Good morning.

I'd like to call this meeting of the Sacramento City Council's Law and Legislation Committee

to order. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum.

Thank you, Chair. Council Member Maple?

Here. Council Member Gira?

I'm here.

Council Member Jennings is absent. Chair Brownswell?

I am here and we expect Vice Chair Jennings momentarily of vice mayor. Would you like to

lead us in the land acknowledgement in place?

Pleasure. Please stand if you are able.

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

Midew, Valleam planes me walk, puts me in wind to the peoples of the Wilton Rancher

yes, Sacramento is only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk the

status today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice

of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous people's history, contributions

and lives.

Now our main standing, so we and 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 for all.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. We have a very packed agenda. Thanks everybody for joining us so early.

Just a reminder, if you want to give comments on any item, please fill out a slip in the

back. They're also available up here in the front and return them to the clerk and they

will help you if you have any questions. They're very nice. So make sure you get those

in so that we can make sure everybody gets heard. And with that, we will start with the

consent calendar. We have three items on consent to any of my colleagues have any questions

or comments on those items. Oh, Council Member, Cara.

Thank you. I will go ahead and move consent, but I would like to request that in the September

law and ledge committee that we get a end of session report wrap up from our registered

advocates.

Thank you. That's a great suggestion. Thank you, Council Member Gara. Do we have a second?

All second.

Great. And Vice Chair Jennings is joined us just in time. All in favor on the consent

calendar, please say aye. Any opposed?

Abistension that passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Moving right along to the first

item on our discussion calendars item four and ordinance relating to the military equipment

use policy. I'd like to invite our chief and our plea. Oh, sorry, no. We can't end to

is a deputy chief. Sorry. I feel like I keep captain. Thank you, began in. I gave you

promotion there. It's an open us up and then we'll and then we'll hear from our police

commissioner on the recommendations. Go ahead and captain. Good morning, Clayton Buchanan,

captain, Zach PD. I just wanted to go follow up from the last last months presentation

we gave you. We had a overview of our military equipment last month of report and policy.

Just a clarification on a couple items. I talked last month about not purchasing a couple

of the U.S. We're moving forward with purchasing three new U.S. systems. They were approved

last year and they are on the last year's report policy and they'll be on next year's

report for quantity because we don't put them on the report until we actually receive

them. So, but we are moving forward purchasing those. You should have received a copy of

the 2022 and 2023 Sacramento Community Police Review Commission military equipment

recommendation responses. There was a slight error on those forms. It says they were returned

to commission. That's error on my behalf. They have not been to commission. They'll go

back next month to the police commission's meeting and they'll receive them then.

Just a little bit about the recommendations. If you're not aware, we've been working on

clearing a backlog of the police commission recommendation responses. Since February of

20, 2023, we have responded to over 143 of the commission's recommendations to include

recommendations from 2018, 19 and 20. We also have a cleated military equipment recommendation

responses from 2022 and 2023. Those are the ones you guys received yesterday. So,

basically out of those, we have approved an implemented 78 of them. Approved a pinning

or six partial implementation is 19. Pending further review or four and 33 of them we

were unable to implement. I want to talk a little bit about the community feedback that

we received. We posted the military equipment community survey regarding M.E.U. It was

posted on June 21st and was left open for 45 days. We received 298 written responses.

In our analysis, about 49% of the responses were positive towards our policy report. 35%

were negative towards our report. It's 16% were neutral.

A little bit about the community meeting, which you guys know was held at Oak Park and

allowed members of the community to provide questions and feedback regarding military

equipment. There was approximately about 19 people that provided statements. In our analysis,

A.O. statements were favorable towards our policy and report for were non-favorable

and set on were neutral. That's pretty much how keeping items I had to provide you guys

and follow up. Thank you very much, Captain. Thank you in the department as well for giving

us some flexibility on time so that we can hear from the police commission today. I appreciate

you. Members, you should have gotten a paper copy of the police commission's recommendations

and they're also submitted by e-commerce. With that, we will pass it over to the chair

of the police commission who I believe is with us on Zoom to make a presentation on

the police commission's recommendations on the military equipment policy.

Chair Bliss? Yes, greeting, Councillor Member and long legislation committee. Just making

sure that I have this on zoom, I appreciate the accommodation so that I can be available

here to present to you our recommendations and overview of the Sacramento Community Police

Review Commission's work and analysis of the military equipment use policy and annual

report. So just to give a quick overview, assembly bill 41 is what were ultimately required

under to in order to do this on an annual basis and in the state level law that requires

all law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from the governing body prior to taking certain

actions relating to the funding acquisition or use of different types of military equipment.

By May 2022, all police and sheriff departments in California were required to publish a written

military equipment use policy. With the intent being to create a transparent process that

involves the public and local governing bodies before local law enforcement agencies may

acquire military weapons and equipment, which California legislature declared in

creating the law, the acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities

adversely impacts our safety and welfare as well, including increased risk of civilian

deaths, significant risk to civil rights, civil liberties and physical and psychological

well being and the current significant. Chair Bliss, just so you're aware, we see your

notes but not the slide that you're presenting. My apologies. No problem, just let me make

sure that I can fix that real quick.

Are you able to see them now? Yes, thank you. Apologies for that.

So just to note again with the requirements, what does military equipment ultimately entail?

Generally, the policy pertain generally military equipment means vehicles and weapons intended

for use in combat zones by the military, which is exactly who this equipment was designed

of by and for. Maybe 41 clearly defines exactly what items legislature considers military

equipment that are committed for use in civilian settings, which include drones, robot drones

and robots or uncrewed aerial aerial and land surveillance vehicles or systems armored vehicles,

including M wraps and tracked armored vehicles such as the rook and that provide ballistic protection

to officers in the life duty. And there are several other types that you can see in the policy

itself. And they report also includes weaponized aircraft, firearms and special make as well

a 50 caliber or greater as well as including assault weapons that are not standard service issue,

as well as 40 millimeter projectile launchers. This includes flashbangs and other diversionary devices

including and chemical agents and such as tear gas or pepper balls as well as long range acoustic

devices. For equipment that may become available or developed in the future, the state law actually

designates any other equipment as determined by a governing body or at a state or a state agency

to require additional oversight with updates being given on an annual basis that gives the city

council a wide range of discretion to determine what ultimately constitutes other military equipment

outside as it becomes available. So just a few quick overview of the annual requirements.

Most of you may be aware but the public may not be as quite as aware as that AB41 requires

the police department to submit a military equipment you use report every year to city council

before it may approve any policy updates or military equipment purchases including several

ongoing requirements such as a summary of the military equipment that was used and the

purpose for its use as well as any complaints or concerns that we received and along with the

findings of any internal audits concerning and with information about violations of the

equipment of the military equipment use policy. It also calls for a total annual cost for each type

of military equipment including acquisition personal personnel training transportation maintenance

storage upgrade and other ongoing costs and from what source funds will be provided for the

military equipment in the calendar year. Following submission of the annual military equipment report

that the every year the department is required to host within 30 days of publishing the report.

A community engagement meeting which one that is well publicized and conveniently located

so which the general public may discuss and ask questions of the police department regarding

its annual report and departments findings. AB41 also established designates the Sacramento City

council as the governing body who is responsible for ultimately approving the policy and as well

as reviewing the report and may only approve the military military equipment use policy if the

department meets all of the minimum requirements which are listed on your screen including that

this equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same

objective of officer and civilian safety that the proposed military equipment use policy must safeguard

the public's welfare their safety and their civil rights and liberties. If purchasing the equipment

the equipment is supposed to be reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives.

These alternatives must be equivalent meaning they should be able to achieve the same level of

officer and civilian safety and finally it previously owned military equipment in previous use

of the equipment needed to comply with the MEU policy that was in effect at the time and if prior

uses did not comply that the new policy fixes those non conforming uses to ensure future compliance.

So after the city council approved the Sacramento Police Department's MEU policy on

September 12th 2022 the commission has been following the current timeline or notice that it's

played that this is how it's been playing out. By April 30th the annual reporting period ends and

next year's reporting period begins and this is during the month of May is when the department begins

counting its military equipment inventory and drafting its annual uses reports. By May 30th the

inventory count is usually complete and then the annual report is then finalized and ultimately

at least draft in a draft form to be published on its transparency page on its website.

And by mid-June that usually is when the ultimate gets published and that begins the 30 day clock

for the city to hold its required community engagement meetings and per city council direction

SPD was tasked with collaborating with the police review commission to organize and host these annual

meetings. By July the commission and SPD worked together to host at least one community engagement

meeting. Last year we were able to host three community engagement meetings across the north

central and south areas of the city. This year we were only able to host one on July 22nd at the

O Park Community Center and Council District 5. So just a quick point of overview with what we know

where we have come within our review of this policy. As of today there are now 30 recommendations

that have been submitted regarding military equipment used by the Sacramento Police Department.

13 of which were issued in 2022 and then another nine that were produced from the community

engagement forums last year during July 2023. This year it of course will be collaborated with

the department around this community engagement process and we're able to get quite a few takeaways

based on the conversation. It wasn't quite as well attended as the three previous meetings but

still met a really still met a good turnout relatively and provided some really helpful

information that informed our recommendations. Notably there can any members express a

continued concern for lack of justification to prove the necessity of military equipment used

beyond officer safety and some civilian skill and safer. There's also still uncertainty about

the civilian safety compared with the cost and civil rights and civil liberties and several

members of the public noted a disproportionate use for of this equipment against black and brown

residents which correlate and continue to show a pattern of racial bias with any outcomes of

policing policy in Sacramento. There's also concern with the financial burden of new military

equipment purchases compared with reasonable alternatives especially during the current budget

deficit where a lot of apartments saw the cuts but not as much with the police department and also

concerns around SPD's compliance with its own policies on improper use. There were continued

questions around how did the policy correct those any nine conforming units from the past such as

during the 2020 George Floyd protests. So there are several outs while these

efforts with that the department has taken has been significantly helpful in terms of being able

to assess and analyze the usage of this equipment which we do note there was removal of technical

terms reduced legal jargon and additional definitions to increase accessibility as well as

more detailed demographic reporting that included calls for service versus officer initiated

and number of deployments versus use of force incidents as well as a detailed chart and table

of 210 incidents where military equipment was used and who it was used against. While these efforts

just help streamline if reporting were helpful there's still a remain a lot of unanswered

questions and significant obstacles to achieving minimum compliance with AB41.

Some of these unanswered questions include what situations is the deployment or use of this

military equipment necessary for keeping civilians and SPD officers safe and equitable and

equal there. What reasonable alternatives has the department explored which may achieve this

in objective officer and civilian safety expected for military equipment use. How does the

MAU policy effectively protect the public safety and welfare while also safeguarding our civil

rights and civil liberties and what reasonable legal enforceable sanctions are in place to deter or

prevent policy violations by department officers and why is the proposed purchase or acquisition of

military equipment necessary within the current budget cycle and what alternative equipment or

practices has the department explored while proving that proved just as effective at achieving both

officer and civilian safety while also being more cost effective.

So just to break down a few of the things that we were able to find based on this report.

As you can see there this is the current inventory list which includes ammunition of the firearm

categories as well as other pieces such as robots and drones but overall for a $2.8 million

inventory there have been about 1,054 uses just in the last reporting period mostly in the area of

robots and drones as well as armored vehicles and some of the questions that community members had

with concern were around the purchases of things like 403.08 armor piercing rifle rounds at a cost

at the $1,500 while that number may be small the department already owns 120 rounds and during the

community engagement meetings had no recollection of every using those rounds and the first place

or within last 10 years. There's also a request for nine uncrewed aerial systems at a cost of

$55,000 even though there are currently 74 uncrewed aerial system units in the department's inventory.

One of the requested brands cost as much as $6,300 per unit without and there currently is no

explanation for why the department needs seven of those units units. Also wanted to note there are

in the acquisition requests 54 flashbang mini bang grenades that are being requested despite

already owning 52 of the specific category and this the department already possesses 90 flashbangs

which were only used approximately 11 times or I actually believe it was close to nine times

the last year based on our previous review but this speaks to concern in one of our previous years

recommendations where we expressly call recommended a upper limit on how much of each equipment item

the department should be allowed to possess. Another one being the 4,000 less lethal super shock

beam bag shotgun rounds for $25,000 over $25,000 which the even though the department already owns

1500 of those and only reported 31 uses in the in the reporting year.

So one of the things we also note is that year after year the department

often fails to provide objective evidence that might show the necessity of this equipment

and what situations it might be required in but it doesn't it also doesn't prove the safety

benefits enjoyed by civilian residents that are unquestionably enjoyed by officers.

And based on our analysis in the annual uses data we noted that out of the 205,000 calls for

service and officer initiated calls SPD deployed military equipment for less than one percent of those

324 incidents and out of 210 military equipment use incidents where SPD was able to identify a person

53% involved black or African American residents which is currently comprised less than just

12% of the city population and among those 109 incidents where black residents were subjected to

arrest 40% were between the ages of 14 and 24 meaning this is being used against a significant

portion of our youth population here in Sacramento.

So a quick overview of some of the 2022 recommendations that we put out the department has come

a long way in approving at least some of these such as adding specific language to prohibit purchase

and acquisition of usage of equipment that is banned by the federal government as well as

increasing demographic reporting to provide more information about where it was used,

who it was used against and the context that it was used.

We also includes more a clearer catalog. We were appreciated the reporting, the annual report

providing a more streamlined list of its equipment inventory as well as the reported data chart

where lists each equipment that was used along with the incidents. This is this is very helpful

there are still outstanding ones such as we're requiring written just from the justifications in

each annual military equipment usage report to provide context for why the equipment is necessary

in its inventory in the first place. And we do appreciate having written language that clearly

designated independent oversight authority to the office of public safety accountability and

inspector general as well as the police reviewed commission but some of that language could be

a little bit clearer as to how the what roles these particular entities actually play within

the review the annual review as well as compliance of the military equipment use policy.

So again I'm going to skip through the 2023 committee based recommendations to really get to

the core of the matter but just to note one of the things that we included in was also establishing

a formal standardized process for soliciting community input and incorporating feedback into

annual updates of the department's military equipment use policy. And that includes clear timelines

for opening the police department's community survey and hosting at least more like more than one

community input form which one of the recommendations also that could correlate with this is city council

members hosting annual community input forums around policing initiatives based on the strong

desire that community members have expressed each year since 2022 to engage more in general

policing policies beyond just military put things. So this year for our 2024 recommendations we

reproduced the commission produced eight recommendations based on community feedback. Among those was

reinstating language in the purpose and policy sections as well as restoring the philosophy section

to general to the general order 410.06 which was previously approved by city council in 2023.

I believe one of the reasons that we noted in terms of

the department's efforts to make the policy more compliant more transparent by using less legal

jargon and more plain speak we're worried we're concerned that the department's over corrected

a bit by removing this statement and shortening others potentially undermining these efforts. So

this is why we are recommending to restore the original language to maintain transparency and uphold

the department's commitment to community. Are the recommendation includes to require SPD to list

the current quantity and ongoing per units as well as approved situations for use restrictions

and total annual cost of the department policy which were previously listed in policies going up to

2023 but this year's policy it was split between between the annual court and the policy itself

which we noted as you know the current quantities for each item of the military equipment was

removed from the general order but listed in the annual report but the annual report is not listed

within the general order itself on its policy and procedures page so it doesn't it wouldn't provide

us the total quantities for the public to ultimately find without having to do through pages.

Of the city's website also community members and noted authorized uses and approved sections were

removed from the general order and replaced with statements that refers to general orders and the

reference manuals listed on the city's web page. As stated in previous recommendations we expect

AB41 to be the floor and office ceiling of compliance and information especially when it comes to

approved situations and authorized usage are critical for transparency and independent oversight

to ensure SPD's compliance. Fortunately the department has already provided this information in

prior versions as well as across multiple documents and it should be very easy to simply reformat

the pages and put that information back in just as we highlight here within the current policy itself.

Recommendation number three included amending the section C to add verbatim language of AB41 to

specify the minimum requirements for city council to approve its military equipment use policy.

While we provide the recommended language we do want to note that this language was included

within the 2023 version and we are simply requesting that it be added back into it.

As the government body of the city council responsibility as well to get answers to the

pertinent questions and we think having it directly in this policy as you are reviewing it will allow

will prompt the department to sufficiently explain how it complies with the state laws minimum

requirements. Next slide is recommendation number four where we are requesting or we are recommending

that the department add cleared accessible definitions for each type of military equipment in general

order 410.06 including kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents using the following language

that we provide. It is listed in other general orders reference and it's a first amendment assembly

manual but the commission believes that assembly bill 4848 should be referenced directly in its

general and its military equipment use policy which includes defining what these terms ultimately

mean as there are several items listed in its inventory right now. And apart from AB41

we are also recommending that we also noted that SP doesn't provide a reference to assembly

bill 48 to limit the use of kinetic energy projectiles such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds

as well as chemical agents such as tear gas even those such weapons are classified as military

equipment by state law. So we are also requesting that it be added as under authorized usage

to make clear clear distinction which are currently referenced in reference manual 532 the

first amendment assembly manual so that it's very clear that these weapons cannot be used to

this first amendment activities unless it makes a required checklist as listed here also on this

first amendment assembly manual. Recommendation number six we two of the four minimum requirements

under AB41 state that the city council only approve a written M.U. policy if the equipment is

necessary because there is no reasonable alternative and the proposed equipment will safeguard

this public's welfare safety civil rights and civil liberties and of course cost effectiveness.

And during the approval process SPD did not provide any detailed rationale or justifications for

why the department needs its current stock of military equipment or how the equipment will

simultaneously achieve both officer and civilian safety but also safeguarding the public civil rights

and civil liberties. And therefore we are reinforcing the recommendation and really calling for

very specific questions to be asked namely that SPD provide written justifications and a question

air format for any proposed purchase of military equipment detailing why it is necessary in the

current fiscal year as well as any alternatives considered cost effectiveness and how it aligns

with the assembly bill for E1's minimum requirements and it should be included as a standalone section

of its annual use report as well as any staff reports which for that particular military item should

they ultimately decide to request that equipment and wanting to note that in previous years that

they have noted that this equipment may or may not be purchased but given the state laws requirements

that this equipment has to be necessary as well as cost effective it would seem to defeat the

purpose if it's simply being requested on a potential basis rather than an absolute necessity.

Recommendation number seven calls for requiring the annual use report to use comparative reporting

and analysis regarding the uses trends of its military equipment alongside its demographic

reporting and data and the measure like measurable data for comparative analysis we included was total

number of times each equipment was used as well as and as well as munitions used along with total

numbers of uses for each type of military equipment by demographics. The department may already be

keeping this information but we're simply asking for it to be added into the annual report

in a more detailed format so that we can actually track this from year to year to really measure

the impacts of this of this use policy and military equipment used in general. So this is something

that the department has continued in this. Lastly number eight is the record we are also calling

for the department to establish a clear timeline. We're calling for the city really to establish

a clear timeline with specific dates for annual military inventory as well as usage reporting

community engagement and approval process for the department's military equipment that flows

with the calendar year. Beginning in 2025 is what we're recommending which we understand that

the city attorney and SPD will need to likely discuss this and how it may comply with

government code section 770 which is AB 41 but while the code sets the timeframe for approving

along for enforcement agencies written policy after May 2022,

is something before the 41 doesn't actually mention anything about the mayor or city council

establishing a new timeline for the annual process to better align with the city's existing

processes and procedures. Since AB 41 came into effect the annual process for

counting reporting and reviewing has often left many Sacramento residents as well as members of

the city council feeling rushed as well as frustrated with the short amount of time we have to

process a lot of this complex information. So while we have emphasized the need for more time

to adequately assess and the department has been trying in order to allow us more time to consider

the impacts of this equipment use in Sacramento neighborhoods, we are recommending that it be

shipped so that the reporting period begins on December 1st and ends on November 30th where as to

allow the department to begin its annual count of its military equipment inventory before the end

of the year so that the process can be wrapped up by the beginning of the next year and then with

many months in advance to really think through and assess the data that it has including

an military equipment usage and any proposed policy changes and acquisitions. The annual report

could be submitted to the police review commission prior to publish it. The report in public so that

we as a as your advisory body for reviewing these policies and practices have time to actually

assess the policy before we have to engage in the community engagement process. Once we have

discussed that during our public meetings as a commission it would then be taken up in April where

the draft would be finalized and we would ultimately be able to confirm when the period for

a community engagement may begin and when the policy will ultimately be published.

Then with during over the summer from May through July 31st which also includes the city's

annual budgeting cycle the commission can have time to host and facilitate annual community engagement

meetings as approved as like you know as approved by the full commission and then have enough time

within those three months to be able to complete our analysis and report as well as recommendations

to submit to council no later than the end of July. This would then allow the commission

annual engagement report in submit to city council through law and legislation committee so that

you can review both reports with enough lead time into the fall months in September and October 31st

where the department then presents its annual military commemissive report policy changes

proposed acquisitions to your body as well as to the full city council so that then the city council

may have finally discussed and approve the policy no later than the end of October.

So that is the end of our presentation and really just to note you know the goals ultimately

within this year's community engagement report as well as recommendations for really to restore

transparency and do you provide detailed equipment use costs for the for the public to consider as well

as incorporate AB 41 requirements and just and as well as enhance annual reporting. With that

I will end that is the end of my presentation I turn back over to the council.

Great thank you chair Bliss and thank you and the rest of the commission for working so hard

to turn around recommendations so quickly and for colleagues remember their meeting was last

Monday so they turned all of the surrounding a week is volunteers so I want to appreciate all of

you for your input on this item and quick what we please call for public comments. Thank you chair

we have six speakers if you can line up behind the podium as your name is called first is Karen

followed by brown powers then John for IIS Morales. Thank you. I am here today to ask the

law and legislation committee to please support and approve the military equipment use recommendations

as it is recommended by the police. The equipment that the police department is requesting is

necessary to enhance officer safety respond to high risk situations and can neutralize threats

more effectively. For instance specialized vehicles like the bearcat and the rook can protect

officers during active shooter incidents hostage rescues domestic violence situations and peaceful

protests that turn into violent riots. In addition this equipment may be needed to counter heavily

armed criminals who possess firearms capable of piercing standard police armor.

Lastly the equipment can also act as a deterrent against armed criminals but not only is it important

to have this equipment for the police officer's safety it's necessary to have this equipment for

the safety of the citizens who live in Sacramento if our police department lacked the essential

equipment needed they may struggle to effectively protect the community. The last thing I want to see

happen is to see our police department at a significant disadvantage when facing criminals.

I would imagine that all of you at some point have spoken to victims of domestic violence or

victims were hostage situations around Sacramento so you know that not one of those victims that were

rescued are helped by the police have said wow I wish the police did not have all the equipment to

help me. I can't imagine living in a city where our police department does not have the tools that

they need to keep the public safe. If our police department does not get the equipment they need the

criminals will feel emboldened and the residents will feel unsafe. I've said this before and I will

say it again my friends my neighbors the police excuse me the people that I meet and who live in my

neighborhood and around Sacramento want a well-funded well-trained and well-equipped police department.

Thank you and my 10 seconds left I will say I hope that you guys all look at the e-comments that

were submitted the majority of those do support with the police recommend thank you. Thank you for

your comments. Our next speaker is Brian Powers followed by John Morales thank Christine Harajers.

Good morning council members my name is Brian Powers. I support an environment in the city of Sacramento

where all residents can be as safe as possible and I think a key to that is a well-armed well-trained

well-funded police department. I believe that in almost every instance police officers in the

city of Sacramento treat people that they come into contact with with respect when it's

marited and with the proper amount of force when it's needed. I don't believe that the Sacramento

Police Department or its officers are racist or militaristic and that is I'm sorry to say

from my point of view the implication that I get from the comments that were made earlier this

morning and from when I attended the police review commission meeting last week.

I think that a lot of the objection is not to the report but to a subjective feeling that people

have to the use of the word military or the style of the equipment. I'm no expert but just taking

drones for example which by definition is military equipment under AB481 that's a very useful

tool for the police department because it can get to the scene of a crime quickly before the

officers are there evaluated and assist in identifying the people that need to be identified as

the perpetrators. It protects the residents it protects the officers so it's a useful tool.

So I support the continued use by the Sacramento Police Department of what AB481 defines as

military equipment. I ask you to assure the use of military equipment can continue and please

vote yes to forward the ordinance any annual military equipment report to the City Council.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is John Morales.

I live in East Sacramento and I support the police having the equipment they need to protect the

community, protect the council members and ultimately allow police officers to return home safely

after doing their job. The police should be able to return safely to their homes and families

every day the defender's safety. In June 2019 officer Tara Osalovan was shot and killed while

protecting a domestic violence victim. This is a machine gun that was used on the police and a lot

of the equipment is used in domestic violence incidents. The equipment was used in Lenn Park.

There was a perpetrator who was arrested according to your own documents from the police arrested

for felony fire, armed possession, felony domestic violence and violating a domestic violence

restraining order. The perpetrators and the victims were both black. In December 2017 over 217

machine guns were secured by the police in a meadowview home. We expect the police to address

these issues but they need the proper equipment. In November 2022 a council member was terrorized by

a stalker who threatened to murder the council member. The stalker was barricaded and barricaded

himself in his mother's home at 30th Street in East Sacramento. The SWAT team waited hours but

ultimately used flashbang grenades to smoke out the stalker. The council member can now go home

every single night but the police who helped her also deserve to go home every night. I support

the military equipment for the police. In April 2022 there was a mass shooting downtown. Six people

were killed. Twelve people injured. Most were African-American but the black population is only 11%

of the community but over 50% of the victims. The military equipment protects victims from perpetrators

and in your report your demographic. Thank you for your comment. Your time is now complete.

Our next speaker is Kristina Rogers. Follow Diane Rosenblum. Then Rick Stevenson.

Good morning city council or commission. Okay first of all the chair of the police community review

commissions. The police have had enough equipment but he does not seem to understand that much of

it is already obsolete. Tech change is quickly and SACPD has to keep up with the technology that

is available at the moment. I support the request for so-called military equipment which I understand

is actually the US military doesn't use. For instance the request for purchasing armor, piercing

bullets. My first question is who is wearing armor piercing bullets if not the police. If someone's

wearing armor and walking to my kids school with guns or other weapons which is currently possible

these days with the school shootings I want law enforcement to have these bullets and if anyone is

wearing armor and taking hostages in any situation I want police to be fully equipped too. It

doesn't mean they'll need to use these bullets but if a situation arises they should have them.

Also during the 2020 riots in downtown SAC my family had to remain home my kids didn't get

to go to school. We're told we're not free to go wherever we wanted yet at night I could hear

helicopters downtown dealing with protesters that were actually rioters who apparently were

free to do what they liked and I saw the aftermath of those riots. Looted businesses, monuments

and buildings spray painted broken glass and garbage everywhere and some businesses never fully

recovered and closed for good. So if there are violent riots being planned again and we know this

fall is going to be a very contentious election I want my officers fully equipped and able to handle

those who seek to destroy our businesses and public spaces. Also the use of drones is essential in

these situations many protesters hide their identities behind black clothing and mask they

broke car windows and vandalized properties we know police can't be everywhere so drones can help

identify follow and hopefully help in the arrest of people who want to destroy property and because

our city is down by 100 officers this technology can help our people help with people wandering

our neighborhoods we have a rise in car breakings in neighborhood vandalism in the middle of night

and we're drawn to keep track of those trying to thank you for your comments your time is not

complete our next speaker is Diane Rosenblum followed by Rick Stephenson.

Hi I represent myself as a resident of district seven and also represent the human rights

organization Amnesty International. We appreciate that this military equipment use policy has been

simplified in many ways but unfortunately it was stripped of some of the required and important

aspects having approved uses listed in the military equipment use policy is basic and also

required. This year instead of listing authorized uses and purposes for use where the public can

easily see them in the use policy. Sac PD simply references a large number of city general

orders and reference manuals this is the opposite of transparency AB481 clearly states that the

policy must include the purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency

proposes to use each type of military equipment if a member of the public or of city government

wants to see the rules for these potentially dangerous pieces of equipment they have to look

up each one of these general orders or reference manuals or federal or state regulations that are

referenced then find the section in these documents that might relate to the particular equipment

several of the reference manuals referred to for such information are heavily redacted keeping

the public from seeing the relevant information chemical agents manual bomb squad manual for instance

are heavily redacted you receive some printed in from examples of how accepted uses and purposes

for use are listed now as compared to last year and also compared to other similar size cities

less insist on making it less murky for both police officers and the public avoid messy

litigation and be transparent as possible this needs to be done this year not wait until revisions

next year thank you thank you for your comments our last speaker is Rick Stevenson

I have a simple concept it's better to own things and not use it then need it and not have it

and the fact I fired ammunition that was made in world war one the shelf life of this stuff last

a long time so if there's a good deal buy it now and you may not need it for the next 20 years but

it can still be there I mean it's this is like insurance it's not foolish to have insurance if

you didn't file a claim last year because you don't know what's going to happen this year or the

following year this is all insurance and I think it's wise for frankly I can name some pieces of

military equipment the city got from the US Army before world war two that I think they still

own so and I don't think it's on the inventory here by the way anyway just it's better to have it

and not need it than to need it and not have it thank you thank you for your comments that was

our last speaker great thank you I'm Clark and thank you everybody who came to make comments

so to remind your colleagues on the timing here and we need to get this done by September 5th

which means we need to move it to council fairly quickly I do want to reiterate the police

commissions recommendation which I know we've talked about which is it would be great to have

the community meeting a little earlier have the commission have time to do recommendations before

it comes to law and ledge so that we have time to deliberate all of it together so we're not kind

of in this crunch you know because it doesn't leave a lot of room for us to be able to suggest

changes but I will say colleagues and I'm curious for your thoughts I mean I feel like a lot

of the recommendations are pretty clear and straightforward as was mentioned by the commission chair

a lot of this was stuff that was in last year's report that was just missing in this year's report and

so I think it's correct probably to say that we might have over corrected in our quest to make

this simpler to read for the public and so maybe it's a matter of going back to a little bit of

that prior language and just making sure we're cross referencing and reiterating things so that

if someone just looks at this annual report they kind of understand what the equipment is and where it's at

I will say that one thing that's just missing from this report that I thought was really useful

is the usage numbers for per equipment it wasn't the prior reports and you did send us that chart

yesterday which was helpful but it wasn't exactly like apples to apples like they were counted a

little differently this year than they were in the prior report so I couldn't really tell like

it looked like chemical equipment for instance was used more frequently but maybe it wasn't and maybe

I was just misreading the chart so I think making sure that we have a report that someone could

look at year to year and be able to compare okay this went up this went down some of it went down

which is great you know we didn't need it as often but it looks like some of it went up and that

would be important for for us I think as policymakers to understand why are we using this more

frequently what are the circumstances so that we can better understand what what the police are

seeing in the field but those are some of just my initial thoughts I'm curious to hear and I do

want to reiterate what we said at the last meeting that I really do appreciate the progress that's

been made I see the effort that you all made to try to make this clear to incorporate the comments

that we received last year the comments that the council gave you in the prior two years so I want

to appreciate that but as I mentioned I think we over did it and simplifying a little bit and so

I appreciate the police commission being able to come forward with so many specific points that

are missing so go ahead vice-marry maple thank you chair and I'll keep this brief just because I know

we've got a really packed agenda today and this is going to move forward to the full council

in the quick timeline that we have but I just want to really appreciate not only the department

for always being willing to come to the table to it's an iterative process as we get feedback from

these community meetings from folks who come here today from people who write into us we're always

going to be improving so I just appreciate that effort to make sure that we're doing that I also

want to appreciate all the the community members who are part of the commission because they're input

and feedback makes things better too and so I just wanted to put that out there this is a lot a lot

of hard work many hours of work between all the parties involved and I think that's great I'm

not going to ask for it now because I know I think the letter came was it yesterday the day before

from the police review commission just because of timing and some of that is out of our hands it's

part of the state law and the way that things are structured but I would love for when this goes

to the full council I'd love to hear not only obviously the the recommendations from the police

review commission be heard by the full council but also any reactions that that you have chief

or other members of the police department just so that we can hear from you do these make sense

do they not or the things that are already implemented or not that way we have as wide open as we

make decisions on this that would be my request thank you thank you very much councilmember Guerra

thank you very much chair first I want to thank you know chief laster for her time in this and also

chair bliss from the commission and to quote his words I think I would agree with them there's

the departments come a long way on this and the fact that the amount of time that's been

doing the community outreach engaging with the neighbors being available for these conversations

is also partly why we're up against this timeline here so and and I I've had spent a lot of time

with the department to understand these issues I know there's concerns on some of the formatting but

again this goes maybe on perspective because when I looked at the new 2024 format I found it

easier to read and for so for me and and maybe you know the that's easier for me than when I'm

looking for information then going through two or three pages of of the the 2023 format so I so

again so maybe that some of this is stuff that needs to get teased out but I might be on the

perspective but I actually found this more um I'll take the easier to find out what we need to do

I'm not interested in making any changes at the moment here although I would say that some of

these uh and I'd like to hear from the chief you know when we get to council some of these are

clarifying they're the they're more of putting in language that's already in state statute again

we don't want to over if you make a document so big that the public doesn't even read it then

then what does it matter if the law is the law is then then we need to follow that so I think that's

my concern in in making this too much of a of a large document when we already know the statute

but I would like the department to ask uh ask that and some of these recommendations are actually

look like there might be good accounting practices for the future and and so um you know without

prejudice I'd like to see you know are those uh those practices in and how we format but I actually

prefer the way that the department has moved forward this this new presentation on this design um

maybe that's my engineering training but that's easier for me to see so with that uh chair I'll go

ahead and move the uh the the staff report as is to the council and I know we're on a timeline here

so I do want to thank the commission for their their their work on this so quickly and I think

uh recommendation eight speaks to the point that finding a better a better timeline makes it easier

for everyone to be able to work to make sure that we're meeting our statutory requirements and not

everyone is rushed both our department or the community but I do think again um you know um the

chief has gone a long way in and putting something together I think the comments here uh that were

made on technology or right on there are new ways new methodologies of of how we can support the

community um and using the those new technologies I think are going to help us both protect the

community the officers uh and then also have better uh uh better outcomes and efficiency and then

finally I just again uh as a board member for the family justice center I know the chief has been

involved a lot with the family justice center um these efforts have gone a long way in addressing

some of the unfortunate and hostage situations that have happened in domestic violence situations

particularly in my district so I appreciate that work and with that I'll move the out of manager

I'm not sure I'm not sure yeah thank you council member does that include the direction to

I'm include a commission presentation as well as the police response to their recommendations um

sure I mean we've we've had this already so yeah but maybe it's like the council

commission presentation yeah all right great thank you vice chair Jennings uh thank thank you uh

I'll second the uh the um motion on the table um I don't want to repeat everything that's

already been said I just want to make sure that as we go through this process um that we

increase our transparency and that we're in compliance with state law and that we have continuous

improvement and I think that's what we're seeing is happening but I just want to make sure that

we're always focused on continuous improvement with everything that everybody wants you not

can all get it at one time but over time we may be able to move to something that satisfies

everybody and so I just want to see that happen I want to put that on the table as far as

continuous improvement in compliance with state law and transparency that everyone can see

well said vice chair as usual um so yeah we have a lot of work to do I think some of this usage

data that shows disproportionality among young people among black people is really upsetting but

this is how we get better is by having the data out there and continuing to have those discussions so

I will so the motion on the table is to pass on to council um with the direction to include a

commission presentation on the recommendation as well as the departments response to those

recommendations in their presentation I see it's all the chief nodding back there so I'll take

that as a thumbs up all right um all in favor please say aye aye a name stain and I pose that passes

unanimously thank you very much all right we will probably hear that in the next week or so so

we'll be back um okay so moving right along to item five another big one interim ordinance to

broaden the range of housing types permitted also known as the missing middle housing interim

ordinance well new and please come up to present to us thank you

okay ready good morning chair valenzuela and members of the law and legislation committee

I am new in new in from long range planning um after countless meetings many hours of community

outreach and three years of collaborative work status please to present to you the missing

middle housing interim ordinance I'll start with the field slides to provide a recap of the effort

and cover the main components of the ordinance the recommendations from the planning

commission and from staff respectively and then I'll wrap up with the adoption schedule and next steps

as one of the general plans key adopted city policies the missing middle strategy has been the

subject intensive two and a half year study this study identified zoning changes needed for the city

to thoughtfully allow a greater array of housing types in our traditional single unit neighborhoods

as shown on this map over the course of the last few years residents have been clear about their

parties including protecting the existing tree canopy ensuring feasibility for builders and

attainability for residents making sure to leave enough outdoor space for shade trees and the

enjoyment of new residents and also important was ensuring compatibility with the size and scale

of our existing neighborhoods the development of this ordinance was shaped by the collective voices

of the community members over the last few years and it strives to find a balance among these

competing parties which was no easy task as you see reflected in the complexity of this ordinance

you might recall that in November last year city council directed staff to revise the proposed

general plan to ensure that a maximum floor area ratio or FAR for short about least two it's

allowed in areas within a half mile walking distance of high quality transit the city council also

directed staff to proceed with an approach that regulates the building form through FAR and

development standards found in the planning and development code including setback height and

bowl control requirements with the understanding that the overall size and scale was important to

residents both direct issue council are reflected in the recently adopted 2040 general plan and have

also been carried through to this interim ordinance this un codified ordinance will allow by right

neighborhood scale duplex and multi unit dwellings as well as small single unit dwellings and small

lots in the R1 R1A R1B in R2 zones at the planning and design commission on May 9th staff presented a

draft framework outlining the various standards addressed the key community parties mentioned before

staff received feedback that the built form standards particularly setback lock coverage and

bowl control were potentially limiting the economic feasibility of larger missing middle projects

of six or more units based on this input and further analysis several revisions were made to the

framework and shared with the community in June most of these revisions as highlighted in the red

text focus specifically on sites within a half mile walking distance of transit where the general

plan allows for an increased development intensity indicated by a maximum FAR of two or more

staff believes that these revisions adequately resolves concerns related to economic feasibility

most of the provisions have not changed from the may framework so I will try to keep the

presentation concise and focus on what did change within these three components

starting with built form this component is intended to ensure human scale design that's

compatible with the neighborhood context throughout the course of this initiative staff has defined

missing middle as being neighborhood scale typically between one to two and a half stories with

a half story being a finished attic space that may be expanded with dormers housing types larger

in size are currently allowed in the city's multi unit dwelling commercial and mixed use zones

which are often found near the urban core and along commercial corridors as shown in yellow text

lock coverage has been removed from the ordinance increasing flexibility and significantly reducing

complexity additionally the setback and bulk control standards have been relaxed in areas where

the general plan allows a maximum FAR of two which as I mentioned earlier indicates proximity to

transit relaxing these two standards were intended to allow more variety of housing types such as

six plexus or eight plexus near transit under the 2040 general plan FAR has replaced maximum density

limits as the standard used to regulate development intensity ratio or percentage FAR is an

effective tool to restrict the total building square footage that is allowed proportional to the

size of the lot to clarify it is not a tool intended to regulate the form or appearance of a building

FAR is further restricted by the sliding FAR scale which limits how big a single unit dwelling

can be while granting increments of additional building area proportionally to a number of

proposed units on a lot the existing height limit of 35 feet will continue to apply

the key revisions to highlight here is the removal of lock coverage which has been replaced by setback

and open space requirements designed to work together to ensure that adequate outdoor space is

provided on site this slide shows that required setbacks in FAR of one areas which remain unchanged

from the previous framework the revisions will be highlighted in the next slide for the sake of

time the key thing I'd like to highlight here is that the proposed setback requirements in areas

with an effort of one which is the majority of the city's neighborhoods have been more or less

carried over from the existing city code requirements with the exception of the allowed building

projection in the front and street side setbacks which essentially allows the building to project

into the street facing setbacks if the front porch is provided and meets the city's criteria

this slide highlights the revisions that were made to the setback requirements in FAR of two areas

the street side setback has been reduced to five feet from 12 and a half feet the rear setback

has been reduced from 10 feet from 15 feet and the front setback can now be 50 sorry the front

set setback can now be 12 and a half feet or less if the adjacent buildings have established a

shorter front setback these revisions were made to permit a larger building footprint which is the

approach taken by staff to allow additional units on these sites responding to the input that we

have received in other words the ordinance allows the building footprint to spread out horizontally

on the lot rather than go up vertically but still provides the same additional square footage

that would help make these projects economically feasible

bokehntrow will be the focus of the next few slides as originally proposed the bokehntrow

standards are intended to comfortably allow two stories of vertical wall the goal of bokehntrow

is that help reduce building volume on the third floor of the structure which helps to ensure

a neighborhood scale and avoid conflicts with adjacent properties around access to air privacy and

sunlight whether it's for a bedroom window or for solar panels on a neighboring roof in simpler

terms the idea is the higher up the building goes the more the building volume would need to be pushed

back away from the neighboring properties in response to recent feedback staff removed the

restriction on the allowed length of dormers that extend outside of the bokehntrow envelope

for sites within walking distance of transit to provide more usable square footage on the third floor

i'd also like to note that bokehntrow would not be required on properties that are not

a located adjacent to existing single unit or duplex dwellings bokehntrow helps achieve context

sensitive info design as the city continues to collaborate with the community to streamline

housing production here's a visual illustration of the setback floor air ratio and bokehntrow

standards working together as they are designed to do to ensure the appropriate scale in every missing

middle project at the city reviews this illustration shows a six units of fourplex plus two accessory

dwelling units on a lot in land park to help those of us who are visual learners like myself

we selected a real vacant site in the city located within a traditional single family neighborhood

and is about 65 hundred square feet in size to illustrate what a two and a half story building could

look like in the pocket neighborhood even with bokehntrow our analysis shows that on this parcel the

ordinance would allow up to 1.4 FAR and could fit up to 11 units each about 820 square foot in size

note that the height of the ridge of the roof is the full 35 feet that is allowed by the ordinance

but because slope roofs because slope roofs and dormers are used potential impact on the adjacent

properties are minimized by keeping the structure neighborhood scale here's the same property

without bokehntrow restrictions showing a 1.5 FAR structure without could accommodate 12 units

each about 8 hours worth of it what is being shown is essentially a three story commercial building

which staff does not consider to be neighborhood scale the walls shown in this model are 35 feet high

and essentially maxes out what is allowed by the ordinance with bokehntrow removed also important

to note that with state housing laws the city is now limited in the types of controls that could

be used to ensure neighborhood scale subjective design guidelines are no longer an option and the

state has been clear that only objective standards such as height FAR and bokehntrow can be used if

bokehntrow is removed the city will lose one of the final remaining objective standards that could

be used to ensure neighborhood scale also want to share that one of the challenging aspects of

developing this ordinance was coming up with a framework that could work in existing neighborhoods

across the entire city which as you know can be very different from one another ranging from the

more rural roeble community in the north to the urban neighbors near the center of the city to the

most suburban metal view community to the south acknowledging that Sacramento would be the first city

in California to implement this bold policy staff is bringing forward an interim ordinance that will

provide a chance for the city to assess the ordinance's effectiveness and how it would be used

as an interim ordinance the city has the opportunity to modify and enhance based on lessons learned

over the next year as staff continues work on the comprehensive update to title 17 for consistency with

the general plan i now briefly cover the component uh the next component of the ordinance which relates

to trees and open space as the city of trees naturally many residents expressed concerns around the

loss of mature trees and the loss of space for new shade trees to be planted as originally proposed

projects will be required now to plant a straight a street shading tree set back encroachment will

also be allowed if doing so helps to preserve an existing mature tree or provide additional room to

accommodate larger tree species um for brevity i will focus on what has changed from the previous

framework related to open space the takeaway here is that the open space requirement has been

reduced to 75 square feet per unit in f-a-r-2 areas which helps to address economic feasibility concerns

open spaces also allowed to overlap with the setback areas as long as tree shading is provided

in design criteria met including a larger minimum dimension which will expand the number of tree

species that could be supported key provisions to address the affordability and equity piece

which is the third component of the ordinance include encouraging smaller homes and small lots by

reducing the minimum lot size which staff hopes can help the market to provide more entry level

home ownership opportunities the ordinance also includes restrictions to protect vulnerable

residents and preserve existing low cost housing stock by establishing findings of fact to ensure

that the project doesn't result in less units than what is existing or in the demolition of

regulated affordable units or units that were occupied by tenants within the past year the

sliding f-a-r-scale helps to encourage smaller more attainable by design units by granting

additional building area for every unit proposed and also by limiting how big a new single unit dwelling

can be while more supply of market rate housing will bring many households closer to attainable

it alone is not the solution. Staff acknowledges that there is a racial wealth gap and that missing

middle will be less attainable to black and brown households additional incentives or subsidies

for regulated affordable housing are needed to make missing middle attainable for all racial and ethnic

groups. When you're at the end after today's Law and Legislation Committee meeting staff will

be taking the ordinance to city council on September 17th for its adoption an initial study has been

prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and is available for a 30 day

public review period that began on August 2nd and will conclude on September 3rd. The city aims to

begin accepting applications from neighborhood scale multi-unit development in mid-October.

To implement the 2040 general plan the city staff will be undertaking a more comprehensive update

to title 17 to implement several other general plan policies such as removing maximum densities

from all zoning districts and this interim ordinance will be folded into that larger effort which

is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2025. Staff will also evaluate several potential longer term

strategies identified by the study as detailed in the staff report. I would like to elaborate on one

strategy in a particular which is the local bonus program. If this ordinance is adopted as proposed

staff plans on exploring different options that could serve as a meaningful bonuses or incentives

that could help to build detestricted affordable units including concessions related to heights,

FER and of course, boat control. On August 8th staff presented the same interim ordinance to

the planning and design commission concerned about the impacts of boat control on the economic

feasibility of larger missing middle projects. The commission recommended a revision to the ordinance

so that the boat control standard would not apply to sites designated with the maximum

floor area ratio of two or greater by the general plan.

Second to last slide. Staff maintained that boat control is necessary to ensure

near-prote scale and recommending that the committee pass a motion forwarding the resolution

of environmental determination and the missing middle housing interim ordinance as proposed

to city council for consideration. With that I'm joined by Matt Hurdle, Assistant Director of

the community development department and Bruce Montigan, urban design manager to answer any questions.

Thank you. Great, thank you, Nguyen. I know that was a complicated presentation to get through.

I really appreciate the visual aids. I'm quick to be having public comment on this item.

Thank you, Chair. We have six speakers. Our first speaker is Liz Williams, followed by Desiree

and then Mark McKibbin.

Good morning. Almost after noon. Good morning, Chair, Longledge, Committee, City Staff. I'm here

today speaking on behalf of the Metro Chamber and the member businesses we represent and their

families and their employees that live in our city. We would like to applaud staff for making

tremendous strides and ensuring housing accessibility of all types continues to be a priority for

our communities. While we generally agree with staff's recommendation for the missing middle

interim ordinance, we are concerned by the proposed boat control standards and their unintended

consequences of causing desire projects to stall. Both control standards have the ability to add

upwards of 20% cost increase to a project which could be the tipping point for infeasibility

for the most affordable missing middle housing types. Let's not take a step backwards by

restricting more affordable housing types and high opportunity neighbourhoods. As we know,

increasing the supply of housing is the best way to decrease housing costs for our region.

In alignment with how Sacramento, we urge this committee to remove the boat control standards

from the missing middle housing ordinance and advance this to city council for adoption.

The Metro Chamber is eager to be engaged in this effort and available for collaboration.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for our comments. Our next speaker is Desiree,

followed by Mark McKibbin. Then Josh Okin. Hello, I'm Desiree Maniani, AIA Central Valley,

Executive Director, reading this statement today for the following architects in our chapter,

Paul Menard, Jackie Whitlam, Mike Malinowski, Jim Bob Kaufman, Jennifer Munoz, Peter Sosserman,

and Brian Seiner. We urge you to adopt the staff recommendation to allow neighbourhood

scale multifamily proposals to be accepted by the city before the end of the year and for the city

to start getting their localized data needed to prepare the title 17 planning and development

code update in 2025. The interim ordinance staff recommends is a workable start that will allow

us to get going. Alternate recommendations to remove boat control from the interim ordinance will

result in projects with 35 foot walls built directly next to single-story homes, the antithesis

of middle, middle, missing middle housing, where a range of multi-unit or clustered housing type

stay compatible in scale with neighboring single-family homes. The need for housing is dire,

but missing middle housing is not the only solution. Transforming aging commercial strips into

transit-oriented neighbourhood boulevards can radically quicken the pace of housing production

and underutilized office buildings can be adaptively reused. We don't dispute that the boat

control language and the ordinance would preclude missing middle housing types that have worked well

in other cities. We agree the boat control language needs work and that is why we and others

in our chapter have pledged to work with the city as this language is refined in the year ahead.

If you contemplate taking any action other than approving the staff recommendation,

please defer it so staff has time to evaluate the potential impacts and residents have the

opportunity to comment. Approve the staff recommendation or take a pause. Anything else will

weaken the community trust built in the intensive two-year effort by the city

to study and engage its residents as to how the city could thoughtfully permit a greater array

of housing types in their neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Our next speaker is

Mark McKibbin, followed by Josh Okan, the Matt McDonald.

Good morning members of the committee. My name is Mark McKibbin and I'm the

communications director for House Sacramento, a local group in Sacramento that advocates

for housing and ending homelessness in our city. Before the meeting I submitted to the committee

a packet of quotes from experts around the country discussing why boat control guidelines

increase the cost of building housing and make it more difficult for Sacramento to address

a housing affordability crisis. We are happy with the planning and design commissions compromise

to exempt far 2.0 areas within a half mile of transit from boat control guidelines but we would

like you as a committee to go further and exempt all missing middle areas in the city of Sacramento

from boat control guidelines. The aim of the planning and design commissions compromise

embrace it helps Sacramento embrace its deepest moral values and now I am asking you to embrace it.

Sacramento is already on the right track through our 2040 general plan and what I am asking you to do

is to continue down that track. We have come too far and we've accomplished too much to blink now.

With your help we can make Sacramento a place that rewards and encourages those with a big heart,

the desire to innovate and the courage and the will to embrace the challenges and opportunities

posed by a 21st century thriving municipal economy. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Josh O'Kenn, followed by Mac McDonald and Kate Riley.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Lawn Lodge committee. On behalf of SAR and our 7500 plus

members we express our continued support for missing middle housing interim ordinance.

The positive impacts that missing middle housing can have on our communities are building wealth,

attracting investment and diversifying housing options. Furthermore we support the planning and

design commissions recommendation to remove boat control in high transit areas. Thank you committee

and staff for your dedication to increasing housing opportunities. Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Matt McDonald, followed by Kate Riley.

Good morning. I'm Matt McDonald with the California Apartment Association.

Speaking in support of the effort to broaden the missing middle ordinance,

we thank staff for its many months of work on this issue and we are fully aware of the effort to

engage the various stakeholders and community members. The only way out of the housing crisis

is consistent increased supply and lowering the barriers for small property owners to expand

inventory by investing in their own properties is a crucial step.

The vast majority of our members in the city as well as statewide are small mom and pop owners

who more than anybody need a lower barrier to entry to expand and meet the demand for new housing.

We do urge you however to do whatever possible to lower barriers citywide not just in transit

oriented zones. A citywide policy that encourages missing middle investment is a much more powerful

tool for impacting the widespread supply change as Sacramento needs.

To the extent that state law allows a greater latitude in lowering barriers you should aggressively

pursue that and CA encourage this further discussion in that direction. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Our last speaker is Kate Riley.

I'm seeing some familiar faces from my old job in the legislature. I'm Kate Riley and I'm a volunteer advocate for

Theresa Sacramento and I know many of you. We are interested in tree canopy as a public health issue not as an amenity

and we really appreciate the efforts of staff responding to this community to say to get to the

point where we're planting trees with these units. So we would hope that you guys would consider

possibly even strengthening it even further and we did submit some amendments. One of the key

elements we think is missing and we understand it's complex but because of this issue of objective

standards we believe that tree canopy should be made an objective standard and we think that can

happen. It may be premature in this particular interim ordinance but we believe that ultimately

there needs to be a metric for tree canopy as an objective standard and we were hoping to have

additional setbacks for existing and planted trees but the key thing too is we want to make sure

that there's an understanding that this will be an interim ordinance and it sounds like there's

an understanding that would be in effect for a year. I don't know but you know at working the

legislature we always did have a sunset clause. I don't know if the city does that kind of thing but

we actually have a date certain in the legislature and I appreciate all the work that's been done by

the community and by the council so thanks for listening. Thank you for your comment. That was

our last speaker. Great thank you everybody who came to make comments will now turn it over to

the committee starting with councilmember Gara. Thank you very much. You know the councilman

of violence with a mentor and wanted to first of all thank everyone for their consistent work on

this and this has as I was mentioned earlier this has been more than actually two years. We've

been working on this I was going to say probably six years now and you know I want to thank our city

staff when when and Matt hurdle and everyone and Greg and who've been involved in this for a long

time to get to the point where we've looked at zoning at a different way and through that zoning

process and the general plan process we made some very very strong commitments and also

you know add very high objectives of what we wanted to accomplish here and I think our general

plan that's why our staff and our team have received so much recognition now nationally for the work

in creating that and in that process we consistently talked to the community about look the general

plan is part of it the design standards and those ordinance in those in that process are a second

part of it to making sure that we were moving quickly but not hastily that we were making sure we

were making taking action that we're going to build more housing supply in needed areas like our

commercial corridors but also at the same time make sure that they are part of the community they

blend with the community and and that continue to to ensure that that we have that character that

people love about Sacramento and so you know I'm very excited about where we are here today and I

wanted to thank the staff and all of the partners that have been engaged from the beginning housing

Sacramento our neighborhood groups are land use committees that have been created throughout the

city because I remember when I was started on the County Planning Commission you didn't have

neighborhood associations with land use committees you know it was hard to get people to talk about

you know land use issues and and even then back then this was in 2013 when I chaired the County

Planning Commission pushing density was the biggest fight now density is recognized as an important

aspect but it's how we push density that is I think the key here so a couple things I wanted to

one is to say to staff one number one thank you for working on an appropriate size on bull control

I think bull control is important to make sure that as a project moves and fits in the neighborhood

that that it that it doesn't take away and from that area and it also increases density so

and the fact that you added more to the backhand and and as mentioned in the staff report also if

there isn't a single family dwelling adjacent or a duplex then that that bull control restriction

doesn't apply because then that gives us more latitude but that's a good example of where

where what they you showed were it it's necessary and what we're looking at today is passing an

ordinance that would create a by-right situation now for those that want to say well you know we

should be able to build just a big box I just want to say there is a process for that we have a

deviation process so if your neighbors are there already and no one is objecting to the issue

and you feel that this project can fit in that manner then we do have a deviation process

to be able to go through that but for a by-right situation this is one of the most important things

that we have to say is this is our final standard to making sure that things match and I want to

you know show an example that if without these standards on bull control the project on on that

that had over a hundred units on T and Stockton Boulevard would have would have looked to Zasheh

would look like the monster of a square box that we had there when the AT&T building was there

the Pac-Bell building actually was there but now when that project came to council there wasn't

objection from the community the community was engaged in the design they're engaged in making

sure that it blended and I think that's how we need to move forward is making sure that as we

design more density it's going with each unique community every when you're when you're in west

Tahoe Park it's different than if you're building over down in south colonial heights every

community has a little point there which leads me to my next point here so one to say thank you

on that piece on on the setbacks I do have a concern and we talked about this on the setbacks and

I'm not going to change them or ask to change it I'm going to move the staff report as is but

here's a couple concerns on the setbacks at 12 and a half feet it it really restricts in my opinion

how we look at tree canopy on the front side of a building and and I appreciate the ability to

use the maximum amount of space on that property by 12 and a half feet I think that that has a

concern now I've talked to staff said that they've made enough research on the a variety of trees

whether they be value yolks who that need a lot more space or the the new hybrid elms that

that meet certain community characters so that's important because I want to make sure that we

have also enough canopy space what's it what I do like about this so that's my concern on on that

on that aspect but what I do like about this is the first time through a general plan that we

actually have an open space requirement because what we don't want to become is where where we build out

everything and then we don't have canopy space and we if we don't have canopy space then we don't

have walkable communities we may have dense communities but we may not have walkable communities so

I want to continue to revisit as this goes to council the setback and also the scenario that while

a 12 and a half foot space might actually work okay in say elmhurst on T street but if you go

just north some of the on closer to Fulsom Boulevard that's within this zone some of the setbacks are

35 feet right now on the on the property line and 12 and a half feet if you're going to move something

that's almost you know two-thirds of the way close to the street that means you're not going to be

able to see your neighbor's porch down the street and I'll tell you one of the the community

characters that I think are appropriate are porches because you know porches allow you to engage

your community very often and so often am I on my porch you know maybe maybe maybe I'm too loud

but yelling at my neighbor you know in a positive way like hey Linda how's it going you know

and she's like bring the kids over and so but it it it makes that community engagement I think the

the fact that we've decided to design communities without porches meant that we were creating barriers

versus opportunity so I worry about where the property line is and how that blocks that that

engagement with your your neighbors on your street because you do you do close off positive

the porches on when it comes to the bulk requirement on the FAR appreciate that that's not

counted towards it so on the second level and the first level so but I do worry about that and I

think there was one wreck one concern about that was brought up about how we designed that line so

I think we need to revisit that that the property line where we are where adjacent houses are

and even in the map that even in the example that you showed it shows that you're blocking one

house next to another so I worry about the the amount of pushback so so let's I'd like to dive deeper

into that as we get to council and then you know finally I agree I think the are our chapter of

a American Institute of Architects I think nailed it you know it's we're having to we want to

design things that are going to enhance the community and feel that it enhances the community

and meeting our our numbers sadly this is where I disagree with both the realtor's housing

Sacramento and the chamber on on this we we can't be building housing in designs at all cost and

in fact that would encourage them that if we want to build more housing and more density then and

I appreciate their advocacy on this but I would say use that energy and advocacy to recognize that

our housing challenges are regional they're not localized and that where we want more of this type

of of approach that staff is recommended he's in areas like Fulton Avenue like what avenue

areas on Fulsom Boulevard in the county like if we're really trying to improve and get the

housing density that we need then then our regional our regional advocacy and I bring this up

because housing for Sacramento the chamber and the in the realtor's are regional advocates on

housing that that's where our energy needs to be spent so that our transit corridor is a commercial

corridors bring up density you know you know changing one unit in one area only and our energy

spent there I think is better spent making sure that all our commercial corridors are interconnected

where we have BRT that moves along multi jurisdictions and that density moves up in those areas

so I'll stop there and say that this was a very engaging but I think we we did make a commitment

we had a two year and a two and a half year process with the community to get to this standard

and I want to honor that actual engagement with the neighbors to get to a design that increases

density increases size but respects also appropriate design so with that thank you manager

thank you council member I will now move on to the vice mayor thank you chair and I just want to

start by really thinking staff I mean this has been a process before I even got here just knowing

how much work has gone into it over many years not just on this particular item but on the general

plan update and many others so you've been incredibly forward thinking and you've worked with

community you've worked with the neighbors you've worked with you know all the developers everyone who

has a say in this and I think that that's incredible and it really shows that we care as a city

about what people think and I think in addition to that even if we didn't pass this right now

that we've already leading the nation as it relates to housing and some of the things that we're

doing so we're forward thinking and just want to really appreciate you and hope that we can

continue on I also want to say you know I love my neighborhood I live in a park and I think that

there's there's so much character in that neighborhood you walk around you see it's one of the

oldest neighborhoods I think it might be the oldest established neighborhood in the city is that

right and so you'll see a mix of uses there you know I also love walking across the pedestrian

bridge and I go to Curtis Park and there are a wide range of different buildings over there and

especially around density you know you'll see a single family home right next to a six-plex

right next to an eight-plex right next to you know a duplex and something else and that is that's

historical there and and I believe that at least some of those would actually not be allowed today

the way that they're currently structured and so I think about those things

how people get to live in that neighborhood that maybe can't afford to to purchase a single

family home or to rent it but they still get the to enjoy the wonderful amenities that come

along with it and I think about that a lot in my neighborhood and others of how do we ensure that

the people who buy and who rent and neighborhoods get to enjoy the character of their neighborhood

and the aesthetics because that is important but we're still allowing people to to live there as well

even if they they can't do that even if they didn't get in at the right time and as a millennia

well I think about that a lot you know with their memes on the internet about how you know we

joke that the only way to live in some of these neighborhoods if you purchase it before you were born

and it's just that's a reality a lot of young people are having a very difficult time affording

the housing market being able to to buy in this city in particular and we know that we're in a

massive housing crisis there's has a lot of downstream effects including the rise in homelessness

that we see and so while I think the aesthetics are very important and I do agree that we need to

take a look at these things and say okay how does something fit into the neighborhood I also have

to ask myself you know what's more important is it more important that we are passing policies that

really aggressively address the housing crisis that we're in that ensure that we're able to build

the density that we need even if maybe someone might not like the way it looks or may not agree with

the height of it and I tend to be a little bit more aggressive on that front personally that's

my personal opinion I think that we have a responsibility to make sure that people can afford to

live in the city and that we have housing options all across the board in every neighborhood and

that's going to really make the city greater because we're going to be able to attract a lot of

young people to live here to start families and to be able to afford so you know the answer to me

is that that we that we should do that that we should be aggressive and so that's why I'm

personally supporting the suggestion by housing Sacramento at House Sacramento part of me the

Metro Chamber and others about removing bull control I think that that is it's a right way to go

it adds on to or already doing right we've done a lot on these various policies and I think this

is a way to do that and I really appreciate a lot of the community members and experts also

wait in you know I I read a lot of letters that can appreciate everyone but people really had a

lot to say including that you know send the bulk the bull control regulations as it currently

is structured could increase costs reduce affordability increase utility bills and work to

counter fair housing goals and so you know like they laid out a long list of of their comments on

that a lot of us to read that but I think that you know we need to think more boldly that's my

personal opinion and so you know I would like to make a motion that we that we move forward this

proposal but include removing the bull control requirements thank you okay so if I'm keeping

track and thank you Madam Clerk for helping me have two different motions on the table did you

make a motion okay last after court and then you're making a motion okay vice chair do you want

to weigh in you're very good all right oh go ahead it's the only reason I'm good is because I

want us to have a full conversation at city council level I mean the public has talked to us we've

heard from them we've gotten all of the letters and we've had this discussion staff has done a great

job and thank you for making that known or for stating that letting them know the great job that

they've done over time so at this point in time I do think it's I'm ready for a full staff I'm full

council conversation and so that's why I want to take the staff report and move it forward so

we can do that and then you know try to determine what's what do we want to move forward with I like

everything I see is for us trees and housing and increased housing which we need and more

affordable housing as well so we need to have that conversation so we can determine what what is

the will of the council yeah I appreciate that as always vice chair wise words so I have a lot of

I have a lot of thoughts and I want to appreciate the stakeholders who came in today especially the

folks from House Sacramento I think Connor and I might have exchanged two dozen emails in the last

12 hours about this topic just going back and forth on different concerns that have been raised

I will say that a wise man once told me that the least costly housing project would be subject to

no regulations at all and I take that to heart because I do think there's a role that local

government has in ensuring that we have tools I'm not at the point yet or I'm ready to tell

the housing developers to just go forth and do whatever you want I'm just not there we've seen

it play out well and we have projects that have gone very well at the behest of the developer and we've

also had projects that we've had to reign in unfortunately and really make sure that they were

respecting the needs of the community and the needs of the city and the needs of our infrastructure

um I will say that I I'm obviously a big fan of up zoning I've talked about it a lot we've

already gotten rid of our one zoning we've moved to FAR and very supportive of those moves we've made

I live in a very dense part of midtown and I really enjoy living where I live but I can tell you

that there's only one side of my apartment that gets natural light there's one side of my apartment

that gets natural light and if tomorrow somebody decided to demolish the single family home next to

me and build a three story building I would be super bummed I would be really bummed and that's

just me being very honest because I just don't think we're quite there yet um I I think that

the what the bulk standards are doing really just applies to that third story and it would ensure

that staff has some tool to be like hey slope that roof a little bit so the sun can come down

and that building isn't completely in the shade hey let's do a little bit of this I have no outdoor

seating in my building we don't do the 75 foot I was my building was built before that was a

standard I really appreciate that but like really if you took away my one source of natural light

in my apartment I would be really really bummed and it's just kind of recognizing that there's such

a diverse array of contexts and units and parcels where this could play out I'm not comfortable

taking away as no one very appropriately named the one objective tool that you have a staff to

say hey let's make those few adjustments here to make sure that this makes sense I think we might

get there and I and I hope we do I hope we get to the point where we're starting to see practices

where we start to feel comfortable neighborhoods are densifying enough that it's not so stark

or contrast and we're not talking about jumping from single family which slope rules straight up

to like the three story box buildings and I think we'll probably get there someday but I also

I mean as much as I appreciate the argument that part of our housing crisis is supply I also have

to take into account one of my constituents that me this really thoughtful email about Airbnb's

and I looked up the number in Sacramento right now we're at 2,281 Airbnb rentals in our community

2,281 and not all of those are studios in one bedroom some of those are multi bedroom houses

multi bedroom apartments that are not being rented or sold to people who live in our community

they're being held out of that market so that they can make more money renting at Airbnb so

I believe that our housing problem is part supply I also believe it's part lack of effective

regulation that we could be housing more people in our community if we had more stringent controls

over some of these market practices that are allowing units to sit vacant and not be occupied by

somebody who would be my neighbor you know somebody who I would I would be less offended if

someone was going to build up if I knew there would be actually families living in that building

but right now that's simply not a guarantee that we can make communities and so we have a lot of

work to do in general so I just want to appreciate that right now as drafted this ordinance creates a

clear incentive for affordability and if we say we're doing this for affordability and we actually

need to make that real and so the fact that you wouldn't be subject to these built control standards

if just one of these units is de-restricted I mean you could be building a 12 unit building and

just have one unit in there that's affordable and you wouldn't be subject to this as I understand

it in the code and so like this is a powerful incentive we're creating to say it's not just about

building more it's about building the right type of housing in the communities and creating the

right incentives for developers because if we're really going to address our affordable housing

crisis we don't just need to build more we need to build more affordable and we need to be building

the right type of housing in the right communities I would love to tackle Airbnb in this but I

know we can't so don't get stressed out planners I guess one other thing I want to raise to Kate's

point about the tree concerns I think the tree advocates submitted some pretty thoughtful

language and I don't know if you've gotten that staff but I'd love to afford that if you haven't

without the sunset date I appreciate the argument Kate but I don't always like sunset dates

because I feel like it forces a timeline on engagement and maybe it's going to take us longer

than year to figure out what the right next ordinance looks like and I'd like staff to have

that flexibility but the rest of it that they proposed I thought they were very surgical and how

they were inserting language to try to ensure that trees were preserved and planted to the best

degree we possibly could so I would love when this comes to council to hear staff's thoughts

on that language it was not a super a lot of changes but I thought they were just really thoughtful

because one of the things that would also really bum me out as if people started cutting down the

trees I don't have any trees on the parcel that I live on I have to lean on the benefit of the

trees surrounding my my parcel and my neighbor's parcels and I think that is just really important

that would be as thoughtful as we possibly can about that so with that I mean I will be

seconding council member garris motions simply for those concerns and also to the vice chair's

point that let's hear it from the full council maybe some will change my mind when we get to the

full council I'm always open to that but that's where I stand right now and yeah nobody built a

three-story building next to my apartment I'd be really sad about that but anyways vice chair

vice mayor you wanted to yeah absolutely appreciate it and just want to say I will withdraw my

motion seeing the writing on the wall and the conversation at the full council but I will bring

up my concerns there as well thank you absolutely absolutely I think that a lot of our colleagues

are going to have a lot to say about this so I'm awesome so we have a motion and a second out

comes from McGarris yeah since you brought up the you know the issue of like trees I mean this is

why I completely agree on this trying to figure out a metric way for addressing how we can build

tree canopy because now this is me just venting on public time but the fact that we don't that the

back of a lot of our yards if you have a south facing yard has you know some of the power lines

there and they're not underground new developments have underground wire means I can't build a tree

to give me enough shade so in the summertime man that that that patty was in that area is blazing hot

because we can't build high enough trees so you know to your point on that it's it goes both ways

sometimes you want natural light and at the same time because we don't give the option to be

able to provide for good shade you know I was I would say and not building shade that that's

a that's an issue so I want to thank trees for sack for bringing highlighting the issue about how

do we get a actual metric issue because these decisions will play out when it takes 30 years to

get a mature tree so yeah and as we're talking about right here is nuance right is giving

saps and tools to have a little bit of nuance because it just might not be quite right on one

parcel versus what it looks like in another and that's important so all right we have motion in

a second all in favor please say aye I pose abstain that passes unanimously thank you everybody

all right moving right along to our next big item on the agenda this is a fun long lunch hearing

today we're talking about cannabis item six an ordinance and minting and second-minute city code to

add 20 additional storefront cannabis dispensary permits I do want to say before we begin this is a

staff proposal I've gotten a lot of comments from dispensary stakeholders pro and con this ordinance

thinking the council has made a decision that's what we're here today to talk about so please don't

get too alarmed this is staff bringing forward a suggestion and we will hear it and consider it

as we do hear it long lunch so go right ahead um good afternoon council I mean not careful oh my

gosh good afternoon chair and committee my name is Fiona Matson and I'm the program specialist for

the Office of Cannabis Management um see you and so today I'm bringing four and a staff proposal

regarding storefront dispensary opportunities staff was provided direction from council on January

23rd January 23rd 2024 to build a framework to add additional storefront to permit

to permit opportunities for the cannabis opportunity reinvestment equity program also known as our

core program staff is recommending an additional 20 storefront dispensaries to a qualified lottery

process there's a maximum of 40 storefront permit opportunities with 36 issues storefront permits

currently the 30 non-core storefront permits which are a self-selected group that navigated a

two-phase process that's been nearly six years as land use entitlements and business operating

regulations for cannabis businesses were developed in 2020 council authorized ten new storefront

permits to be issued to core participants increasing the number of permits from 30 to 40 so 30

non-core majority owned and ten core majority owned storefront permits council resolved to

offer the opportunity to apply for the new permits to the business ready participants as determined

through a request for qualifications process or RFQ at the time at this time there are six issued

core storefront permits in collaboration with the core community to develop a new framework to

add additional storefront opportunities staff hosted two listening sessions this year all members

of the core community were invited to participate in the listening sessions and were provided survey

opportunities which included over 300 verified core members the first listening session was held

in person and focused on the number of additional permits the second listening session was held

virtually and focused on the process of awarding those permits staff proposed three options a

normal lottery which is a blind random selection process to identify eligible core participants for

storefront permit application opportunities a qualified lottery which is a normal lottery within an

additional step prior to entering the lottery to determine business readiness meaning a request

for documentation to assist business formation documents and a life scam prior to entering the

lottery date order processing is the third option which is a system where the core the first core

applicant to successfully complete the business operating permit application process within a

fine timeline will be granted the available permits based on the feedback from the listening

sessions staff crafted a draft application checklist and survey which focused on the criteria

for awarding those permits from our community outreach staff found the highest support is for

20 additional storefront permits and for the qualified lottery process the community has the

desire to submit a complete documentation package versus the uses of a subjective scoring

rubric to award the permits and to include business readiness requirements there's also support

for a 10 year core permit term versus not having the storefront permit be core owned in perpetuity

the community did not want requirements for compliance with state and local tax in their loan

terms to give perspective to that requirement the Office of Cannabis Management offers the core

capital loan program which is a pathway to less than the barriers of entry into the cannabis

industry this program offers interest free loans and does not require a credit check for verified

core members OCR has offered over five million dollars in loans to over 60 individuals and of those

and of those 24 individuals have unfortunately defaulted on those loans this program relies on the

money to be paid back in order to offer loans to other core participants so given the low survey

response rate we received during the listening sessions and staffs experience that compliance

and business readiness go hand in hand compliance with state and local tax and loan term

conditions remains an important benchmark for business readiness staff explored three options

for the permit opportunities for core participants the first option was 10 additional storefront

permit opportunities this option would allow for a total of 30 non core majority owned in 20

core majority owned total this option would not bring parity to storefront dispensaries as outlined

by the core guidelines and this would not reach the goal of the 50% equity across all permit types

option to 20 additional storefront opportunities this option would allow for a total of 30 non core

majority owned and 30 core majority owned this option would bring parity to storefront

dispensary permits and this would assist in the goal to reach 50% equity across all permits as

outlined by the core guidelines option three free market for a defined period of time with no

cap on the number of storefront permits this could be an option after consideration of core equity

in an effort to legitimize and normalize cannabis goods as a commodity free market should be

considered and what this could look like in the future treating cannabis storefront dispensaries

any other business without caps without barriers permits a healthy marketplace were consumers

drive with cannabis storefronts look like for Sacramento however far into the future this

directional step could have negative impacts on what the core program looks like for the city

with the slow and steady progression of core businesses in the city to reach 50% equity across

cannabis business permit types this progress could effectively be rendered a moot point with

the implementation of free market without the consideration of core equity currently 15.5%

of all cannabis permits are core staff is strongly recommending option two 20 additional storefront

permit opportunities through a qualified lottery process how the process would work if an applicant

meets the minimum requirement requirements around business formation documents background check

also known as a life scam business plans and compliance with the state and local tax and loan

term conditions and they would be entered into the qualified lottery where the winners will be

selected at random this aligns with the business readiness criteria and success has been seen in

other local jurisdiction jurisdictions such as Los Angeles and Stockton this also aligns with the

city's current lottery practices around cardrooms and taxis this will allow for fair and

transparent process to the nature of the non subjective business readiness criteria the previous

RFQ process that allow for the 10 additional storefront permit opportunities received acutely

accusations of bias and being an unfair process

is recommending option two 20 additional storefront permit opportunities through a qualified lottery

process this process creates parity between core and non core storefront permits by having 30 of each

it aligns with the community feedback from our listening sessions regarding the number of

available and extra permits to bring forward this would not create an oversaturation based on the

comprehensive cannabis study performed by EPS and this would be a fair transparent process that

aligns with the business readiness goals and a full free market option may negatively impact the

core program goals and guidelines the next steps if the committee chooses to move forward with

staff's proposal we will be able to bring this to council in the fall with minimal changes which

includes finalizing the lottery and application forms submission process and timelines we would

also like to engage the community in what is a reasonable timeline for the process to submit documentation

and what that looks like two weeks two months how long should the process be open for if council

chooses to adopt this proposal staff will also need time to review documentation provide notification

of compliance with the requirements and finally schedule and execute the lottery thank you

and jamb piana i don't know if we've seen you here before hello first time or

presenting at least yes first time or good job thank you so much and quickly i pull a comment

on this item thank you chair we have 17 speakers our first speaker is Doyle Kroy filed by Isaac

ultimaryino then Christina Rogers and if folks could please make sure to line up we have a lot of

speakers to get through we want to make sure we can hear everybody so if you heard your name call

just now if you want to stand up in the aisle if you're able that would be amazing check check check

okay my name is Doyle better known as Doyle the guru lifelong cannabis advocate born into it

in Sacramento forever if you have any questions about cannabis most people know you can ask me

all i really have to say is i don't think that if you got a loan you should be excluded i think that

there's all different ways that people went about opening up there was good ones there was

some predatory things that happened with uh landlords you know so if you did get a loan and you

defaulted you should still be able to be get a club essentially that's it thank you for your

comment our next speaker is i think multimaryino Christina Rogers then Abe and Shandra

hey hi how's everybody doing i'm Isaac actually i'm i'm in a greens with ocm today actually i don't

disagree with what they're saying i just wanted to show my support um adding additional storefronts

whether it be 10 20 um it will help this situation in our current state of affairs when it comes to

our industry and when it comes to the market itself and um i am hopeful that you do adopt this um

and it will also give the opportunity for lower rents if you actually visit the rezoning and

perhaps have additional locations in the area where we can set shop and not having to be subject

to six dollar square feet extravaganza that we have on on district six and in some places i think

ideally it will also give options to people to set shop where they can actually have a

consumption lounge since it's going to be on site instead of off site right so it will give us

a lot more opportunity what we have right now so um i just want to share my thoughts and thank you

Fiona thank you guys for working with what you're doing um that's all i have to say today thanks

thank you for your comments our next speaker is Christina Rogers followed by eight and Shandra

then trea hi hello i understand cannabis is a hot and very lucrative market but let's be thoughtful

about how and where you roll the spencery storefronts out if you want vibrant walkable corridors

where tourists and locals enjoy consider the businesses that will attract them maybe a small

dispensary nestled among restaurants coffee shops boutiques and bookstores make sense but to many

bring too many bring a certain clientele for instance on Broadway we have one dispensary

uh near third street and by the public housing which is actually not a great look in my opinion

and another near 27th uh very big with security out front all the time and it is just a business

um pot dispensaries massage parlors pawn shops and liquor stores bring a certain bring certain

customers and this is the big challenge on Broadway right now so consider balance in common sense

when handing out permits thank you very much thank you for your comment our next speaker is

aiden shandra followed by trea ish the maisha bhajdi good morning esteem members of the law and

ledged midi my name is aiden chandra and i'm a great i'm grateful for the opportunity to

address this important issue before us today currently i serve as a general manager for symbiotic

sacrameno uh in south sacrameno and i have been engaged in the cannabis industry in california

for over a decade and part of the community for much longer over these years i've witnessed

significant changes in various transformations within the industry right now we're facing a

challenging environment where cannabis businesses are struggling to remain viable

increased taxes limited deductions and challenging labor market are fueling a high rate of

default enclosure among existing businesses in california introducing more complexity to the market

by issuing additional licenses will only exacerbate these difficulties by diffusing our customer

base the cannabis consumer market is not expanding at a pace that justifies the addition of 20 new

licenses in fact the market seems to have plateaued in terms of its potential customer base

i believe it is in the community's best interest as well as that of the existing businesses to

reconsider these additional licenses instead resources should be focused on supporting and

sustaining the existing legacy in core license holders we've observed other programs similar to

a core program being exploited by out of state groups who possess the financial means to navigate

the high cost associated with launching and maintaining a successful cannabis business core

applicants often find themselves needing to secure outside financial backing which tends to come

from well-funded out of state investors these investors use core applicants to circumvent fees

and taxes that legacy businesses are required to pay it's become common practice for investor

groups to leverage equity applicants to secure multiple licenses within the state while they

appear as individual entities in the eyes of the city they actually constitute some of the larger

companies in California exploiting loopholes and sophisticated legal tactics to evade their fair

share of taxes i'm a strong advocate of socialize thank you for your comments your time is now

complete our next speaker is Trey ish followed by myisha bahadi then michael snow

famous Trey ish and i'd like to thank the law and ledge committee for giving me the opportunity

to speak on the matter that we have at hand i've operated symbiotic Sacramento a retail dispensary

in Sacramento for 15 years according to cdtfa figures since 2020 cannabis sales in Sacramento

have decreased by 20 percent let me repeat that they've decreased by 20 percent over the last four

years they've steadily declined i have been in support of the core program since it started

but i'm opposed to opening new dispensaries the core dispensaries that are existing right now have

only been open for a year or two years and it takes a while for them to get established and to

become profitable and i think by opening up new dispensaries you're going to be hurting the

existing core companies they're not going to you're going to they're going to lose

lose customers with these new dispensaries the city of sacrameno is facing a $66 million

budget deficit and by opening up new dispensaries you're not going to increase revenue you're

actually going to do the opposite more dispensaries will create more competition which will cause

businesses to have to lower their prices to compete which will in turn decrease revenue for the

city the office of cannabis management will also have to hire more people to regulate these

businesses which will cost the city more money west sacrameno is considering allowing dispensaries

will so contribute to the decline of sales in sacrameno and i believe that if you allow new

dispensaries that you're setting these people up for failure thank you thank you for your comments

our next speaker is maisha bhajdi followed by a michael snell then jr.a.d. johnson

hi good morning my name is maisha i'm the owner of crystal nags delivery and dispensary located

here in district four while i fully support the idea that the next licenses should be awarded to

core i have my concerns on releasing 20 at one time i don't agree with the idea of releasing a

bunch of licenses and letting the nature of the industry decide who sinks for swim because that

wasn't the mission of the core to let people sink the goal was to give us the opportunity to

succeed and create generational wealth it took me two years and eight months of blood sweat and

tears along with the one million dollar investment that we funded ourselves to finally open our

dispensary within the allocated three years and i deserve an opportunity to thrive however allowing

the release of 20 new dispensaries risk oversaturation and i would like to note that i know in the

presentation it stated that oversaturation wasn't an issue with that report was done in 2022

is 2024 and the market has changed dramatically when i decided to open my dispensary i had no idea

what i was getting myself into we had into the process with no warnings or heads up thankfully i

had a solid team with business expertise to create our own blueprint but even that was increasingly

challenging there needs to be a greater responsibility when distributing licensing because the

cost associated with opening the store puts people at a very vulnerable positions if you don't have

at least five hundred thousand dollars of capital to start you'll need to find someone to give a

team and that's when the problem starts i've seen equity participants lose everything in this

process and there's no recourse for their loss it's also important to acknowledge that as of

today five out of the ten dispensaries have opened since being awarded in 2021 one license was

suspended was the rendered another business has closed after one year there been numerous lawsuits

and complaints about the process we can't ignore these realities thank you thank you for your

comment our next speaker is michael snell followed by a jarad johnson then diana

good morning long-ledge um a mike snell uh former member of the core um i don't have a dog in this

fight because i am one of the unfortunate members that lost everything uh within a year of opening

prior to that it was five years advocating just to get to this point me thinking that

government's gonna hold up hold this bargain protect core members that are being pred- being

preyed upon predatory investors not only being steered to the only locations available at the time

when we all advocated open it up the ship is sailed now to try to open it up the ship has definitely

sailed economy screwed and now the property owners all these property owners business are closed

and so now they're open to yeah let's wait can we get some cannabis businesses into fill these in

and that's not the answer because the ship is sailed the opportunity is sailed

and so the idea yes it's great the idea open more so then we get more business owners in place but

what what i'm i'm only here to heed warning to those that are spinning these they're valuable time

here and trying to plead to these people who's faced don't even care you can read it on them

you are on your own and if you don't have a solid team well capitalized this industry this city

will take you under because they have preference with the property owners that they steered you

towards to begin with with the green zones let that sink in it's not about to sell the weed make it

money post and pictures being cool this is real big business and people with lots of money can

bear you if you don't have the resources i would be in a tent sitting outside if i didn't have

means for an attorney because people can walk into my secured building break in push through the

doors shut me down unlawfully and i don't get a single phone call from nobody even the even the

members that i funded their campaigns don't let the game take you under go you for your comment

our next speaker is Gerard Johnson followed by diana then ronda urnest

hey council move that up a little tall hey council how's it going i'm Gerard better known as j

i'm here to advocate on behalf of cannabis and i want to say that i am for i'm pro opening the

20 new stores my reasoning behind it is i'm already an operator i have a delivery service you

guys have already heard my story behind that but the process to get a store open for you to go

through council to actually give us the approval takes a long time so i want to expedite that

process and get the 20 new stores open just a hint just a hint of a little bit of free market

capitalism will go a long way in this industry we've heard the people that are against us opening

is because it's oversaturated really that's a zoning issue if you allowed us to open up in more

places than just the usual suspects district two and district six we wouldn't be so oversaturated

there's a lot of cannabis users and a lot of people that need medicine in sacramino and we're

not serving our community in that in that response we've already done the community studies or

councils done the community studies on what we bring to these neighborhoods and we're not a blight

we're actually a rose for our communities there's a lot of good that we do and you guys have done

this study so just read that study as far as the process goes to give out those 20 we don't want to

hear the word lottery anymore because we heard lottery when we gave out the first 10 and that was just

a it was horrible what had happened as you can see from the galley behind us what we're hearing from

it it needs to be a real business readiness who's ready to come to market and that has to start with

who has a building because that's the most important part of this process if you don't have a building

you're not going to get open and that's what a lot of the tin are finding out as they try to go

through this process behind that do you have an MSO behind you a multi-state operator if we want

to leave these as mom and pox that should be a blight against you in the scoring curriculum and

who actually has skin in the game you guys need operators who are in this industry because it's

not like any other retail industry it's its whole the whole world so anywhere they're aspirin

is sold we need to be able to sell cannabis there think of it like that

you for your comments our next speaker is Deanna followed by rana earnest

good morning my name is Deanna Garcia I'm a core applicant here in the city of Sacramento

and I would like to ask you to please if you do move forward with releasing new licenses think of

some type of restriction on on where you can be compared to where a store is a legacy store a

core store put a mile radius around it of maybe five or ten miles so that way we're putting

these stores in areas that are without safe access put these stores in areas where we don't have

any access I'm a number of america for safe access I've been trying to spread safe access since

1996 of cannabis working really hard with a lot of you people who are sitting here you all know

I've been in the game a long time but the thing is that our industry is changing and being a core

applicant you really have to be on your game because the predators are out there the multi-state

operators are out there trying to become your best friend to you know get those loopholes get

those tax breaks and and really not look out for you really not look out for what is core and who

is core and making sure that core strives I think the city needs to pause right now and not go

any further with any more licenses but put their focus and put their energy and their funding

behind the core applicants who are suffering right now not all ten licenses have been open why

is that why haven't we seen success in the ten that was already been awarded I think we need to go

back and we need to look at those ten we need to pull them up by their bootstraps and we need to

let them know that we are here for them the city of Sacramento is here for them and we want to see

them succeed thank you for your comment our next speaker is ronda urnest followed by Kevin McCarty

hello I am ronda urnest and I am the owner of natural high and I am so conflicted today because

I hear my cohorts I hear you know you know my fellow people that are in the industry it's hard

out here and I just think that I'm for the twenty if we're going to do a fair process and how we

roll it out is important are we going to support the core members that are there that are out there

already the next ones coming up I just think it's so important that you I think because of first

ten we didn't know what we were stepping into we didn't have a blueprint it was hard to I don't

I don't I think the choosing was whoever said there were ready because we didn't have a blueprint

but now I've been in the industry over two years we are doing as well as possible in this industry

because people are dropping like flies and I think that if you're going to put a limit on dispensaries

you should put a limit on all areas until you do an investigation and find out what's really

going on in this industry taxes are killing us right and the one is the bus that are keeping our

heads above water it's a balance in act so giving twenty storefronts to people that are still not

ready is not going to help the situation how are you going to make sure that the next twenty applicants

are ready to go and understand this industry and support and give the support needed that's that's

where I am I'm so conflicted but I think that we do deserve the twenty because we're trying to get

to equity to core owning 50% of the industry just like I mean you know basically I'm sorry

the people that were affected by the were on drugs getting their equity that's that's where

our goal is right so I think that we have to keep moving forward but how can we keep moving forward

at a pace that strength thank you for your comment your time is now complete our next speaker

is Kevin McCarty followed by James Rivera than Carlos Martinez good morning chair valesuela

and committee members my name is Kevin McCarty work with several dispensaries throughout the city

and believe this item needs far more analysis and consideration before being ready for counsel

I'd like to enter into the record the following analysis summary of the state of retail dispensaries

and Sacramento and the effect of increasing the number of permits by a whopping 50% all at once

the rationale cited in the staff report leads from the findings of the EPS report in surveys of

core program participants since the publication of the report in March 2022 total sales per

retail bo t remittances have declined by over 20% and most if not all of the storefront dispensaries

are struggling to remain viable with the ongoing burden of state and local taxation as well as

federal taxes under the yoke of 280 it is far from a given contrary to staff opinion that an

additional 20 permits will lead to beneficial outcomes for anyone involved we are nearly

three point five years since the original permits were awarded in half of those of not yet become

operational despite city support most of those that have did so with the backing of large

companies with a multi-state presence I am all for supporting small business and entrepreneurship

but the way this program is structured is a gift primarily to those corporations the bo t data

show that the market is largely saturated and the EPS report is an outdated reference for this

agenda item core and non-core operators alike are struggling and adding 20 more permits will be

setting up all of the current 40 and the new 20 for failure beyond this with due respect to

the O CM team it regularly takes six to 12 months to complete a BOP renewal and this is for businesses

that are paying the substantial permit fees adding 20 fee exempt permits I'm afraid will bog down

the staff of the program to the point where it will cease to be functional we need more a market

impact analysis for this item at the very least citing storefront permits as highly desired is not

a good enough reason to issue another 20 Lamborghini is highly desired but it may not be the best

use of funds to give them out to residents in a qualified lottery this despite the average Lamborghini

is likely worth more than the average cannabis license in today's brutal market conditions

the difficulty of running a dispenser is underappreciated the city needs to study this

and far more detail before we consider moving this ahead to council thank you

thank you for your comments our next speaker is James Rivera followed by Carlos Mermirez

then Jacob Schmidt good afternoon my name is James Vera I've been working with multiple

cannabis operators here in the in the Sacramento for a few years just a dovetail on Mr. McCarty

and some of the things he's saying I think the recommendation for an expansion of 20 licenses is

highly detached from the reality of the climate of the market doesn't take into contemplation city

planning density demand nor the economics of the numbers that the city has at its threshold it's

making a recommendation based on a plan and quoting numbers from 2022 first quarter which is

elaborating on pandemic error numbers that were at an absolute threshold which is completely

retracted from since then the city has this information can verify through the cannabis business

operating tax that there's a massive retraction in the cannabis market at this point in time one

thing is clear at this point in time the city the cannabis industry doesn't economically understand

itself nor does the city economically understand the cannabis industry it's allowed for a climate

where it's oversaturated in cannabis operators and several cannabis operators of the original

ones have closed within the next 12 to 24 months you're going to see closures of more cannabis

dispensaries from the original operators is what's going to happen because those cannabis taxes that

you guys are realizing are continuing to decline so there's a saturation the secondary effects of

your decisions of bringing in more cannabis operators you have to consider what's going to happen

after that if market legalization does come and it's going to go down that route and you're allowing

a higher degree of saturation of operators compress markets most these people are regulatory

tax that are coming out for their pound of flesh their ability to actually conduct business you're

going to lead to such compressed profit profit margins for these operators that the only people that

can go ahead and sustain business in here are your hedge funds that are your all-trias they're

going to come in here and try to gobble these companies up thank you for your comment our next

speaker is Carlos Ramirez followed by Jacob Schmidt the Malachi

hello my name is Carlos Ramirez and I'm here on behalf of the sanctuary at the Spenserian

district two I've been working in this industry since 2017 and I've seen it grown and struggle

right now what I'm mostly seeing is struggle particularly for retail storefronts which is why

we're opposed to allowing 20 more dispensaries to be issued licenses we're not opposed to entrepreneurship

but right now we think that the timing is off for instance since the end of 2021 we've seen a

downturn in this industry back then we employed about 124 people now we're struggling to keep

around 74 employees so it's definitely had a detrimental effect we also think that by allowing more

dispensaries it's going to spread the city's resources thinner and basically it'll also affect a

lot of the core equity applicants has been mentioned previously so for those reasons we're opposed

to allowing 20 more dispensaries we simply think that the timing isn't right right now thank you

thank you for your comment our next speaker is Jacob Schmidt followed by a Malachi

then Eric Kenney morning long-led my name is Jacob Schmidt I'm a dispensary owner in the city of

Sacramento I've been through over a decade I was raised in Sacramento and I love my city

I strongly suggest a maximum of five more licenses if you guys decide to go that way

current marking conditions could not absorb more dispensaries dispensaries are already severely

struggling between current oversaturation economic factors in industry downturn since 2021

all this will do is create more stores fighting for the same dollar spreading city staff

and decimating the retail storefront in Sacramento we are currently in a downward trend this is

bad timing our staff is down significantly from its peak please listen and utilize your stakeholders

as a resource please this will negatively impact current core operators and dispensaries if allow

for more than five even five this is just really bad timing guys please don't decimate this

industry in Sacramento it's already very very tough thank you for your comment our next speaker

is Malachi and our last speaker will be Eric Henry greetings madam chair and committee members

I'm Malachi amen director of the institute for more in 2017 we worked very hard to secure a

policy goal of 50% of all weed industry licenses for Sacramento's communities disproportionately harmed

by racial profiling police brutality incarceration family and community destruction and death

that was caused by the criminalization of marijuana for decades we absolutely do want to see the 50

percent policy goal achieved we absolutely do want to see that the real question is that that we

face is given the facts that we now know is when and how should the city add an additional 20 storefront

dispensary licenses to the local market there are two crises and concerns that we have about releasing

all 20 licenses at at this time the first concern is that the core ordinances has been so poorly

and egregiously implemented that our disproportionately harmed by-pock communities may lose one of the

most important wealth creation opportunities in Sacramento history over half of our cannabis

industry wealth if not all of it maybe stolen if you put out 20 licenses at this time all at one time

we need innovation we need champions on this council we have had the comments about letting the

market decide but you know every time these kinds of ideas come you know there is a proposal that

has never been collaboratively shared developed or exchanged draft amendments of these policy proposals

but now we're poised to distort the cannabis market just as core entrepreneurs are entering so

letting the market decide thank you for your comments our last speaker will be Eric Henry

good morning morning my name is Eric Henry I was born raised here in Sacramento I'm the owner

and operator of Uni Wellness Center and managing partner of booted delivery here in Sacramento I've

worked in Sacramento cannabis industry since 2009 I've seen a lot of ups and downs in our industry I'm

here today to speak about the urgency of new dispensaries in our city outside of the core program the

city has not accepted applications for storefront dispensary since June 2009 that is 15 years of

some I say some of the original owners creating monopolies and legally selling permits back and forth

people outside of the program deserve a chance at storefront dispensary application or at least a

chance at entering the lottery if that's the way it's going to go to prevent more monopolies people

like myself who have operated over a dozen retail dispensaries and non storefront dispensaries deserve

a chance at their own dispensary license if anybody is qualified it would definitely be the

management teams that has been generating all the tax dollars for the last two decades just because

I'm a part I'm not a part of the pro the core program or I don't have three million dollars

of my bank account does it mean I'm not qualified to own this type of business you counsel members

hold the power to create more licenses which mean more tax revenue for our struggling city thank you

all right thank you all for your public comments and for staying through two very long items

to get to this item really appreciate your patience I will say just out the gate and take a

little chair's prerogative to say I don't know if I'm ready to move this forward today and it's not

because as was said before that I don't support the goal of getting a 50% core I think we all I

will say just broadly I think support the goal of getting a 50% core I think there's some really

important questions that have been raised here today that I don't have the answers to and that

I'd like us to explore including what has happened with the prior 10 core applicants who have

gotten dispensary licenses what we could have done differently what needs to be done in the future

to ensure success and a bunch of other market factors and just to say again before I turn over my

colleagues it's not just a geographic concentration issue I have dispensaries in district four who are

on the verge of closing as well and so this is a real issue this is a real moment and I think this

is a real opportunity for us to maybe identify what some of these questions are what we might want to

see in terms of process before we jump straight into 20 more permits because I think there's

some accountability missing in this conversation that we I would like to see brought forward to really

understand what's happening in the market broadly what's been happening to core specifically

so that we can have a more informed discussion and that's me just speaking very strongly

from my own personal heart but I won't leave it to my colleagues to see if they have other

questions or thoughts that might disagree so we'll start off here with councilmember Garrett.

Well thank you I was expecting a different response on this one but so yeah exactly no you know

and I I tend to agree with you chair on on this item as the last time we had this conversation

on the council my suggestion was to not move forward with any dispensaries or at the maximum only

keep it to five until we deal with the zoning issue here's my concern I think you know so

you know to and staff we have new staff here so I don't I don't want to lay it on staff here but

so this is my frustration you know where the majority of the the the permits lie are my council

district so I have a little bit of a frustration that you know when when the the the area and our team

who've been working on this for years says take it easy and then the staff recommendation it's

free market or 20 or 10 compared to five I think that's that's missing the boat here and and I

get the perspective I see why but I think that it's irrespective of it doesn't address what's really

happening and what has happened in the past when when you control markets if we were to open up 20

right now without dealing with the zoning issues you would see unfortunately what happened before

which was landlord price-catching back in district six and we saw that as soon as we as soon as the

the cap was done on the cultivation side we immediately saw the price of land and the price of

real estate drop immediately when that market was gone so in in my interest I would like to see

that we address the zoning piece first so that you're not fighting for the one two or three

places where you can operate before we start opening up more permits I definitely don't like

just opening it up to free market here because I think as was mentioned as well you know we made

all this effort to try to address more core participation and then what will happen is those

with the most capital will come in and then wipe out anyone who's been working too so there's

the problem with the free market piece and 20 frankly I just don't think our staff capacity

is ready to deal with that many permit applications and and and so you know today I was actually

going to advocate for you know let's try to only keep 10 on the market but if if the chair is saying

that's hold on here I'm open to that discussion I do know that there are people that are ready

that are prepared and so what I'd like to hear from staff is to get a sense on how many of those

are in that if there may be five goes back to being the right lottery but the most important thing

is to get the zoning done first so we don't create again a fluctuation in the market where

landlords take advantage of the permit applicants and that I saw very much the other downside of that

is that when the landlords take advantage of the permit applicants they're also displacing some

legacy businesses that were in those locations too people who are making cabinets for a living

because of where they were zoned the other thing too is I think if we want a more productive market

when it comes to retail it's not going to be next to a landfill all right it's going to be in

a retail environment but right now the zoning only allows around where our transfer facilities

and landfills are so I'm more inclined here to listen to my colleagues but I was ready to push

only a small number and restrict it but given the sense that there's a willingness to sit back a

little bit then I'm open to that because the zoning has to be done first so that we don't create

an artificial market that gouges everyone we're trying to help out both existing businesses

and the applicants absolutely that's a good preview for our next item on today's agenda but

completely agree uh vice mayor maple thank you chair

it's literally you have

uh the market right now situation I think people are really struggling I read I think it was

SFG article this morning about about the market and how things have changed so much and we're seeing

the impacts of that right now in Sacramento and so there are definitely things that I think we

need to take into consideration as we have this conversation I don't I mean while you've heard me

I've been pretty upfront about my belief that I think one of the quarter challenges of this

industry in general and it's not just in Sacramento it's all over the state of California is how we

have artificially restricted licenses and especially on retail and so you have a lot of production

that's happening all over the state you have a legal inability to do across state transactions

though that may change we'll see at the federal level it's not it's not happening right now

and then obviously banking issues and everything else that goes into that to 80e and so it creates a

lot of downward pressure on the market not to mention you know people talked about taxes the

biggest elephant in the room is a 50% state excise tax I mean that's it's huge yeah there's

nothing else that's tax like that in the state and so it's one of the biggest challenges and then

also was mentioned you know the pricing of buildings and part of that goes back to the original

conversation of zoning I really do think this is a chicken and egg problem you know opening up

more licenses while I agree with that in fact I agree and with an open market approach personally

I think that we can't really have that conversation in a real way until we talk about the zoning

and we talk about where these buildings are and how people can participate in the market in that

way because when I think about retail right when you go to any other retail store you're usually

in an area where people can walk around in park and not necessarily in an industrial area and you'll

hear my colleague over here say man I've got a lot of concentration in these industrial areas and

there's challenges with that I think there's a lot of people in this room have probably agree

that you'd like to have your retail storefront and an area where there's other retail makes sense

and so that to me says that we have some work to do it looks like I wish the other item after

this is coming first and we need to have that conversation about zoning we have to have the

conversation about what this looks like before we roll out anything additional in my opinion and

I'm saying this as someone who's been pretty outspoken on needing to do this but I do think it's a

timing issue as well and I want to be thoughtful about it because this is a lot of people's lives at

stake this is your livelihood this is the money that you put in it's the risks that you've taken

and then also but I recognize that there's a lot of people who are waiting in line who are ready

and that hurts too you know and you're sitting there and you're like oh man I just want an

opportunity to participate in this and you and you're not able to that's also very challenging

and so I this is there's no perfect answer here but I do I do personally want to have some more

I agree with Councilmember Valenzuela on we need some more information to make some of these

decisions and so do you have something you want to add? We're happy to bring it back after

the zoning conversation you know as you say vice mayor there are we know there are a number of

people who are telling us they are ready right and they're in line just a couple of other things

I just want to address so you know first as well you know there's definitely challenges in the

cannabis industry statewide locally we are seeing our BOT revenue growing you know through May

2024 which is the last data we have we're up about 7% year on year and so while they're and

you know again it is the state tax which I think is really the biggest burden but we are seeing

growth locally so our industry as a whole we do see that growing which is a which is a really

good thing both for city revenues for the children's fund and for our local businesses

but well retail was up about 3% you're on year so we are

okay please don't call out again yeah so we are you know we are seeing that growth and I just

want to make sure that you know that that's on the record we'll see kind of how it looks after we

close a books in June but that was through May but yeah we're happy to bring it back after

the zoning conversation and so yeah I just want to reiterate I mean because you're hearing this

from my colleagues I will piggyback on council member Garris point that this was my direction when

we said we wanted to bring back more permits was that this needs to come after and we have this

conversation and I think it's really important when we talk about canis the BOT that we disaggregate

from retail from delivery from manufacturing it has to be disaggregated because we're not talking

about all cannabis we're talking about store funds and I know you want to respond right now but

I really want to finish this item so let's save this for broader conversation because we you're

hearing is talk about mean understand what's going on in the market with no nuance we need to know

what happened to all 10 of the court of spenceries not just the ones who are open and just opening

their doors trying to get their footing but the ones who didn't and we have just general market

questions that we want to consider after we do the zoning conversation I think is what you're hearing

but go ahead and come by smear if you have any further that was that thank you that was a good

synopsis that's that's where I'm at it's not I'm not I'll say I'm not decided on on numbers of

permits or moving forward but I will say that I do want more information and I appreciate

what you've brought forward so far I know this is like obviously very emotional actually because

of people's lives so I hear you lot and clear I also hear folks who want the opportunity to

participate so let's find the right balance but that that takes more information so I agree with

councilmember bonzola well thank you vice chair Jennings so if that's if that's in the form of

emotion I would second it okay because I am happy to second it I think a couple of the speakers I

want to thank all the speakers who came and spoke to us today I heard you loud and clear and I

think all of us heard you loud and clear you say at first one of the things you say was use the

stakeholders as a resource and and that's exactly what I've done today is I've listened to you and

I've heard you very clearly the market is in a downward trend far more analysis is needed before

moving forward support of the current core members is needed equally as much to those who are

in business those who are struggling those who have gone out of business as a core member

massive retraction in the industry a change in the industry has happened just from 2022 to

2024 it has changed significantly and since 2021 only five of the ten have opened

massive retraction industry I said that already study needs to be done more industry is changing

need to talk about the zoning all these things are absolutely true in order for us to be able to

make the kind of policy decisions that need to be made so again I do think we need to take our time

and look at this for the 20 or so that are waiting in line I'd love to have a meeting with them as

well so that they can understand what we just heard today about this industry and a lot and still

hear from them if they're ready to still move forward so we can have the full picture of what needs

to happen as we go forward so with that I would support that I would second that motion okay so

motion is to bring it back after zoning changes and with more information all in favor please say

aye aye opposed abstain that passes unanimously thank you again everybody for your patience

and I hope you will continue to engage with us so moving right along to item seven a workshop

on amendments to related to the comprehensive cannabis study from planning this is our and

thank you planning department I know you this is a rush timeline for y'all to come back to us but

we really want to see these zoning changes go through as you can hear so thank you for being here again

yes and before I begin chair I just want to confirm how you like to see could pause just really

briefly if folks could please take your conversations outside we'd love to keep going here thank you

all right keep going yes so chair I just want to confirm how you would like to proceed my presentation

will take about 25 minutes we are covering seven different areas of zoning policy so there will be

good amount of information and the question is would you like me to begin yes all right it's

25 minutes is 25 minutes I mean obviously if you could short it that'd be great you don't need to

read this lives to us but yeah I appreciate that yeah but we get lunch at one apparently so

thank you for the heads up go ahead all right well thank you everyone we are excited to be

hosting a workshop on the comprehensive cannabis study and the title 17 cannabis amendments

so the project is currently in the community engagement phase we have completed our analysis

and evaluation prepared some recommendations and now we're presenting those recommendations to

gather feedback and direction so this is one opportunity with more to come to engage the public

and get input my name is Kirk Skiersky I'm the senior planner in the planning division and the

project lead for this project as I mentioned today's focus will be on the zoning amendments related

to all cannabis land uses so what will not be discussed today will with our consumption lounges

the planning division and the office of cannabis management are planning on holding a similar

workshop like we're having today for consumption lounges at the September 17th law and legislation

committee so stay tuned all right so I will briefly touch on how we got here but the presentation

will mainly focus on the council's seven points of policy direction so that will include in-depth

analysis and our preliminary recommendations and I will conclude with a project timeline but

before I go any further in today's presentation I just wanted to alert everyone that a project

website has been created and it can be found under major planning projects on the planning

divisions webpage that project website has detailed information on the project everything you'll

hear and see today can be found on that website along with an email notification sign up so

check that out and please get involved so background long history everyone is very familiar with

the with the project and and the key takeaway of the of the background how we got here is that the

council commissioned a comprehensive cannabis study back in in 2021 that study analyzed

Sacramento's cannabis industry along with our cannabis regulations there were a series of

workshops held to further gather input and it led to the city council providing seven points

of policy direction and those policy direction points are essentially the starting point

of staff's evaluation and analysis so on the screen is a summary of the seven points of policy

direction that I will go into individually with that being said there are three of the policy

direction points that kind of come together and form regulations that influence where cannabis

land uses can go because of this I will be presenting the policy direction points out of order

starting with those to help paint a better picture of how the preliminary recommendations come

together for I get in few things to keep in mind so seven different areas of zoning policy

a lot of information will be covered buckle up and the last thing I want to emphasize is the

recommendations you're going to hear today are preliminary the think of these as a starting point

a way to spur discussion so with that let's get in the first point of direction we're going to

going to discuss is to review current cannabis business zoning to determine if they still serve

their purpose what does this mean specifically with this point of direction staff evaluated the

permitting process for cannabis land uses so cultivation manufacturing distribution testing

and retail dispensaries and a good point to start is what we know about our current permitting

process its purpose and what cannabis business businesses experience through that regulatory process

so most cannabis land uses require a conditional use permit and when we look at the planning and

development code or title 17 it identifies at the purpose of a conditional use permit are to review

land uses that are known to have impacts and capable of creating special problems because of this

they are our highest level of discretionary review they come with the highest application cost

and the longest processing time and when we look back at past cannabis conditional use permits

and their permitting process during that during the hearing process we've heard comments

not being focused on zoning or land use the specific I could interrupt you yes just because

this hearing is going on so long could we maybe limit the presentation to your recommendations

and go from there yeah thank you I think we're all pretty familiar since we sit on this committee

with a process for cannabis permitting thank you okay so our recommendation for land use permits

for cannabis businesses is to change from a conditional use permit to an administrative permit

so administrative permits are ministerial they require verification of compliance with our standards

because they're ministerial they were reviewed and approved at the staff level so there is no

public hearing or notice generally associated with these they're not subject to appeal but they

are subject to reconsideration with what we've seen with the comprehensive cannabis study that

cannabis land uses do not create problems do not cause issues we're recommending that we're

recommending the change to the administrative use permit all right so and we'll just kind of keep

going through this a little speedy so the second point is to consider additional zones for dispensers

I'm going to start with storefront dispensaries and then I'll go into delivery only

so one of the big issues with our current zones that allow storefront dispensaries is that there

is more than double the amount of industrial land than commercial land with that council district

six and council district two have the most industrial land in the city who incidentally they have

the most dispensaries so what we were seeing is that dispensaries are are highly desire desire

the central city it's also beneficial from land use perspectives in that it is walkable close

to a mixture of uses and is includes different modes of transportation so I'm going to keep on

going so our recommendation is to include rmx c1 and c3 as allowed zones for storefront dispensaries

and if we could go to the map of the rmx c1 and c3 zone real quick I just simply want to show

everyone so it is the other map perfect so from a very high level these three zones are predominantly

located in the central city there is some rmx to the south and north along adjacent to existing

public transit lines and then the c1 zone is evenly dispersed throughout the city generally

integrated into residential neighborhood so if we could go back to the slide show

right so our recommendations for including rmx c1 and c3 for storefront dispensaries

is that it is a small but focused increase it's it's primarily within our central city it is

in areas near residential uses and and and other mixtures of uses and areas that are near transit

and walkable in regards to delivery only we are not recommending any additional zones at this time

they are they are more suited for industrial zones which they are most are already allowed in

and we believe the recommendation of changing the permitting process from a conditional use permit

to an administrative permit would provide the needed benefit for those businesses all right so

the next policy direction point we will discuss was to consider limiting cannabis sensitive

uses to schools youth oriented facilities drug and treatment centers faith-based institutions

and neighborhood and community parks just to set the stage we there are no there is no studies or

data to suggest what is a sensitive use generally we can categorize sensitive uses as uses that are

not compatible or that may be impacted uses that are associated with impressionable or vulnerable

populations and areas and and sensitive uses can also include uses of community value when you

look at our current regulations sensitive uses impacts 92% of the zones where cannabis can locate

and on top of that the vast majority of our existing storefront dispensaries are already operating

within at least one sensitive use buffer so this is a list of our current dispensary sensitive

uses I'm going to focus on dispensaries right now when we were given the direction to evaluate

dispensary sensitive uses we tried to we tried to look at if there were any any themes or or

intentions from our current sensitive uses and what we saw is themes towards public and institutional

uses in youth so our approach considering that most of cannabis zones are within a sensitive use

most cannabis storefront dispensaries are operating within a sensitive use our approach was to

maybe consider a different or or better way to to define sensitive uses how can we redefine

them reclassify them to make it simple while we're protecting the things we need to do so

with that our recommendations for dispensary sensitive uses is to maintain K through 12 schools

and substance abuse rehabilitation centers this follows the previous council direction those uses

are also public and institutional type uses that kind of meet what we're trying to capture

a difference from what council directed is in regards to park we are recommending to include

regional parks regional parks make up some of our biggest parks and have increased amenities and

and attractions so it kind of made sense to include those while the right could you

I'm telling you what I'm doesn't neighborhood community or regional park include almost every park

in Sacramento though oh yeah so they are the vast majority we do have other park types that

currently they're subject to so those include since natural habitat area parkways non-city

and I believe that is it so yes essentially just different classification so technically a regional

parks are very similar to neighborhood community just larger so while the council direction was

to include youth oriented facilities that definition a youth oriented facility is essentially

an establishment that caters towards children or youth so that was a very broad definition and it

could lead to inconsistent application and so when we were when we were looking at our goal of

trying to capture impressionable youth areas where youth and the ages all ages of the general

public congregate we felt that it would be more appropriate to redefine youth oriented

facilities as community centers and libraries so community centers and libraries are currently

tracked by the city of Sacramento within our parks division community centers also include

nonprofit community centers so YMCA for an example and in regards to those uses

they have increased programs targeted towards youth supported by public investment so

we felt that including those uses as a youth oriented facility would clearly

define what is expected or what is to be expected and one last thing I wanted to go into before

moving on because we're speaking about sensitive uses towards youth you may have noticed that we

are recommending removing childcare uses so in-home and childcare centers the reasoning for that is when

we look at the operating characteristics of childcare facilities they are they cater to infant

and toddlers ages anywhere from four weeks to five years old the children that goes to these

facilities are picked up and dropped off they are under constant supervision so these facilities

are secure and controlled and have minimal interactions or visibility of the adjacent land uses so

when we look at when we consider that along with the business operating requirements for dispensaries

that kind of limit the visibility of retail sales it makes those uses hard to distinguish from

others so we felt that it would be appropriate to remove the childcare in-home and day care centers

as a sensitive use I think the vice mayor had a quick question on that before you move on.

Yes, quick clarifying question so how do the current or how do the proposed sensitive use buffers

here differ from the state law sensitive buffers? Yes so state law requires a 600 foot buffer which we

do as well. Their requirement is K through 12 schools which we have day care centers so they do not

include in-home childcare facilities so just day care centers and then they had they identify youth

centers which is slightly different than our definition but we can generally describe that as

public and private establishments that cater towards youth. And so where we go above and beyond

is related to parks community centers and substance abuse rehabilitation is that right? Correct.

Okay thank you thank you.

And yes there are all this information the maps related to some of these recommendations can be

found on the website just trying to do a little quicker version today so the other part of our

recommend do recommendations related to sensitive uses are specific to cannabis production

just so you're aware cannabis production is cultivation manufacturing and distribution.

Currently production uses have require buffers from K through 12 schools and neighborhood or

community parks. Our recommendation is to remove the neighborhood or community park because

in actuality it's not really what we're seeing. There are four out of about 240

production uses that are currently near a neighborhood or or community park. On top of that

the business characteristics for those uses don't don't allow retail sales you know you can't

necessarily go visit those businesses and they're difficult to differentiate from adjacent uses.

The next council direction we are going to discuss was to consider the suitability of mixed

light cannabis uses. So mixed light facilities differ from conventional cultivation sites by

typically having a translucent roof cultivation is Sacramento's largest cannabis business sector so

it kind of made sense to look into this a little bit more. In the past we have heard some concerns

regarding this building type related to light pollution odor and reuse.

Let's take a look at what we know about mixed light facilities and Sacramento specifically.

So in the last seven years we have seen two applications for new mixed light facilities.

Of the two only one has been constructed and is currently in operation. The other mixed light

facility has not been constructed and the conditional use permit has since expired.

Our recommendation is to make no changes so maintain status quo. This would mean that mixed light

facilities may be approved pending site plan and design review approval. Reasoning for that is

we haven't seen one of these facilities in the last four years. We only have one out of 127

cultivation sites currently and then on top of that we have seen a a recent slowdown

in cultivation permits and so that is kind of the justification regarding that recommendation.

Another policy direction point was to consider removing cannabis distribution from the

current uses subject to a district-based square footage cap. That square footage cap came about

in 2018. At that time we had the southeast industrial area had a massive amount of cultivation

applications and that actually in turn resulted in 2.8 million square feet of entitled

floor area so approved not necessarily constructed or what we see today.

And the primary reason for that cap was cultivation concerns.

So with that our recommendation is to exclude distribution from the floor area cap.

As I mentioned we have seen a recent slowdown in cultivation applications.

On top of that we have recently completed an audit of the floor area of the southeast industrial

area, southeast industrial area and essentially since January 1st of this year there has been about

20 conditional use permits that have been determined to be expired and void. This has resulted in

about 580,000 square feet of floor area now being available. So our current cap is at about 1.9

square feet of floor area.

Let's see here. Second to last almost done was to consider additional zones for non-volatile

manufacturing including infusion and packaging. Essentially when we look at the comprehensive

cannabis study they found that manufacturing has very high growth potential so they kind of

put the question on us is hey do your current zoning regulations and your current zoning districts

can they can they account for accommodate growth in this area.

What we and our recommendation is no additional zones at this time. Reasoning for that is

manufacturing is already allowed in all of the industrial zones so if we were to consider any

any additional zones they would be commercial or residential not necessarily appropriate.

And that's where these businesses predominantly locate. They non-volatile manufacturing would

benefit from the admin permit recommendation so that would that would provide additional

relief for those businesses. And the last point of policy direction was to review and consider

permit type for cannabis research and development. So this kind of piggybacks or goes into the same

reasoning for the non-volatile manufacturing in that we're seeing growth expansion and new

cannabis products. They are you know so it is likely that cannabis research and development

becomes a new business sector and grows in popularity. Currently today not really many businesses.

There is no permit type by the state for cannabis research and development and to complicate

the matters even more the state is leveraging our public college system for cannabis research and

development. So essentially the state is offering colleges exclusive grant funding to move forward

with cannabis research and development. With that our recommendation is to amend the cannabis

testing definition to include the ability to have research and development activities as part of

that use. The thinking behind that is cannabis testing is likely the best suited to expand into

that new business sector. But as of right now we don't see anything additional that would be warranted.

Project timelines are wrapping up here so we have this workshop we are holding a webinar.

September 5th we'll have another workshop in front of the PDC come September 12th and a second

webinar at September 19th. The idea is we are in community engagement gathering feedback direction

through September and as part of that we'll begin working on the draft ordinance with the hopes

to bring that forward come November. With that. Thank you, Craig.

Lead my presentation thank you.

I'll send me a public comment on this item.

Yes, chair. Our first speaker is Doyle Croy followed by next now.

Then, Jared Johnson. Folks could please line up in the aisle when you hear your name that would be very helpful.

Can you say those names again, Madam Clerk? Yep. First is Doyle Croy followed by night

smell. Then Jared Johnson. All right, Mike. Go ahead.

I thank you, Kirk, for that great outstanding presentation. That was definitely insightful

on some future direction. But my comment just still it goes back to before we move forward

anything we definitely need 100% review where we're at now. We don't even have the success rate.

Where we access right with the current license that are active from court, right?

And I appreciate Katie, your comments. I'm sorry, I appreciate chair, your comments on

on actually doing let's review that before we push forward. And you second that as well. So I

do appreciate that because that is what we need. How do we know where we're going? We don't even know

where we're been. We don't know where our current status is. The other thing that's an issue

when I talk about the reference to protections, how convenient it was the funding for chamber,

technical assistance, right? So me, I came through the college and chamber. There was no funding

for assistance in the most critical point after I issued the license and how mysteriously

that funding just disappears and they can't support me anymore. And so with all these issues,

that's where I heed the warning to everyone that it's not to hate or stifle your opportunity.

I see it. I hear it in your voices. Your eager. You think this is that express ticket to become

a millionaire, but I promise you this is not the environment for that. It is not established that way.

And we still need a lot of work to get done before we can actually have build that generation of

wealth that everyone is striving for. But that's not existing because show me one. Show me one

successful dispensary owner here in Sacramento. That isn't that isn't common with special interest

and corporation. So without proper vetting, that means doing like actually checking the

life scans of some of these people. And then when there's actual fraud being reported to the

the authority regulatory bodies and this just laughs scoffed off as oh yeah there's some fraud in

there. What happens? This is what we're dealing with people and it needs to be a thorough review.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Mike. Sorry. Yes, our next speaker is Mike

now for a barricade. Johnson. It's got for it. Sorry. It's okay. So the first speaker last call

for the first speaker that was called. I got more. No. No. Thank you though. That was okay. So go

for the third speaker. The first speaker. I apologize everybody. It's okay. We're looking for

Jared Johnson and then Scott Ford followed by Mary Albert. Jared. Going once. Going twice. All right,

Scott. You're up. Good afternoon. Chair of Alan's Waila, members of the committee,

city staff, Scott Ford on behalf of the downtown Sacramento partnership and the 66 block

neighborhood we represent in the heart of California's capital city. As downtown continues to regain

momentum, perceptions and realities of safety and cleanliness will be foundational to the success

of our city's central neighborhood. There must be consideration of appropriate spaces for cannabis

use that is not counter to our shared goals of fostering a thriving downtown. With this in mind,

we strongly urge the committee and staff to consider including on the list of sensitive uses

the Sacramento County main jail, childcare facilities, healthcare facilities, and museums which

regularly host field trips for impressionable youth from around the region and around the state.

Similarly, the buffer zone around sensitive uses should reasonably mitigate any spillover

effects which may impact the surrounding areas. We want to acknowledge city staff for their

engagement and thoughtful work to bring forth a balanced approach to expanding economic and

recreational opportunities while ensuring that a clean, safe, and welcoming public realm,

which serves all members of our community is at the forefront of considerations. We look forward

to further engagement on the title 17 proposed amendments and other issues related to creating a

vibrant downtown which reflects the vitality of Sacramento. Thank you. Thank you for a comment.

Our next speaker is Mary Albert, followed by Diana, then Melokai.

I'm speaking on the possibility of expanding core. Additional 20 stores.

I'm sorry we know that was the previous. I know that additional zoning in Sacramento.

I'm not in order for this item. If you want to talk off agenda, you'd be welcome to,

but this item is just about the zoning. Right, the zoning. Right, so expanding the zoning in

Sacramento to eventually hopefully maybe the Sacramento County. I'm a medical patient. I'm a current

MMIC patient. I am a current compassion patient under SB 34. I am a volunteer for a non-stort front

and storefronts in this community. I volunteer for small craft legacy farmers grown in the Trinity

County for sun-grown, a balanced plant. I would like to see additional competition in the legal

market. I don't want to have to drive out of my city to get my medicine, which I currently have

to do multiple times a month. I have all my receipts for the last three years. I want clean medicine.

I want to place where I can go and be able to meet the brands, be able to meet the farmers,

be able to consume on site. So I don't have to travel down to LA or San Francisco to be able to do

this. Sacramento is the capital of our county. I want to be able to enjoy cannabis in a safe location

in my county. I would love to see this even expanded outside the city limits. That brings in more

competition, brings in jobs for our city. We're expanding. And so I want to see this growth in this

community industry. I believe Sacramento needs it and I support it. Thank you very much for

just listening to me as a customer, as a consumer, as a medical patient. Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Deanna followed by Malachi, then Isaac Altamurina.

Now I will tell you good afternoon. It's been a long day. But I'm glad that we're here today to

discuss cannabis in zoning. For a long time, cannabis has been very restricted of where we can go

and where we can do business and where we can bring clean safe access to customers who need it.

The city is very large. We have a very big footprint here in California.

So I'd like to bring up something today that was not brought up in the city's

presentation is a radius of each store. Our city is very big, but our districts are not

equally able to enjoy cannabis. Our district has our city has seven districts and out of seven

districts is not equally spread out throughout the city. So maybe instead of focusing so much on

zoning, we'll focus so much on each district having their fair share and a radius of how close

each store can be to each other. So that way we are bringing and providing safe access to the

residents of the city of Sacramento. So they don't have to travel so far. So they can walk to

their neighborhood dispensary. They can ride their bike to their neighborhood dispensary. Take that

public transit that Sacramento is so proud of to their local dispensary and not have to go into

industrial places, other districts that you know taking out of their own district. And that's

all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very comments. Our next speaker is Malachi followed by Isaac.

Madam Chair, committee members, Malachi, Amen, Director of the Institute for more. I

am incredibly frustrated right now because here we have this year over the last couple of years

have a number of engagements around the SCORE initiative for racial equity. Core members have not

even been invited to those listening sessions despite you know discussions with OCRM staff about

having that done. Their stakeholder concerns are not taken into account. This scope of analysis

right here is completely absent of equity concerns, racial equity concerns and reparations at

a time that we've been discussing reparations. So it's kind of like we pick and choose how we're

going to talk about equity reparations, justice, and then not included in the scope of something as

serious as the next set of recommendations even zoning. It's not detached from equity issues,

nor capital issues, nor access to support for technical assistance, nor regulations, nor

innovation in financing. All of those issues are not detached from racial equity. And you know,

we had a situation with the equity study that was commissioned by Office of Cannabis Management

that was awarded to UC Davis Center for Regional Change. And all of a sudden, now we don't see

a study and the contract was yanked away from UC Davis Center for Regional Change because they want

an academic independence in that study. We need to do better. Thank you for your comments. Our

last speaker is Isaac. Good afternoon, Chair. Everyone, again, I just wanted to address some of the

things in the presentation. Just when it comes to the CUP becoming a possibly ministerial permit,

or whatnot, there was no discussion about micro business licenses or micro businesses,

hopefully something that is implied with the different uses. But if we can add micro business

licenses, micro businesses to that discussion, I currently operate on micro business. I left the

city, left accounting. I'm in somewhere else. But it's ideal if we don't have to deal with the

CUP process to get a micro business in the new zoning proposals or the things that we're trying to

do. I just wanted to address that micro business as well with the R&D. If there is the possibility for

manufacturers, people that actually produce to have the ability to R&D, not just the labs,

that will be something that can be more connected and more in tune with our reality here in the

field. That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

That is it for public comment today. We will now turn it over to the committee,

who I'm sure will be very concise in their comments so we can get a break before closed session.

So go ahead, Vice Mayor Maple. I have only prepared about a half an hour speech.

Well, thank you. First of all, thank you so much for modifying your presentation. I know you

is a challenging day on this agenda. We've got a lot of big items. I really want to appreciate

the work that you put into your presentation. I know that it will be a part of the public

record for folks to review, so just appreciate that. I'm hoping that I saw the map for the

RMXC1C3 that shows in the downtown. Do you have a map that includes the for dispensaries,

the current places, plus those that we might be able to project? Yes. Could we pull up the third map,

storefront comparison? I'm sorry if I missed it. We were just a little fast.

No. It was going to be included. Just think. Oh, great. Okay. Oh, wonderful. That's really helpful.

And the reason why I asked this, and it looks like I'm having some of my questions answered,

as I look at this, is just more of a broad statement that I represent a lot of the business

corridors in the city. So Broadway, part of Stockton Boulevard, Franklin Boulevard,

Florida, Macro, Freeport. I just want to be sure that we're allowing opportunities for

businesses to be successful there too. And also, obviously in the central city, and I think

that those types of opportunities. So it looks like a lot of those are included. So that's the

screen news. And then, so I'm one I'm very supportive of adding in these additional zones.

I think it's going to create more opportunities. And down the line should there be any changes to

the current number of permits. It sounds like there's going to be some discussion about that.

We don't know where the council is going to go. But even if not, I think the current permits

that exist or if somebody wants to decide to move that that's possibly an option for them.

And I just want to make sure that businesses have the opportunity. If they feel like they would be

more successful in another area of the city, closer to the retail, whatever it may be, that they

have that opportunity. So I'm really glad to see some of these zones plus these new ones.

And I think we should be constantly taking a look at that. I really also support the change

from a CUP to ministerial. I think when we were first, and we were one of the first cities in

the entire state of California. And before, before, past to allow licensing of store friends. And so

that came with a lot of I think unknowns and fears from folks about what it would look like and

how it would work. And I think we now have quite a few years under us to know that we have a lot

of really great businesses that care about the community, they give back, that do the right thing,

that follow the rules. And so I think that maybe changing that, having a CUP to me felt like,

we need to make sure that everything's happening exactly the right way. It needs to be specific.

And now I think that we really have a good set of rules in place and we can ensure that those

businesses are going to follow the rules just like everyone else does. And if they don't, then we have

ways to address that. So I think this is going to make things easier for not only our staff so that

they don't have to spend, what is this, four to nine months reviewing CUPs. But also, it's going to be

great for the people who are trying to open up shop because that is one of the biggest expenses

and time expenses that people have to do when they're going through this process. So I support that.

My personally, if there will be differing opinions on this, I'm sure, is that we should try to

align with state law however we can when it comes to the cannabis industry because there's already

a lot of regulations at the state level, hundreds of pages in fact. And there's also a lot in the state

law that dictates how things should operate, including sensitive use buffers. I understand that,

you know, there's a lot of varying views on this. So I'll just state my personal view is that I think

we should align with state law as it relates to sensitive use buffers. They work in places all over

the California and when we create added barriers, it makes it even harder for us to have enough

properties that are available for people to actually use and look at. And we heard some of the

testimony today that some perhaps, you know, I really agree with the concept of talking and

figuring out why some of the core permanent holders are not open yet. I'd love to see that in

the office, but I would guess at least some of them is because they're having trouble finding a

building. And that's just that's related to all of these different rules that we have in place.

And so wherever we can align with state law, I really support that personally. And anything else

that I wanted out here? Yeah, I think that's it. So I'm just I'm really grateful for for the work

that you put into this putting putting this together and taking all the feedback from former from the

meetings of this committee and from council and I'm really looking forward to hopefully moving this

forward full council of future date and having the discussion. Thank you. Awesome. Council member Guerra.

Thank you. Very supportive of the expansion of the zoning, the only thing that I want to make

sure is that if there's a special planning district overlay already that these changes don't

impede that. You know, I'm talking about Fulsambole of Art and areas where there is a special

planning district, restricting those types of uses. And the other piece that I wanted to also

bring up is for stepping down on some of these, such as manufacturing or distribution

for stepping down the administrative process. I see that there's benefits of that, but on the

cultivation side, I am very worried of that because of the challenges that we've had both on

security in some of the larger facilities, the break ins and the targeted gaps in security

and then also on the odor implications. Now some of them aren't as close to residential

communities, but they're so close to now for you could smell them. So particularly in district two,

district six where you have industrial, very adjacent to homes. You want to make sure that I want to

make sure that when we are looking at that the CUP process does allow that. It is more costly

and that is a challenge, but I've also felt that in certain circumstances the CUP process has

forced the applicant to have more conversation with the adjacent neighbors. So, but overall,

I appreciate all the thought in figuring out how do we streamline, reduce the barriers and

then increase the opportunity. So, thanks. Awesome. And I'll close out here by saying,

agree downtown partnership. I think main jail makes sense. I think museums make sense when we're

looking at further refining youth serving purposes. And when it comes to parks, I really think we

should be more nuanced around parks that have sports fields or play equipment. And I think

a seizure shop as park is a great example of one that I think the intention was to keep it away

from sports activities or youth activities, which makes a lot of sense, but like I wouldn't consider

that necessarily that park. And so, if we say any park with the sports field that's rentable and

park with the play structure would be considered the buffer for cannabis, then we're kind of capturing

that a little bit with more nuance. And with that, seeing no further comments, we've given you

direction. Look forward to seeing you come back after your engagement. Thank you again.

Does any of my colleagues have comments or questions off agenda? No. Any public comments off agenda?

Is this special meeting? It's a special meeting. We've got to do that. All right, meeting adjourned.