be clear on that.

They found that past 30 day use was actually lower among youth who lived in zip codes with medical cannabis dispensaries.

And this was statistically significant for 10th and 12th graders. They had a lower odds of past 30 day cannabis use if they lived in a zip code with a dispensary.

And only 12th graders had lower odds of past year use suburban youth also had lower odds of cannabis use. So this study also found that having a dispensary in your zip code was not related to increased levels of use.

However, we also want to look at perceived access. So again, just because a young person thinks that they may be able to access cannabis doesn't mean they can.

But it is important for us to understand the relationship between the presence of cannabis retail and whether or not youth think that that's a signal that they could access cannabis more easily if they wanted to.

This was a study that was done in Colorado from the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey of 40 schools and they surveyed students before and after recreational cannabis went into effect there about 12,000 students in each sample.

So that increased post legalization from 46% to 52%. Again, that doesn't mean they could access it, but they believed it would be easier to do so.

But proximity of recreational cannabis dispensaries was not significantly associated with perceived access to marijuana.

So with legalization they thought, oh, it's legal now, I might be able to get it more easily, but how close they lived to a store was not associated with how easy they thought it was to get.

But we did find some contradictory results looking at California. So I wanted to include this as well. We are talking about California.

So there were two studies that use data from project Calteens, which represents a hundred and different 120 different localities across the state of California.

So this one was conducted in 2021 and they did find that local policy allowing cannabis retail was associated with adolescents significantly higher past a 30 use of cannabis and perceived access.

So it doesn't mean they were able to access a dispensary. It means that if they lived in a jurisdiction where dispensaries were allowed, they were more likely to have used cannabis and to perceive that they could access it easily.

Another study, which was published in 2023 with about 1400 students again from the same sample found that for every five driving miles to the nearest cannabis retailer.

The risk of past 30 day use was reduced by 3.6%. And for every five miles, just from a license retailer, not driving distance, but as the crow flies, the risk of past 30 day cannabis use was reduced by 4.3%.

It also could be that students are perceiving ease of access after legalization because they assume that just because something's legal, it means it's easier to access.

But I did want to present these data because I do think it's important to understand that even when it comes to measuring some of these things, we do see some conflicting reports.

So now I want to turn to another national data set, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, and look at consumption among the general population. And I think this is important because we're talking about youth right now, a lot of this data is around youth, but it's also interesting to look at what's happening to adults post legalization when it comes to their own cannabis consumption.

So I compared the years of 2018, 2022 and 2023 across age cohorts. So what you'll see, you know, 12 to 13 year olds, very minimal consumption didn't change from 2018 to 2023, 14 to 15 year olds consumption went up slightly between 2018 and these other two years, but not significantly.

16 to 17 year olds, it actually declined. So you see the use rates there, this is past month consumption in 2018 compared to 2022, 2023, the rates are steadily going down 18 to 20 year olds remained unchanged.

They are drinking far less alcohol than their millennial or Gen X or baby boomer cohorts before them. And we do have research, I've conducted some of it that shows that people are substituting alcohol for cannabis.

And they didn't want to use cannabis, you know, there's still risk. The risk is a bit different in California, but there's still risk of kids being taken away of family services being involved if it's found out that a parent is using cannabis. And in some states, this could even be a medical cannabis patient.

So there's a big risk of using cannabis when you're a parent, we're going to talk more in a minute about how that fits into social consumption. But you saw that group increase as well. And then of course you get into my cohort, which are the Gen Xers and those who are just a little bit older than me.

And here I think we are seeing an increase in preference for cannabis over pharmaceutical drugs, especially pain related pharmaceutical drugs as people get older and let's face it, we start to have more aches and pains, we start to have more trouble sleeping, and we're making decisions about what kind of medicines we want to use in order to address these issues.

So a couple other things I wanted to look at before we kind of get into some more of the context. One was is cannabis use disorder on the rise.

So just a little background on cannabis use disorder, it was introduced to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM, which is our basically our big book of mental health conditions in night until 2008.

And one of the reasons why we brought cannabis use disorder on board is because cannabis dependence does not look necessarily like dependence on other substances. And we could basically do a whole other presentation on why that is.

But suffice it to say we needed to come up with an umbrella of symptoms and behaviors that we couch under cannabis use disorder.

So just a little bit of a background. So looking at the years of 2018 to 2023, these are individuals who have been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder in the past year.

And just for comparison in the parentheses, I added the rates for alcohol use disorder because I think it's important to have a little bit of context when we look at the two most commonly used substances, which are cannabis and alcohol.

So as you can see for ages 12 to 17, we saw a slight reduction in cannabis use disorder diagnoses from 5.1% in 2018 to 4.7% in 2023 for the other age groups, it stayed flat. So we didn't see any change at all between these two years.

So just a mention of quickly about the alcohol. So something you may notice is that for the 12 to 17 age group, the rates of alcohol use disorder are about a little more than half or a little less than half what the rates are of cannabis use disorder.

So what is that because we see it changing as people get older in the 18 to 25 group, they're the same pretty much. And in the 26 plus group, we see the rates of alcohol use disorder about twice the rates of cannabis use disorder. So why is it different among the 12 to 17 year olds.

You might scold them, you might punish them, you might keep a stronger eye on them, maybe give them a lecture about the dangers of alcohol and what it can do to your body.

But you wouldn't automatically jump to this is an alcohol use disorder problem with cannabis, mostly part of the remnants of it being a prohibited substance.

Sometimes youth, there is an assumption that even one time of using cannabis is related to some kind of cannabis use disorder. So, you know, parents are very worried and nervous about their child becoming a habitual cannabis user.

So they may discover that their young person is using cannabis and they may immediately jump to cannabis use disorder rather than the same way we would treat a teen that was experimenting with alcohol.

I do believe that's why we see such a difference in those rates among the 12 to 17 age group. And then again, as people get older between 25 and then 26 plus, we do see alcohol use in general start to reduce people have families, they have jobs, you know, their ability to have hazardous or binge drinking related alcohol behaviors becomes less.

But we also see, you know, cannabis use disorder about half of what it is for alcohol use disorder for those 26 and over.

All right. So if you're still with me and I can't see you, but I'm hoping you are.

I wanted to talk a little bit about social consumption and public health nuisance and the balance that we're going to need to bring to this conversation.

So a little bit first about the history and importance of social consumption spaces, because as I mentioned, some of the first research I ever did was on the role that dispensaries played those early dispensaries as community health service providers.

And back in those days, many dispensaries did have social consumption. They had lounges where people could consume cannabis.

They also provided other services like alternative health, like chiropractic acupuncture. They provided entertainment, like open might nights and bingo and poetry reading.

And some of them even provided doggy daycare for people that had doctors appointments during the day and had to leave their dogs so that they could go to their doctor's appointment.

So why did early dispensaries provide all of these things? Well, it really was born out of the movement that brought medical cannabis to California in the first place, which was the HIV AIDS crisis in San Francisco in the 1980s and 1990s.

And so they got together in community centers where they could use cannabis in a social setting. If both gave them a place to consume cannabis because back then, just like today, smoking is not allowed in the majority of apartment buildings in the majority of shared housing.

So patients would get together in dispensaries where they could safely consume cannabis, not have to worry about getting kicked out of their housing and not run the public safety and public risk of consuming in an open space like a park or in their car where they could be victimized.

So this was a very important part of social consumption at the beginning, not to mention that cannabis in and of itself is a social learning behavior.

And so being able to learn how to use cannabis from other people around them that were more experienced was also important in terms of finding the right dose and not overdosing themselves on THC.

So consumption spaces from the very beginning play this very important role, not just for consumers, but for the general public who didn't want to go to a park and be next to somebody who was smoking cannabis, who didn't want somebody next in the apartment next to them smoking cannabis, where it was coming through the vents and coming into their apartment.

So when we talk about public health and harm reduction, what we're really trying to do is maximize benefit and minimize risk, recognizing that we will never eliminate risk completely from most behaviors.

So we just try to make it safer and we try to educate people on the risks they're taking by engaging in certain behaviors.

So let's talk about some of the risks associated with social consumption centers.

Well, one is over consumption and DUI risk. So people are concerned that folks in a consumption center may use too much. They may get into a car and drive.

So thinking about how do we address some of these concerns? Well, here's a few ideas that I have.

One is trained staff. So in you're going to serve alcohol, you have to go through a safe server training. This teaches you how to recognize when somebody has consumed too much.

It teaches you how to refuse service. If you believe somebody has consumed too much and how to care for their public health and safety, if you have somebody in your establishment, who has over consumed.

And I think that we can promote the same types of training for people that work in consumption centers.

We could have designated driver programs access to ride share where people who are not consuming. Maybe they get free sodas. Maybe if there is a cover to get into the consumption lounge, they get to get in for free.

And then of course encouraging people to take ride share if they need to. But something that we do find from research is that alcohol and cannabis do not act the same when it comes to driving.

A people who are intoxicated on alcohol tend to overestimate their ability to drive while people who are intoxicated on cannabis tend to underestimate their ability to drive.

I just looked at some statistics from the CDC before this presentation. And we see about twice the rate of driving under the influence of alcohol as we do driving under the influence of cannabis in the past 12 months when we asked people about their behaviors.

So I think it's something we need to address, but I don't think it may be as big a risk as alcohol. And obviously we have a very lively bar scene.

And we help mitigate risk of people drinking and driving in that scenario.

We want to make sure that there's low potency products available. So if somebody wants a CBD only tincture. If somebody wants CBD rich flower.

If somebody wants a two milligram THC beverage having low potency products available is a way to ensure that people don't over consume. If I went to a bar and all they had available was liquor.

You probably have a lot more people over consuming alcohol, but you don't have that you have wine available you have beer available you have mock tails available that don't have any alcohol at all.

So I think having a wide range of potencies is important. You can talk about serving limits. So this could either be individual self serve limits. It could be purchase limits for people that are going to stay in the consumption lounge.

It can also be time limits how long someone's allowed to stay in the consumption lounge. A lot of the early dispensaries did have time limits on how long someone could stay.

It's important to allow food and non alcoholic beverages to be made available. You know being able to eat being able to drink water and other non alcoholic beverages is going to reduce the likelihood of somebody over consuming.

And then a good availability of education on dose response relationships to various products.

So you know inhalation has a very fast response people feel it right away. It tends to wear off in about 20 minutes.

Edibles are different. It can take up to two hours for somebody to feel the effects of an edible. And then that intoxication can last for several hours and it can be more intense than inhalation.

So it actually increases the likelihood of over consumption if somebody is using edibles versus if somebody is consuming the inhalation. So here's where we kind of get to the crux of the issue.

And I know there's going to be another presentation after mine from Dr. Shik. I was actually a consultant on several of her studies on secondhand cannabis smokes. I'm very familiar with her work.

So there is a question about smoke exposure and I'm not going to steal her thunder. But I will say that it is a concern second hand exposure to cannabis smoke is a public health concern.

So unfortunately if we eliminate the ability for people to consume via inhalation, we introduce other risks. And some of those other risks are that these individuals are going to be consuming at home where smoking may not be allowed.

And again, then we get back to the issue of getting kicked out of your housing. They may go to a public park and now they're consuming around kids or families or people that don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke.

Or they may choose an edible which may up the risk of over consumption because it's harder to titrate your dose and because the effect of an edible may be more highly intoxicating than that of smoking.

So again, we start to talk about this balance, right? How do you balance reducing the risks of being exposed to cannabis smoke with the risks that come from not allowing it at all?

So I know that we're talking about some air filtration systems. I think those can minimize the harm associated with second hand smoke as Dr. Shick will tell you it will not eliminate the risks and potential harms associated with cannabis second hand smoke.

And again, talking about do we want to limit the amount of time that somebody spends in the consumption lounge.

So finally, as I mentioned, it's really about striking a balance and the goal with any public health intervention is to minimize risk, maximize benefit and address unintended consequences.

So we do have the risk of second hand cannabis smoke not allowing that means that people may be consuming in their homes, which puts them at risk for loss of housing.

They may be consuming in public spaces, which introduces risk to their safety and the safety of people around them. It may push them into other forms of consumption like edibles, which may increase the risk of over consumption.

And then of course, we want to try to mitigate the risks of D-D-Y, although I do not think there is pronounced with cannabis as they are with alcohol by things like safe server training, making sure that people understand that they can call ride share, you know, really promoting public transportation options rather than driving.

And really understanding the dose response relationship and making sure that patients and other consumers have that education so that they're choosing the right form of cannabis for them.

All right, so that is my presentation. I'm going to stop my share and and then we'll take it from here. I'm not sure if we're opening it up to questions now, but happy to answer them.

All right, thank you so much, Dr. Reiman. If it's okay, I'd love to have you stay on the line. We'll hear next from Dr. Suzanne Sheik. And then and we'll take public comment, but do want you to be available in case there are questions from my colleagues. Thank you so much for the thorough presentation.

My pleasure. Wonderful.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. It's, you know, my pleasure to welcome here Dr. Suzanne Sheik. And I had the pleasure of being introduced to her by Dr. John Balms is also a board member for the California Resources Board.

And when I said, hey, is there anybody who understands the impacts of lung impacts, he said you have to go to my colleague Dr. Suzanne Sheik.

There we go. All right. Thank you very much for your attention. I'm not, I only have five minutes. So I'm not going to fluff up my expertise. I can just say that I've been in the game as long as Dr. Reiman has. And I agree with a lot of what she said.

However, my expertise is the health effects of exposure to biomass smoke, all kinds of smoke, whether it be wildfire, tobacco or cannabis.

And I will say I am very much in favor of our regulation, legalization and taxation of cannabis for adult use. However, I very clearly do not want you to pass the type to consumption lounges for reasons that I will explain to you in a moment.

I understand that you've heard from hundreds of impassioned and well informed people who really want to see cannabis consumption and cannabis smoking in dispensaries.

I have great sympathy for people who are working in the cannabis industry at this time. It's a hard road with decreasing prices for cannabis, taxation and structures people haven't had to live with before.

And frankly, the monies that California has set aside for equity and preservation of small family businesses are in no way adequate, compensate and allow them to compete with venture capital and large businesses in the same space.

So next slide, please. I'm going to be talking about PM 2.5, which.

Okay, it's on me. Okay, great. There we are.

So this is just particles in the air. There are 2.5 micro meters in diameter or smaller. So we've got the age old EPA schematic here with a hair, the greens of sand and the itty bitty little pink dots that represent PM 2.5.

And four biomass smokes were really looking at droplets of oils and waxes that are mixed with thousands of different chemicals.

And why we care about the size of the particles is because the size determines how deeply they penetrate into your body. And a lot PM 2.5 isn't everything that's 2.5 micro meters in diameter.

It's 2.5 and everything smaller. And it's the small ones which are dominant in combustion and dab aerosol that go deepest into our lungs and literally mingle directly with just a few cells in between with our blood.

And quick review of the your quality index. Pay attention to the column on the right. These are concentrations of PM 2.5 and how the US EPA grades them for health. We just decreased our minimum annual average from 12 to 9.

This is a industry weighted and conservative thing. The WHO says 5. In the past 20 years, a lot of research has shown us that there is no safe level of exposure to PM 2.5.

The moment you get even just 5 to 10 micrograms more, you see a health effect if you're looking at large enough people, groups of people. And I'd like everybody to check in with their personal experience.

Now what do we do when we have 225 micrograms per cubic meter in the air? Everybody freaks the hell out, right? You run your HEPA filter, you stay inside, you don't go jogging. If your kid has asthma, you are ultra frightened. You consider keeping them home and out of school. You change your life.

However, not everybody drops dead. Any more than everybody drops dead the moment they walk into a smoky bar or a smoky dispensary. What we see are relative increases in admissions for heart attacks, strokes, peripheral arterial disease, asthma exacerbations, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder.

This sends people to the ERs immediately. It's really obvious you see it within hours, you see it in it last for days after an increase in PM 2.5 in a community.

But it doesn't affect everybody. It affects the people who are older, sicker, younger, more vulnerable. Now we're looking in dispensaries at adults.

But dispensaries don't have signs on the door saying if you have atherosclerosis or are taking medicine for your blood pressure, you might not want to walk through this door.

Now let's see, I'm going to share some of my data and not all of this has been published.

And I've done about 50 experiments going to public places where people are using cannabis in tobacco. And I want you to look at the numbers on the Y-axis here.

This is important. When I go into a place where people are actively smoking, there is a very high chance that I'm going to be in an air pollution concentration that would be inconceivable out of doors.

That everyone would avoid out of doors.

The majority of my experiments, and these are only the experiments indoors in dispensaries and in cannabis festivals where people were using predominantly cannabis.

Have PM 2.5 concentrations that are deemed hazardous, that are over our red limit, over our scary place.

And not everybody who works at a dispenser or shop-set a dispenser is in the pink of health. Or aware that even for people who actively smoke cannabis being exposed to extra smoke in the air all day long increases their long symptoms and can decrease their long function.

Researchers shown that from experiments done in our area before and after the smoking bans in bars even smokers are affected by air pollution in their workplaces.

Now you have in your regulation some lines about ventilation and odor management. Now you can use filtration to remove odor from the exhaust air from a place of business so it doesn't bother the neighbors.

Because everybody who you're trying to not bother is on the opposite side of the filter. But you cannot use ventilation and filtration to control PM 2.5 pollution inside a space where people are actively putting it into the air.

One thing works the other thing doesn't. And what this graph shows you is the places where we did experiments where there were active ventilation systems installed. Some of them very bespoke and created before the business open. Others added ad hoc after the business was already running.

The main predictor of the PM 2.5 inside a building where people are smoking is how many people are smoking.

So if you are a business and you want to be full and happy and have lots of customers coming then you're literally creating a space where the air is going to be polluted.

Now I just got back from a conference where I had the chance to meet a bunch of middle aged casino workers from New Jersey who were fighting like hell to get New Jersey to finally get the smoke out of their casinos.

And these people exemplify and explain why you can't say, oh well we don't have to worry everybody's making a choice to enter that dispensary.

Because these people made the choice to work in a smokey casino because it was exciting and it paid really well and they were young and it didn't bother their health.

But as they've gotten older it's made them very very sick and these people got activated to work on this because they had two years smoke free during the pandemic.

And they all got better and felt better. And then once the smoke came back a lot of them either had to quit working or had to radically increase the number of medications they use and radically decrease anything else they did in their life to keep their high paying jobs that have health care.

So as you consider this pilot in your community I strongly recommend that if you want to support social consumption and the goods that it can bring the community that you only allow forms of consumption that do not pollute the air.

I will also add that some of these red bars with the ventilation systems had special rooms and had doors between them that were supposed to protect the employees.

But when you're running a business you have to supervise your customers. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispensary or a library. If you're not in there the customers are getting up into mischief.

So practically speaking please do not go toward type two consumption areas in dispensaries in the city of San Francisco that permit any form of consumption whether it be dabbing vaping or smoking that puts air pollution into your air.

It's not going to be good for your community. Thank you.

Thank you so much for the presentation appreciate that for both of our speakers really appreciate your expertise and your time.

At this time I'd love to hear from the public and then we'll go to questions from and comments from colleagues.

Okay so Madam City Clerk do we have any public comments?

I have 15 speakers on this item. The first is Richard Pan.

Then Trey Ish. Then Autumn Ogden Smith. Welcome Dr. Pan.

Thank you. Well thank you so very much for having me here today. I'm Dr. Richard Pan. Many of you know me from my past service in the legislature but I'm also a pediatrician and public health expert currently on faculty at the University of California Davis in public health sciences.

Although I'm speaking for myself and not for the University of California and fortunately I'm here to testify in opposition to the proposed ordinance and particularly to part two which is about smoking.

You just heard the information about smoking here in California. We are actually one of the healthiest states in the country so you look at life expectancy other measures and part of that is because of the work that we've done here in the state to reduce second hand smoke.

So most of us target toward tobacco when you burn tobacco. It's not about the nicotine. It's just about the nicotine. It's not about just the THC when you burn something you create toxins and you just heard from the previous expert about that.

So what happens is that smoke. So we're going to do a pilot program. Well that means there's an implication that we would do more than a pilot in the future. I think we already have plenty of evidence to show that smoke is dangerous.

And frankly one thing to keep in mind is the workers who have to work in the sensory. The people who have to work there. What choices do they have? Now you can say they have a choice not to work there but come on.

We know that people are looking for jobs etc. And so what happens is that they're working in that the sensory and they're going to be exposed to that smoke.

And even if you have a closed room by the way of a physician I've worked in a hospital. A negative pressure room needs two doors. You have to someone monitor etc. and even then stuff gets out.

So if we're going to protect the people who are working, people are in the community. We cannot have second hand smoke. And also it sends a wrong message to our youth as well.

So for that reason I am strongly in opposition to particularly section two and I hope the council will reject that in consideration of this ordinance. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Great ish. Then autumn, Ogden Smith, Jamie Morgan, Twyla Laster.

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the city council and vice mayor maple and staff for holding this meeting.

I'm not in favor and I'm not opposed to onsite consumption but I do have some questions. I know there was mentioned the airflow and I want to know if there was going to be specifications on airflow.

Some of those can be really expensive in terms of having a certain amount of parts per million flow out of these lounges.

And also wanting to know about if the lounges would have to be manned by employees. Like the previous speaker she said that you really do need people there because people will get into mischief if they're not being watched.

And also we'll have security. We'll have an actual security guard be have to be onsite in the lounges.

And I'd like to know if the lounges would be able to to serve food and non alcoholic beverages and if so would the food be allowed to be prepared onsite.

One other thing I'd like to know if entertainment like live music and comedy shows or whatever would be allowed and would the dispensaries be able to charge a fee for the people to show up and to come in.

Again I just want to thank the city council and that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Some great questions and just as a reminder to the public we can't engage in the back and forth on questions but hopefully some of those questions will be answered during the course of my colleagues comments and questions if not you can always follow up with us directly.

Thanks. Welcome.

Hi vice mayor and council automognizmeth with the American Cancer Society Cancer Network here in opposition to this proposal.

ACS can oppose this proposal because it undermines smoke free workplace protection laws by proliferating venues in which workers could be exposed to second hand smoke.

Second hand smoke does not respect boundaries it seeps through light fixtures wall outlets ceiling crawl spaces and under doorways.

Vinylation systems also do not protect anyone from carcinogens found in second hand smoke the surgeon general has concluded that separating people who smoke from those who don't.

And then the air and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure to second hand smoke.

In fact the operation of a heating ventilation and air conditioning system can redistribute second hand smoke throughout a building.

Further the American society of heating refrigeration and air conditioning engineers holds the position that only means of avoiding health effects and eliminating indoor smoke exposure is to ban all smoke inside and near buildings.

And one other point to make is that the legislature in recent about a year ago passed a law prohibiting smoking in all hotels and motels because there's no way to protect going from one room to another and to protect the workers who clean there.

There are simply no engineering approaches including ventilation and air cleaning that can fully eliminate the risk of second hand smoke exposure and for these reasons we ask that you vote against this measure and I thank you for your time.

Next speaker is Jamie Morgan, Twyla Laster, Suzanne Schink.

Good afternoon, my name is Jamie Morgan. I'm here on behalf of the American Heart Association and we are opposed to the proposed ordinance specifically part two.

And I'm happy to speak to the public health impact that this ordinance will have. The science is clear that exposure to second hand smoke is toxic and dangerous and causes heart disease long disease and cancer.

Second hand marijuana smoke contains many of these same toxins and carcinogens found directly in inhaled marijuana smoke in similar amounts if not more.

Even worse, particulate levels from second hand marijuana smoke are higher than tobacco smoke.

It is also clear that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke and as you've heard the only safeguard against second hand smoke is to not allow it.

For nearly 30 years, California's pioneering smoke free workplace laws are responsible for greatly reducing rates of tobacco use and associated deaths.

California has fought hard to protect workers and ensure a safe healthy smoke free work environment.

This ordinance will recreate the harmful work environments of the past and we urge you to side with public health and science and oppose this ordinance when it comes before you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Twyla, then Michaela Pearson, then Diana Wynn.

Good afternoon, council. I am Twyla Laster, the project director for saving our legacy, African Americans for smoke free safe places.

And we're committed to fostering a healthy smoke free environment for African Americans in all populations.

As we address the intersection of tobacco and vaping in cannabis in public health education, we'd like you to consider the following highlights regarding cannabis lounges.

With Governor Newsom recently signing legislation of cannabis cafes, it's now up to Sacramento to protect the hospitality workforce of residents.

Historically, at the local level, where lawmakers have stronger laws than the state to protect their communities.

Type two cannabis lounges pose serious risk to health workers, their musicians, their performers due to cannabis smoke exposure.

Which causes harmful cardiovascular health issues and could increase health costs.

Cannabis smoke produces 3.5 times more. Second hand smoke than smoking a cigarette and vape pollutants poison the air similarly.

So as you heard proponents say that ventilation systems protect workers research shows that they don't as you just saw.

But type two cannabis lounges could create a legal and regulatory challenge also complicating law enforcement and creating some complex uncertainties for businesses and authorities alike.

So cannabis lounges would represent a significant step back for Sacramento's commitment to health, to safety, and to smoke free work environment.

And we thank you for weighing these factors in your decision-maker to ensure a balanced and approach that considers the broader community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our current work is focusing on advancing smoke free policies across Sacramento County, including outdoor work sites, parks, and multi-unit housing.

We were made aware of this effort on indoor cannabis smoking. The legacy of California's smoke free indoor spaces has been a benchmark for protecting public health particularly for employees and enclosed spaces.

The decades of research have demonstrated that inhaling any form of smoke whether tobacco or cannabis is harmful and poses significant risk to lung health.

Our primary concern is the increased exposure of workers to second hand and third hand smoke in cannabis lounges.

The ongoing indoor cannabis smoking feels like a step back in our efforts to safeguard the health of indoor workers. Similarly, two tobacco smoke cannabis smoke contains harmful chemicals, including carcinogens and fine particulate matter, which can adversely affect respiratory and cardiovascular health.

There is no safe level of exposure to these toxins and no ventilation system can fully eliminate the risk associated with second hand and third hand smoke.

Given our long-lasting standing work in tobacco prevention, we urge to approach this public health issue with the same caution and consideration as tobacco related risks.

Thank you for your time.

If you're comments, Diana, then Martin Martinez, then Mayesha Bahati.

Hi, I'm Diana and I'm here today to express my concerns in regard to Councilman Eric Guerrero's recent claim that opening a cannabis lounge is like opening a fentanyl lounge.

Equating cannabis with a deadly substance like fentanyl, more comparable to meth and heroin, feels stigma and discrimination against our cannabis community.

A more comparable social substance are alcohol, foreign justables or tobacco foreign haibos, both of which are grossly accepted and contribute to far more death and health risks than cannabis.

Cannabis lounges can provide controlled regulated spaces for safe consumption, they promote education, responsible use and awareness for potential effects.

Hello. I'd like to address you on the health benefits of cannabis as I've been utilizing cannabis as my primary medicine for epilepsy for the past 27 years.

And basically what I was able to do was to replace opiates, which are the number one killer of people in the United States, with cannabis to resolve my migraines and my epileptic seizures and utilize a macrobiotic diet.

I happen to be a Lakordom Blue Train chef in French provincial and northern Italian, and I'm actually going to be introducing the Culinary 2.0 revolution for California.

We will actually be showing the wellness resort centers. How cannabis is part of your indoor cannabinoidal system. And if we think that cannabinoids are dangerous, then we should probably ban breast milk.

Actually part of my profits from our corporation will be going to the children's epileptic network. Then we will be donating epilepsy medicine for children that are non-TAC, but that actually have been proven to help their epileptic seizures.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council. My name is Meisha Bahati. I am a local business owner here in Sacramento. I own a storefront dispensary, and I'm also a core graduate.

I think Councilmember Jennings made a good point at the last law and legislation meeting, which was, we're not going to know if this program is going to work unless we actually pilot the program.

The risk are always going to be there. I mean, we're adults. We're talking, the voters approved Prop 64. I don't get kids coming to my dispensary. I rarely get, or I've never had a pregnant woman come into my dispensary.

And the purpose of a pilot program is to see what works and what does not work. There are safety safeguards in place currently with operating consumption lounges that minimize the risk. No, we cannot get rid of all of them, but it's a risk getting in my car to drive here today.

If the risk were so great, why was it, why was it approved to be recreational sold here in Sacramento? And why are we continuing to allow more dispensaries to come if the risk are so great? Currently city planning is rezoning to allow more dispensaries through the social equity program.

So more people are going to be consuming, more people are going to be purchasing, but yet we are at odds to have a safe space for people to go to consume. Again, part of a pilot program is to see if it's going to work, to see if these safety measures really work.

So you can have a better idea when the conversation comes up again if this is something that's going to move forward. So I urge the council to give this a try. It is working in other areas. We have not had any data to say that it is detrimental in any other areas where social consumption is working.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

Next speaker is Kimberly Cargile and Diana Garcia.

Good afternoon, city council and staff. Thank you for having us here today to talk about this important issue.

I am Kimberly Cargile. I have been operating store front dispensaries here in the city of Sacramento for 17 years. I am currently the CEO of a therapeutic alternative at 3015H Street.

When Dr. Maman talked about the early days of cannabis dispensaries being more like community centers for patients with AIDS and HIV patients, that is where I came from.

I would like to bring these therapies back to a therapeutic alternative and incorporate cannabis into them.

We are a small women owned social equity company with no corporate backing. I can't afford to add on to our building and build an expensive section for onsite consumption.

However, we do have a beautiful courtyard in our backyard. I would like to incorporate a lot of plants and fountains and shade coverings and use fencing and landscaping to create a sanctuary where it will not be seen from public in any way.

But we could have a therapeutic garden, so to speak. Do meditation and different therapies that incorporate cannabis.

I have been dreaming of this for 20 years now as I started as a holistic health practitioner prior to entering as a cannabis advocate.

I'm also the heart of what I do is advocacy and advocating for medical cannabis patients and consumers rights. On site consumption is a consumers' right. We need to regulate this. It's happening already.

Thank you. Your comments, your time is complete. Our next speaker is Diana Garcia, then Mindy Galloway. Then Eliza Tong.

Good afternoon. City staff, City Council. Thank you, everyone, for putting together this meeting. This is a great day in cannabis history where we all get together and share ideas.

There are a lot of familiar faces up there, a lot of friends sitting up there behind these microphones here for a lot of years now as we've been advocating to legalize safe access to cannabis.

Safe access to cannabis has been slowly making its way here to Sacramento. And this is just another step to it. This is just another step to opening the doors to safe access to tested cannabis that we can educate on and that we can teach.

People how not to overdose on pharmaceuticals or how not to overdose on alcohol, how to give their family a better quality of life.

And I know all you folks are good people. I know you all got good heart to good intentions. Please realize that making this legal is a good thought and a good intention to move forward. Have a good day.

Next speaker is Mindy Galloway. Eliza Tong. Zian Tattis. Then Sarah Michael Gaston.

Good afternoon, City Council and staff. My name is Mindy Galloway. I'm the CEO of the Pocket dispensary and Tamiya shared manufacturing. And I come towards you today and to not only advocate for myself, but also for my members at my dispensary.

So we see hundreds of people per day. 80% of what we sell are combustibles. Smoking vapes, dabs. And also 90% of my staff also daily smoke combustibles. I daily smoke combustibles actually can't do edibles.

And I live in Ziamen, your liver actually that creates it to be more stronger for me. And so I do not do that. I do smoking. So cannabis consumption is smoking. There is no way to get around with that.

And although we are recreational, many people use it for medical reasons. So there's a lot of physical and also mental health cannabis is a wellness industry and bringing community and conjunction with cannabis can really help empower people.

I have seven more speakers.

Good afternoon. I name Z. Liza Tong and for identification purposes, I'm a professor of internal medicine at UC Davis where I take care of patients in the hospital and clinic. And I'm the director of the Tobacco Association Policy Research Center. I'm representing myself as an individual and as someone born and raised in Sacramento.

As a doctor and researcher, I'm opposed to see this proposed program that may allow smoking indoors. This undermines our city and state's reputation for being a smoke-free leader. In 1990, Sacramento was one of the first to adopt a clean indoor air and health protection ordinance.

Third-hand smoke, the toxic residue of aging chemicals that sticks to carpets and curtains can't be eliminated with ventilation.

So as a doctor, I'm also concerned for the health of my patients and my community. There's a growing number of health risks that providers and cannabis users are not aware about from cannabis hyper-emesis syndrome to psychosis to e-valley.

State-wide data that cannabis-related emergency room visits have markedly increased from 2720 to over 140,000 in 2022.

Pregnant women in California are using cannabis at more than twice the rate of cigarette smoking. One in ten students in California use cannabis in the past month in 2023, as opposed to the older data you saw earlier.

42% of California adults report cannabis smoke exposure in the past couple weeks and Sacramento has a higher prevalence of past month cannabis use at 21% than the state average of 17% and that's over 220,000 people.

So thank you for considering the health standards for our community and I'm happy to present more information to the City Council in the near future.

Thank you.

Zion Tattis, Sarah Michael Gastin.

Then Flavio.

All right, hi everyone. Thank you for having me.

I am part of the cannabis core participant and I am for the cannabis lounge but I won't urge you.

It shouldn't be just for storefront. I have a space specifically designated for a healing spaces which is Shasha Money is an alternative medicine because cannabis is a medicine.

And we cannot just add it with cigarette and alcohol because it is a plant that to heal human being instead of using drug and other, you know, other way of healing ourselves.

So we still only 10% of us in the business but if you do allow this, please make sure that focus on the core people that we still struggling to get into the cannabis industry.

And then I'm just going to say, you know, people have a choice. We all adults not to smoke or to smoke even food can kill you not only cannabis.

And we have to worry about other companies actually polluting our air and our earth while a cannabis isn't really a harming plant. It is actually a healing plant.

So we really need to educate even our doctors, nurses and, you know, so-called educated people. We're just going to have to educate them, re-educate them about cannabis. It's not a harming plant. It's actually a healing plant. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Sarah, then Flavio, then David.

Welcome to think they heard who was next from the clapping. Good afternoon.

Sarah, correct. I am Sarah. Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members and city staff. My name is Sarah Michael Gaston. My pronouns are she and her and I'm the deputy director at Youth Forward.

Our nonprofit exists to improve the health and well-being of our most vulnerable children and youth through advocacy and community organizing.

We oppose this proposal of having cannabis consumption lounges in the city of Sacramento for four reasons.

One, secondhand cannabis smoke contains many of the same toxic and cancer causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke and some in higher amounts.

Therefore, secondhand smoke can cause harmful health effects such as lung disease and other respiratory issues and cardiovascular issues such as blocked arteries, heart attack and stroke.

Number two, there are no engineering and ventilation slash filtration techniques that allows you reduce the pollution from indoor cannabis smoke to healthy levels.

Prohibiting cannabis smoking inside or near buildings and other enclosed spaces that is the only way to eliminate secondhand exposures and health risk that come from it.

Three, we are concerned for patrons of the lounges and of employees, particularly women and pregnant people who are customers and staff that enter and work in these lounges.

Kaiser Permanente researchers have found that cannabis used by pregnant women increases risk for several health concerns including high blood pressure, pre-clamsia, which is a serious complication of pregnancy, weight gain above or below guidelines for pregnancy and placental abruption, which is the early separation of the placenta from the lining of the uterus during labor.

In addition to harming the health of pregnant individuals, cannabis also increases risk for infants of low birth weight for admission into the neonator unit.

It also results in developmental delays and also research shows that number four cannabis smoke and vapor lingers on people's clothing and people are carrying it back into their homes.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Next speaker is Flavio, then David.

How's it going guys? Appreciate you guys organizing this and allowing us all to speak in everything.

Where am I supposed to smoke?

I mean, I work at a dispensary. I buy nothing but dabs. I buy a bunch of pre-rolls. I buy the best flower I can possibly get my hands on.

But where am I supposed to smoke?

I can't smoke in my apartment.

I don't have a safe space to smoke.

I mean, it's kind of sucks but wherever I can smoke I can smoke, right?

So, I mean, I'm going to buy my products regardless. I'm going to smoke regardless.

So, where are we going to be able to find a place to finally smoke?

You know, we've already legalized marijuana. We're already here. We're already smoking.

So, when are we going to actually have the appropriate spaces for us to actually smoke?

You know what I mean? People are going to find their events. People are going to congregate. People are going to smoke regardless.

You know, matter what? This is going to be an ongoing thing.

But when are we going to come together and actually have a place where we can smoke together?

You know, I mean, our dispensaries are the epicenters of where we educate all the consumers and all each other on new products and new ways to Medicaid.

So, I think, you know, on-site consumption would be really good in offsite as well because not everyone has the means and the money to actually, you know, have those spaces.

So, I think it's great to also have offsite consumption as a possible idea as well.

Like I said, I really appreciate you guys having me able to talk and I'm going to keep on smoking.

Any comments? Our next speaker is David.

I have three more speakers. David, Eliza Romo, then Isaac Altam-Morano.

Hi. Thank you, first and foremost. It's, it was once a dream to even have this conversation in the front of the City Council.

It seems like a lot of the opposition has probably never actually been to one of these cannabis events.

So, I really wanted to share my experience with that.

One of these cannabis events actually really changed my life.

It was a mental health awareness and it was a panel of respect to community members that really spoke on therapy and opening up for mental health and had it not been for this event.

I would have never opened up to myself going and seeking therapy.

It's changed my life for the better. It's made me a better father, a better son, a better friend, and a better community member.

And I would have never had that opportunity, had I never had a space that I can go and feel comfortable and feel welcome enough to open up and allow myself to be vulnerable enough to say, yeah, I do need therapy.

And a lot of us don't have that. A lot of us don't have a place where we can go and we can feel comfortable amongst common folk.

So, I am poor. You please think of this as not just a smoke lounge. Think of the benefits that it can actually provide.

It provided a lot for me. I just wanted to share that experience with you guys.

Applause

Alisa, and then Isaac.

Hello, Council. And thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Alisa Romo. I actually operated an in-home daycare for over 25 years.

I take my children to the park every day across the street from my home and where I perform childcare. And every day there is people smoking at the park.

And my children that I care for would be playing and you know, they'd have secondhand inhalation of smoke.

People are going to smoke regardless. So why not allow an area where these people can go smoke and partake in cannabis and not be around children.

Just giving them that extra opportunity, that space. How many times have you guys driven down the street with your windows open and all the sudden you get that width of cannabis smoke.

People are smoking. They're smoking in parks. They're smoking in their cars as they're driving around. And we are going to get that secondhand smoke.

So why not allow on-site consumption where people who choose to smoke can go smoke there and help mitigate and minimize this happening in our parks around our children.

You guys want to sit here and.

You guys want to sit here and advocate and try to shut down these areas because secondhand smoke is bad.

We'll have secondhand smoke is bad then allow on-site consumption somewhere so that people can stop consuming in parks around our children.

And as they're driving around in cars. If secondhand smoke is bad then help create an area where people choose to go where they want to participate in cannabis smoke activity.

And keep it away from our children. That's all. Thank you. Have a good day.

Isaac, Altamorano and Isaac is our final speaker on this item.

Hi everybody. I'm Isaac here to how to millen things I wanted to say and everything changed.

When we did our events at 11.11 we had a company called Airbox. Airbox would filtration systems and they can reduce this PM point 2.5 particles down to 0.01 micron.

Removing all pathogens up to 99% of them. We requested to.

We have had people that have met each other and get married and jobs. It's a community thing.

It's frustrating to even have this discussion. Legalization with our consumption is not legalization.

And we're arguing here about what adults can do with their time and how they consent their time.

If you don't want to smoke or you don't want to take a hand smoke, don't show up.

Period. Just don't come. You're not invited anyway.

So please listen to what we have to say. I'm going to send another invite request to Eric Garos office and Mr. Jennings office because during the long

issue where the ones concerned, please accept it. Let's discuss. Thank you.

Thank you Madam City clerk. And I just want to say I really appreciate all of our speakers including both of them.

I'm including both of the presenters and everyone who's come to share their opinion.

As we mentioned at the top, this is a workshop. So we're not making any decisions today but we are hoping to have a thorough discussion.

So I really appreciate everyone's time. And with that, I'll start with Councillor Coppon.

Thank you, vice mayor. I want to send my apologies to my colleagues because I'm going to make a comment that I have to leave.

I have a family emergency. So I probably will not be at the 4 and 5 o'clock meeting.

I want to state that I believe in the health concerns. Their true data science is correct.

But I also believe that there is science out there and new technology that can probably handle doing the filtration and it's correct.

I will tell you, I walk into our schools. I know kids whose parents are smoking at home.

Because it's on those kids. When we talk about equity and we talk about things, we have to realize people are still going to smoke.

I am supportive of a pilot program. I am supportive of the highest level requirement we can do of filtration and also of education.

Because in reality, I'm more worried about the parents who think it's okay to smoke at home when they're kids.

That's what I'm more worried about. I'm not worried about an adult who makes a decision to go there.

I worry about the kids. And these are somewhat two separate issues that we have to address that I don't want to conflate but I do want to say to my colleagues,

I am supportive of a pilot program with the highest level of filtration and education for our workers.

We will not be the first city to do this. It has been done all over and I am supportive of best practices.

But I also want to continue the conversation of how do we educate our parents?

Because two kids in my kids' classroom smelled it this morning.

It's everyday and it's real. And these kids don't have a choice.

Adults have a choice and I believe in giving adults a choice for that equity reason.

So two separate things that I don't want to conflate and push together but I want to thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Valenzuela, for letting me go first. I apologize. I am going to have to take off.

Okay, wishing you and your family well. Points will take in. So Councillor Vanza.

Thank you. I do want to start by noting that the idea to allow consumption lounges in the city actually came from our staff

who have been working on cannabis regulations for the city for a really long time.

So I really want to thank the staff for what has now been over two years of discussion on this item.

I believe you all are experts in what's happening in the cannabis field in our city and I just want to thank you for bringing this up way back when.

And I put this on our log back when we had a log at the council and a majority of the colleagues up here supported exploring it.

And we've had a lot of discussion since then and I did it for a really simple reason.

And as my colleague just said, it wasn't to debate whether cannabis consumption is okay or if dispensaries are okay.

That is already legal. People are already doing it.

Dispensaries already exists in our community. That's not the issue that we're talking about here.

I feel that a lot of the conversation to date really centers on the existence and legalization of cannabis in our community and that's already been decided.

And it exists. And unless we want to have that conversation, that is not the discussion that's happening here today.

I think the point around not everyone having a legal place to consume. I have to say that I'm a renter and to the people who are opposed for exposure to smoke.

I actually want to thank you for all the work you've done to prohibit smoking in multifamily housing.

I've been in Asmatic for my entire life. If my neighbors were allowed to smoke in or around my home, that would have a very bad effect on me and my health.

And so I do appreciate and definitely come from a background of working on to advance these issues and I support what you've done.

But the impact of what we've done in terms of saying you can't smoke in certain places is that there are many, many people who have no legal place to smoke.

And I think Isaac, your quote of, you know, legalization isn't legalization without consumption is like very well taken.

As there is a whole population like my district is over half renters. None of them are allowed to smoke in their home.

And I don't want them to smoke in their home. I don't want them to seek relief and start deciding, hey, you know what?

I'm going to split the rules and see if my landlord or neighbors notice. That's not good policy either.

The real question here is if folks are going to do it and might not want to or be able to consume in their homes, do we want to provide a safe and legal place to do so?

Ideally, as was mentioned, away from any homes or parks or other spaces where young people may exist. I've talked to service providers specifically in the native community who are really concerned about youth consumption and what they've told me overwhelmingly the kids they're working with are getting at home.

They're getting that product at home. I don't want products in the home. If there's a way for us to keep that product from ever entering those residential doors, I think that's a win for multiple aspects of public health in this regard because the kids in my community are getting it from their homes.

Sometimes without the adult who purchased it, even knowing it. So in addition to the examples and data presented today, I have to say it law and legislation for those of you who have not been on that committee for the last few years.

We've heard from representatives of other cities in California who do this and we've had experts come. We've heard from folks from Zoom and Palm Springs and San Francisco. We've had staff have actually gone to these consumption lounges and other places which sounded like really fun field trips.

But to get to go down and actually see how they're administered to see how the odor and the zero pressure rooms and all of that stuff are working for them. So there's a lot of work that has been done that tells us that this is possible and it is possible to do it safely without significant impacts on the surrounding community.

And while I appreciate the concern for workers, I have to say that UFCW is the union that organizes represents workers in the cannabis industry.

I believe are the predominant union that organizes in the cannabis industry and they support consumption lounges. Actually very recently they supported the legislation that was cited today, AB 1775 which would make it easier for consumption lounges to offer entertainment and non cannabis food products.

And when that when that bill was signed into law, they actually put out this big social media statement saying they were proud to have supported that legislation. They want to support the expansion of the industry in this way, not just because they feel like it's good for the industry, but because they think it just makes sense from a policy perspective.

So while my neighbors and I could choose to use edibles instead, many people, including my dad when he was struggling through cancer treatments, prefer smoking over edibles. It just worked better for him.

He tried edibles. It didn't alleviate his pain in symptoms and frankly his ability to smoke legally where he lived gave us some of the best days that we had with him at the end of his life.

So, oh God, see I cry almost every meeting now, dang it. So anyways, that's why this issue is important to me. I think it's about striking the balance as our first presenter said between risks.

I am not, as my colleague said, I'm not, I know, I mean I work on air quality issues for my professional job. I understand the issues with risk of exposure to PM. I also believe that we need to balance risks and outcomes here and that having a regulated place for people to smoke that isn't in a park and isn't outside their apartment or in their apartment.

I think is a win for our community from a public health perspective. And so with that, I would love as a side note, and not today please, because we're not really talking about outdoor or getting into events right now.

But if the researchers, I think I know especially the second presenter mentioned outdoor data on smoke, I would love to see some of the data that you're presenting on that maybe after this item. But with that Madam Vice Mayor, very supportive of this pilot moving forward.

Those who haven't had the chance of talking with staff a hundred times about this, this is a preemptive discussion to us actually bringing an item to this full council for consideration in the very near future.

So I hope you've gotten your questions answered today, and then if you have other questions you want to ask those of us at Long Leg have had the opportunity to discuss this a lot. So I hope you ask them today so we can bring that information when this comes forward.

Thank you.

And thank you very much, Councillor Valenzuela for sharing your personal story as well. And with that, move on to Councillor McGherr.

Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. First I want to thank both of the presenters for participating today. And for taking the time to dive into an area of research that really needs also a lot more academics and health folks involved in it, particularly as the state evolves in this.

So I do appreciate all that work. I think what it comes down to, I think my colleague made it right. It's not a question whether cannabis is legalized or not Prop 64 made that decision already.

But it's the question about how this local government, which Prop 64, promptitude said local governments will decide how it can be used in the area take action.

The existence of smoke exposures there, as my colleague mentioned here, but you know what was also legal and the existence of smoke and exposure and that's years of tobacco, not just cannabis but other particulates.

And even today we aren't going backwards and saying hey because it's legal, we should reopen more smoke lounges or allowing smoking in bars again or creating a separate room in a bar to do that.

And the very reason that we have taken enormous amount of effort, 40 years of effort to educate the public about the dangers of smoking. Yes, they have a choice.

They have a choice to either purchase and consume and make that choice. But our role as a government is should we be enabling and going backwards in normalizing something that we've known for years and the data is shown.

And we both researchers recognize the dangers of that. And because of that work, I mean you think about tobacco and nicotine and both my grandfather and my father and grandfather who died also of lung disease because of it, both of them were heavy smokers.

And we think about that, the loss that happens because of that exposure. But yet nicotine so addictive and because of our efforts and this city council's efforts, it's support for Prop 56, the efforts on eliminating flavor tobacco, pushing the county and the state to do the same.

And the California's consumption numbers on smoking tobacco have plummeted, plummeted to the point where first five, which is funded by the tobacco tax, is they're looking at trying to figure out how to maintain their financial stability.

And yet that organization that suffered from the tobacco that is funded by its tobacco tax and helps youth also sent us a letter and opposition telling us about the concerns and how our actions to normalize smoking, re-normalize smoking is a danger.

That was created because of second hand spoken now, they've been the leader in all lung impact issues, including the issues of our air impacts from stationary sources and mobile sources.

And they too have sent us a letter and opposition saying this is backwards. A number of our doctors here locally from UC Davis have sent us letters and opposition.

So all I have to say is the dangers of a local government normalizing access was created by the voters, but for us to go out and create smoke lounges goes back towards the land use authority.

That's what we have here, the land use authority to enable or to discourage good healthy practices. I would like the researchers to consider this question.

You know, I saw the data about the reduction of smoking cannabis from 2016, 2017 and the numbers went down. Well, interestingly enough, that timeframe is also in Prop 56 past and we had enormous amount of money coming in from the tobacco tax that one increased the amount of intervention we had on talking to young people about second hand smoke.

I'd like to see if there's a correlation to that drop in youth because one, we exposed more education on that as well. And second, you know, I think the interesting, I'd like the researchers in sociology to look at, there was a trade off to say, well, you know, people are drinking less because they're consuming, but they're consuming cannabis more.

So cannabis was legalized, but this generation also, I will say, is the generation that that generation they were talking about is the one that is also looking at the quality of their food, more direct food to market, have a healthier living, a focus.

So I'll stop with that and to say that I appreciate the research. I think, I think the council needs to do more of this type of information, but this land use decision really goes contrary to all the efforts we've done to address the issue of second hand smoke. Thank you, Lysmere.

Thank you for that. And colleagues, I just want to time check here that we are, we do have a close session at four. I think we'll be running late into that, but just want to put that top of mind for folks and moving on to council member Beng.

Thank you, vice mayor. I am non-lon ledge, so definitely want to share my thoughts and really just want to think both of the presenters, thank you to Dr. Is there remin, remin, remin, Dr. Remin and Dr. Shake. I'm going to get both of your last names wrong.

But thank you to the two presenters. I really appreciate you from both side, really sharing the implications of cannabis on our families, on our youth and on the industry.

Also want to thank the speakers, the public commenters folks who came out here since two o'clock, whether you're speaking in support or in opposition, really appreciate you all coming out here, because this is really kind of the first time that I think this council is having a full discussion.

This is not an item that we're going to vote on today, but it is a discussion item, so I think it's great because I'm not non-lon ledge, so I really appreciate it.

Do you want to give kudos to law and ledge as well for taking lead on this and having a conversation at that level and bringing it to the full council for conversation?

So for me, cannabis has been a topic of significant public health debate over many, many years, particularly around policy surrounding recreational and medicinal use, and also at the same time negative impact on our families and our youth.

I think it's really important that we understand the public health implications, and this is the reason why we're having this conversation today on the dias, and so I really want to think the experts that came in from both side.

For us, at the end of the day, we are the policy makers, and we have the responsibility to navigate both the benefits and the risks associated with cannabis use.

We just want to acknowledge a few things that can be true at the same time. It could be true at the same time first.

We know that often cannabis is used by adult for medical reasons. Cannabis has proven medical benefits for certain conditions, I think we heard from the gentleman that came up to speak about his epilepsy, we heard about that.

And also what is true is that I've heard that it's been helpful for patients who don't respond well to traditional medicine, traditional meaning like going to the doctors and getting prescription.

At the same time, while that is true, we also know from a public health perspective that cannabis does in fact also have a harmful effect as well from the second hand smoke that we've heard from researchers and those living the second hand smoke and that impact on youth and especially pregnant women.

And as a former school board member, like I don't need to see the data, I know argued this consuming cannabis.

And I've seen firsthand as a school board member before I became a city council member, the increase in youth consumption in the community in the school district in particular, not from regulated cannabis use at home.

And so we also have to acknowledge that. I think both can be true at the same time.

For me, as someone from a public health background, public health to me is about creating the conditions so that people can make healthier choices.

So the question for me is what type of conditions does this council want to create that can either harm or help people to make healthier choices.

That is the answer that we have to answer on the dias.

And so from both experts, the public health impacts of cannabis are complex and is multifaceted.

On one hand, legalization of cannabis have offered as potential increase in tax revenue for the city, reduced criminalization because it's legal now.

And also medicinal impact for adults. On the other hand, we know there are challenges facing our young people using cannabis.

We've seen in research impaired driving a long-term health effects of cannabis as well.

And I think it's important to name both of that.

For me, I also wanted to say that I am a supporter of the core program. I think it's really important, especially the war on drugs and how it's impacted communities of color.

And really want to see our minority owned businesses thrive in this industry because for far too long it's been really, it doesn't, it hasn't really allowed space for our communities of color.

So I'm a big supporter of core program. I am not, however, in this moment supportive of a consumption lounge.

I think based on just the research from our experts regarding the exposure to smoke and the research, I believe is clear on this.

Now if there are other research, I am open to conversation with advocates on the other side to hear your research.

But the research that I've read from a public health perspective, as a public health, as someone who also have done public health, the research has been, it's clear to me that it actually does harm.

The smoke itself does harm to our families and our communities. I know this is only a discussion item. It's not an action item.

But what I do want to share that if this, if the majority of this council, if this does come back for a vote, and if the majority of the council does choose to pilot a consumption lounge,

I think it's really important. And if this is in the staff report that ever comes back, that we require the cannabis lounge to have visible kind of warning in the lounge, in the dispensary lounge, then informs the risk of cannabis use.

So I also hear my colleagues and the public on, well, if I'm a smoker, I need a safe place to go, right? And for me, I'm also, I think as a policy maker, thinking that piece through, but also at the same time thinking, what are the implications as we do that?

Because from a public health perspective, our job is to create healthy conditions so that people can make healthier choices. And if we do pass a consumption lounge with type two, are we hurting or are we harming? And that's the question that we have to grapple with.

So we are not making that decision today, but I really wanted to just vocalize my position right now on this item and looking forward to more discussion from my colleagues and hopefully we will eventually get to take a vote on this as well.

And yeah, and I look forward to meeting with the advocates. Definitely reach out to my office and want to meet with you all as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Councillor Retail.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm going to make this quick because we need to go into the next session. But then thank you speakers for coming out today, the public as well as our Dr. Remin and Dr. Slick. Both presentations were great.

I think looking at this issue, you know, Prop 46 has passed with the legislation with Prop 56, the work we've done with Labor Tribacles as well. I also feel this is a land use issue that we have to discuss within the city of Sacramento.

I run a youth organization and work a lot with youth and we've done a lot of harm reduction training with our youth in the past five and six years and I could attest to that being local funding through Prop 56 and a lot of the works that we've done.

I am, you know, not against cannabis. I believe that, you know, the discussion today was very robust from both sides.

I definitely want to look at this also, Conqueror, Councillor Irving, from a public health standpoint, you know, we have the issue is the second hand smoking.

I realize Sacramento, we do need identify locations that we can't have places to smoke or whatever, you know, a zither reversal of policy where we've been pushing so hard to stop Labor Tribacle, stop smoking and public spaces with bars and issues.

And so we're bringing this issue back in. I really believe that, you know, my position today is really looking at how we can create an environment where all that can happen.

I believe that if Council next week would, you know, vote to approve this and I'm wanting to really see a really strict policy and how we can make that happen that really doesn't reverse a lot of our policy we've been working in the past 10, 15 years on how we handle a public health standpoint with second hand smoke.

So this, I do see this as a land use issue and how the city's Sacramento was set policies on how our business will operate with a public health standpoint as well.

And I'm just going to make that quick and so other colleagues can speak.

All right. Thank you very much. Councillor Regennings.

Thank you very much. I'll try to make it quick as well. I know we have to go into closed session. Thanks everyone for coming out today. I really appreciate it.

I end up taking like four pages of notes of everything that was said and I can't even read my own notes anymore. So if I rambled just now, please forgive me.

But Council member, Kaplan said it probably best for me. She says, I believe in the health concerns. And I do. I understand the health concerns that are out there.

But I'm supportive of a pilot program that addresses the health concerns that we're seeing. And I think that's what we all want. When we legalized marijuana, when we legalized it, we have to find, we can't criminalize it by then saying people can't smoke.

And they can't. There's no place for them to smoke. Brother said it very clearly. He said, hey, look, I'm going to smoke. You ain't going to stop me from doing that. Right.

I say you're not. I'm almost smoked. Right. But I got to have a place to smoke. Right. And so I think when we can start talking about a lounge and then have a best practice in that lounge that we deal with the ventilation and we deal with the concerns that we have of second hand smoke.

And we have more work to do. And to me, it's not about just providing a lounge. I think it's also about providing the education that much many of my colleagues have already talked about. These lounge is have to be places where we educate everyone that comes inside these lounge is so they understand what they're doing to themselves and what they're doing to others who may be going to parts who may be in homes with kids who may be wherever they're smoking.

They're having an impact on others around them. So to me, this is as much about education as it is about providing allowance because you also need to be educated about what you're doing to your own body. So I'm going to stop at it that because I believe in the health concerns, but I also believe that we should do some kind of a pilot program that helps us become a best practice in the entire state of California, if not in the country.

Well said, thank you very much, Councillor Jennings, into all my colleagues for your feedback. Seeing no one else to punch up, I'll be very brief myself. I know I've made my beliefs really known on this. I'm not only coming from the industry but in working in the space but just in my time in elected office. I align myself with the comments of Councillor McCablin and Councillor Valenzuela and Jennings as well that it's a balancing act and we recognize I'm eyes wide open.

I'm not the person who's going to grow around and say this is perfectly safe for everyone and everything's perfect all the time it's not. But we also live in the reality which is that it's happening anyway and I think the first presentation really crystallized it the most for me which is our biggest concern and issue is with the illicit market now with the regulated one.

When we look at the regulated market we see people and I see a lot of them not here that are trying to do the right thing. They smell a lot of money, a lot of time, energy and risk a lot in order to do the right thing when they easily could not have.

And so I just want to see that and recognize that and I think we should encourage that as well. And then the other thing that I wrote in my notes here which is where are we supposed to smoke? That really resonated with me as well.

Which is if we say that it's legal but then we don't have any real pathways for people to do it legally. If you're a renter, wherever it may be, if people are smoking in parks I heard that from someone that is not legal so make sure to let that be known to the authorities but it shouldn't be around people who don't want to be exposed to it shouldn't be around children for sure.

But I do think that we need to create pathways for people to do it in the right way. The same way that we created pathways for you all to start businesses and do things in the right way and I appreciate you for doing that.

Because it not only helps our communities it helps, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention something like measure all right where we're getting funding for our youth programs. Where is that coming that's by and large program on cannabis industry.

So that's how I feel. I will be supporting this pilot program. I will be, we'll discuss it more at the future date when it comes forward to council.

I do want to say to folks it seems like it might not be next week. And so we'll make sure that we have the appropriate date sent out to everyone so that you don't waste your time and come here when we're not discussing it.

But I just really again appreciate everyone for being here for sharing your thoughts and our presenters. Thank you for staying on the line and have a wonderful rest of your day.

With that, I believe we're going to adjourn into closed session so we can go directly into it. Madam City Clerk.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I can read to the record our special meeting agenda for closed session. We have three items.

David Turner versus City of Sacramento workers comp appeals board case number A.D.J.17582424.

And lastly, Pursuant to government code section 54957.6 for a matter pertaining to negotiations with recognized bargaining units,

sacrament of housing and redevelopment agency employees association, American Federation of State, County and Minus of Employees.

We're going to do our business to confer with this chief negotiators, the Shell Dozer and James Shield.

You may adjourn to closed session. I have no speakers on this item.

With that, we are adjourned to closed session at 404 PM.