Now call this meeting of the City of Sacramento's Law and Legislation Committee to order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Cancel member Maple.

Here.

Cancel member Aguera is absent.

Cancel member Jennings.

Yeah.

Cancel member Jabalanswala.

I am here and we expect Council member Aguera momentarily.

Vice Mayor, will you please lead us in the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance?

Certainly, please stand if you are able.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu,

the valley, and plains mewap, put to win two peoples and the people of the Wiltson Rancheria,

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

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

sight of us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of

acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples history,

contributions and lives.

Remain standing, well, salute 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.

All right, thank you, Vice Mayor and welcome today to the members of the public.

If you'd like to make public comment on any item, this is your friendly reminder to please

fill out a form in the back of the room or the front of the room and turn it in to the clerk.

Once we start comments on items, we might not accept any more slips.

So if that is your plan today, please make that happen before we get started.

And with that, we will start with our consent calendar.

We have three items on consent.

Do any of my colleagues have any questions or comments on these items?

I'm not calling for consent.

All certain.

All right, that is moved and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

abstain?

That passes unanimously with Council Member Gara absent.

All right.

Moving right along to our first discussion item item four, the tenant protection program

update.

We invite staff up to start the presentation.

Welcome Peter.

Good morning, Chair Boundsweila and committee.

I'm Peter Limos, I'm your code and housing enforcement chief for the City of Sacramento's

Community Development Department.

Today we're going to give a brief presentation update on our tenant protection program.

We'll give you some brief history.

So on August 13th, 2019, the City Council adopted an addition of chapter 5.156 of our city

code named the tenant protection and relief act.

The program was established to assist residential tenants and increasing residential, with the

increasing residential rates and establishing set limits on annual rent increases for certain

properties for long term tenants.

It provided some protection for unwanted terminations of contracts and leases.

Also known as just costy fictions.

While the program went into effect September 2019 due to statewide COVID restrictions and

war storms that were put into place, the program actually didn't initiate until September

30th with the expiration of some of the COVID resolution or COVID amendments.

And then some of those even went through June of 2021.

So the City's housing element implemented housing program H-25 and it commits the city

to raising awareness about the tenant protection program and collecting data to review the effectiveness

of the program.

And considering changes that would strengthen the effectiveness of the ordinance prior to

our current sunset and date of December 31st of 2024.

In response to the housing element implementation program, staff conducted outreach and interviews

with interesse groups along with surveys.

You can find these results and the notes from the outreach and meetings in the attachments

of three and four of your staff report.

These are the groups or the times that we met from May 8th to 31st, tenant focused survey

groups.

It was a survey that was sent out.

June 10th through 19th and landlord stakeholder meetings were conducted.

And June 18th through July 12th, property manager and owner focused survey went out.

So staff is recommending minor amendments to the program, including adding some clarity

to the definitions, to clearly state the requirement to complete the registration pack.

Currently the ordinance only says they must pay an annual registration and actual fee.

An amendments to extend the sunset date of the ordinance to December 31st, 2025.

This will provide us time to work with stakeholders to further evaluate and modify our current

program.

Today we are seeking this committee's review and comments on these recommendations.

The next step will come back to the committee on October 15th with minor modifications for

consideration.

And for you to go forward with the city council to take it forward full city council for

consideration on November 19th.

This would make it effective on December 19th before our current sunset date of the ordinance.

So this completes presentation brief here to answer questions, comments to assist you.

Also have a great student Greg Sandlin here from the planning department to assist.

Thank you, Peter.

And committee members, since the timeline of this is quite tight, I did ask staff to make

sure to bring forward this discussion item for us today so that we could provide input now

before we butt up too close to that December 31st sunset date.

So with that, we'll move on to public comment and quick viewing public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We have four speakers for this item.

As your name is called, please line up behind the lectern.

First is Matt McDonald, followed by Aaron Teague.

Then Robert.

Good morning.

I'm Matt McDonald with the California Department Association representing over 60,000 rental

housing owners throughout the state and over 3,000 in Sacramento County.

Over 95% of our members in Sacramento are mom and pop owners who own 10 or fewer units.

We hope during this discussion you won't forget that TPP is really about regulating their

homes, life savings, and in many cases, their livelihoods.

TPP is largely redundant of state law AB 1482, also created in 2019.

The dual existence of TPP and AB 1482 has been a source of confusion in the industry locally.

We would prefer to see TPP expire and let AB 1482 be the sole law of the land.

If the council does extend TPP for more study, we urge two things.

Emphasis on public education.

And two, first emphasis on public education and two, the gathering of statistically reliable

data.

The renter survey feedback supports that Sacramento renters often falls short of understanding

their rights under the law.

The DAA makes this standing offer to the city that we will assist the city in renter

education wherever possible.

Further, the survey data you have is not only anecdotal, there is no analysis of current

or future market conditions.

Don't act blindly.

Please avoid creating a chilling effect on new builds.

The prime catalyst for bringing down rent citywide, which is now almost 8% in the last year

according to the Sacramento Bee from June 8th of this year.

We hope that an additional year of study will mean working together constructively to improve

the quality and affordability of rental housing in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aaron Teague, followed by Robert, then James Ellison.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members.

Aaron Teague on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors.

We support the staff's recommendation to extend the program for a year to collect additional

information and the necessity of the program.

Based on surveys, feedback and data, the program is not perfect.

However, if the goal is to stabilize rent and keep people in place, rents are stabilizing

and the program is doing what it is set out to do.

What we see across the board from tenants and property owners is a need for more education

on the program and the rights, duties and protections that the city's programs cover.

It would help the program's effectiveness to provide more information on how the tenant

protection program and the rental inspection program work.

While all these programs operate independently, individuals seeking assistance often have

difficult to differentiate between the two.

Most interesting piece of the survey results was that most property owners in the city own

from one to three properties, which are mom and pop owners, not corporations.

This shows that these are residents, retirement investments, living costs that stay within

and support our local economy.

These are the owners trying to navigate complex programs to stay in compliance.

We've heard directly from our local owners that they are now paying additional legal

fees to ensure compliance with these different programs and even then there's not 100% clarity.

Overall, the cost of provide housing are going up through property taxes, insurance and

the fees related to providing housing in the city.

It's becoming increasingly more challenging for property owners to secure insurance and

coming at an additional cost.

It's concerning because if these local housing providers do end up getting out of our local

market, it will further squeeze the rental market and open up more opportunities for

corporate ownership.

Ultimately, I would be remiss if I did not share that if we want to support renters in

our city, we need to continue to build more housing and help create home ownership housing

opportunities.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Robert, followed by James Ellison.

Well, I'm going to take the tenet side of this.

This ordinance was unnecessary and the people that supported it on the city count at that

time should be replaced.

I mean, we had AB 1482 going to law.

Why do we need this?

And then they strengthened it by SB 567 just last year.

I agree with the Department of Social Media, more education, more housing.

That's why I'm supporting the million of homes that are governors, new census of

promise, but it's failing to deliver by 2030.

We need real rank control, just call the election.

And we need to get rid of all the bad actors that are apartment association members and

landlords.

Because there are a lot of slumlords in California and in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is James Ellison.

Good morning.

My name is James Ellison with the Midtown Association representing over 1200 properties in Sacramento's

urban core.

Our mission is to make Midtown the Center for Culture, Creativity, and Vibrancy in the

Central City.

I'm here today to offer our support for staff's proposal to extend the tenet protection

and relief act.

With the current program set to expire at the end of this year, we believe that staff

is making an appropriate recommendation to extend the program for an additional year

to allow for greater review prior to any proposed major modifications.

City staff has spent the last several years working diligently to determine the effectiveness

of the program and analyze its impact on Sacramento.

Over the past year, staff has held multiple stakeholder meetings to determine the need

for any major program modifications.

What has been made clear as a result of those discussions is that more time is needed

to determine any appropriate changes.

The decision to delay the program sunset allows for an additional year for fact finding

and discussion to determine the best possible opportunities for proposed changes to the

program without jeopardizing those who would be adversely impacted if it were to expire.

Especially given the program's pandemic implementation, this course of action allows for

additional review time under a more normal housing ecosystem.

We support staff's recommendation to extend the program as it exists, allowing for thoughtful

and thorough evaluation and policy review.

Thank you.

We have no more speakers on the item.

Thank you.

I'll now turn it to my colleagues for input and discussion first up is Council Member Gara.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair here.

First, I just want to thank staff and all the stakeholders that have come in to work on this item.

From the tenants involved who've given their input, the folks that from both the realtors

and the apartment association and also the neighborhood groups that have gotten engaged

in this, one of the key things that I want to highlight is just the fact that Sacramento

led on this issue.

And I want to thank my colleague, also Council Member Jennings on this, but by passing the

TPP, the tenant protection program, it actually led to the support growing for AB 1482 that

created a statewide program.

And the benefits of it have led that we actually have a framework here in Sacramento.

I also want to highlight some of the good work that our co-enforcement officers have

done on this.

And there was a particular case in the North Sacramento area where the TPP came into place

where a scrupulous landlord began to charge people above the rate and use tactics to get

around the law.

And because of the TPP, not only were we able to go in and do right by them, but then when

that landlord tried to harass those tenants or create intimidation, the TPP also has

the language in there to go after and find the landlord.

So one, it led to a huge correction on an item on that.

It protected the tenants.

And so I'm very happy where we are here.

Now yes, like any new program, as they say, the first is the worst.

But we've been able to come and address those issues.

And this was over 60 residents, if I remember, 60 units that were affected.

What I will say is that I support where the staff has gone and some of these clarifications.

But to be in line, I think, with the state law and to not create confusion.

And I'm very comfortable of where we're moving on this.

My direction here, and if we need a motion, Madam Chair, I would move that we not increase

it for a year, but increase it for five years.

And that puts us in line also about a year before the state law starts reviewing it.

So just like with AB 1482, we're giving input at the state level so that our input goes

into any changes that may happen at the state level.

One of the confusions that happened after the state, they did some last minute things

after we passed ours, and they did some last minute changes.

We had to come back and correct them so that there's more, what do you call it?

When folks are looking at one law there, they're also seeing how it impacts at the local

level.

And I'll say that I'm very supportive of it's also the protection for unlawful detainers

and that if a landlord doesn't participate, then it gives the tenant an affirmative defense

on an unlawful detainer.

So this encourages everyone to participate.

The piece that where we could get a do better, and when we first created the program, we

had SACSELF-ELP housing that was doing the information.

Now we're going through 211.

This is one where we need to work better with the county on the funding on 211 for education.

I'm glad to hear that the Department of Association wants to push on renter education, but where

we need I think more information and we'll take some ownership on this on the city side.

He is on landlord education so that they get it right the first time and make sure that

we're educating the public on the appropriate caps.

It is not always a 10% camp.

But fact, we're at an 8% camp right now.

And as we see those fed numbers change, likely the CPI numbers will reduce.

So we need to be able to have up to date information so that those, that the landlord education

and the renter education are all together.

So I would say while we look through our budgets and figure out how we look at education,

I welcome and I thank those both from the realtors and the Department of Association

and the business groups to help on this education.

The more that both renters and landlords know about their rights and responsibilities,

then I think the better this program will work.

So let me stop there and just say Mr. Lemus, thank you to your team, to your co-offices who

were out there.

And my understanding in this particular permit complex, there were four different languages

spoken and the fact that we were able to get out there and I know our other council members

are working on language equity policy which all interplays.

This is how we move forward and provide that level of support.

So that would be my either direction or motion, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I was going to say this is a discuss item but that is good direction.

I thank you for your comments and thank you Peter for coming up to the dius because

I queued myself in so I could ask you a couple of questions just to make sure that we

were all on the same page.

Can you explain from your perspective, I think I understand the answer but I think it would

be good for you to talk publicly about what would change in Sacramento's enforcement practices

if the TPP were to expire?

If the tenant protection ordinance was to expire, our enforcement would be no enforcement

issues with rent increase or unlawful evictions on just evictions and such it would be left

up to the tenant to file a civil action against the property owner or vice versa through

the court system only.

Okay, thank you.

I thought that was going to be the answer because I know we've come up against this with

the anti-harassment piece.

I know we've come up against this with other pieces state law.

It's only as good as our ability to enforce it and so without a local ordinance in place,

our city teams wouldn't have the direction from the council to be proactively monitoring

and enforcing these laws and it would really be up to the tenants which more often than

not would mean that enforcement wouldn't have unfortunately.

So thank you for that.

Correct, David also lose our internal hearing process.

We allow them to have an internal hearing officer which gives them a legal ruling on what's

happening.

Absolutely.

Yeah, and it gives them the ability for example to ask for more substantial rent increases

because costs have gone up, things that are flexibilities that we have the local level

that wouldn't really exist in the same way at the state level.

So I'll just start with my editorial essay and vice-mersk cute up as well.

But I want to agree with my colleagues point, I'm on extending this to five years.

I think that we can continue to make refinements to this program.

I think some of the technical issues that you highlighted for me in our briefing before

this around how do we define certain things can continue to be refined.

I think there's other things that I would love to see as examined as we move forward

and for example, we've been looking at the fair chance housing language from Oakland

and whether that makes sense for us to include here in Sacramento so that property owners

can still monitor and assess certain types of criminal offenses but in general having

a criminal pass doesn't blink it, exclude you from being able to rent properties since

we know that's one of the large drivers that people stay on the street because they can't

get a second chance to get housing even after they've paid their time and done their service

to the state and the country.

That would be my editorial comment is that I just want to thank my colleague for bringing

forward the idea of five years.

I was going to say 2030 but I actually really appreciate your point about ending it

potentially one year prior, 20 but then 2030 because that gives us the chance to maybe

do what we did last time in terms of evaluate, give feedback and hopefully inform the state

process as that renewal, I'm sure we'll become an earnest shortly after our renewal takes place.

So those are my thoughts and perspective on this in terms of direction.

So yeah, I'll stop my comments there and turn it over to the vice mayor.

Thank you chair.

Also want to start by thanking you and your team.

I know that as council member Garam mentioned there's always challenges when you start

up something new and we certainly saw that but also I think I've heard from my constituents

that this is something that is used that they find value in that's been helpful for them

and it's also been helpful for landlords in my district as well so it's been I think

a well-used program and when that you know I at least want to see extend for a period

of time so that we can have those conversations so that you and your team can have those conversations.

I really appreciate how much work that you all have done to outreach to the various

organizations and landlords and tenants and community members on this issue because it

is top of mind for a lot of residents to Sacramento as you know our housing stock, the

affordability of housing, staying in your unit and so on and so this is a really

concrete way that we can continue to do that.

I know the staff recommendation is a year but I was really compelled by council member

Garam's comments and but also I think five years makes a lot of sense to me especially

when we're thinking about the alignment between the state law and us on the timing.

One thing just as we move on into that time period and as you're having conversations

one thing that has been brought to my attention from several of my residents is I know that

currently some affordable housing projects are excluded from the TPP.

I've heard concerns from some residents that they haven't been able to obviously use

the program.

I feel they're in one of those projects and so just have that question beyond the table

as we move forward over the coming years of is that is that something that we do want

to include in the future.

I know it was a part of a negotiation in the past but I certainly heard from some of my

residents that it's a concern that they're not able to necessarily go through the process

through TPP so I would love to hear that but I'm generally speaking just want to agree

with both my colleagues so far and see an extension of five years.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Vice Chair Jennings.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I just want to know if there are unintended consequences as a result of the five years

as opposed to the staff proposal of one year that you can think of at this time.

Switching one year or five years for the staff is knowing that they're going to have

their position for five years instead of having a sunset that's 90 days from now.

So trying to keep some stability and staffing.

That's a big plus also with your tenants and your owners knowing that there's not always

a sunset date that they have something that they're going to know is concrete.

When we come back to do a change to council and such then they get their input and they

get to come to the law and legend and council to voice opinion and we will have these stakeholder

meetings in advance.

So yeah, I guess the big benefit of going five years instead of one is more towards just

stability.

It also sounds like based on the speakers and even yourself the ability to provide more

education in that five year period of time and what I would be looking for from a direction

standpoint is a plan of action of how we would put that education in place over a five

year period of time so that it would be an education that could be built upon and grow

as opposed to just continuing to give the same thing over and over again.

So I'm looking for an educational program that we can present over a period of time, maybe

it's three years, maybe it's five years.

But I think the education is needed so much as it's spoken of, I want to see the plan

for how we're going to put that in place.

Yeah, through the housing element which is brought forward the outreach and also the

surveys, we did learn a lot and these have been completed in the last 90 days so we're

still even digesting them now.

But it really is a program that people don't look for until you really need it.

And then what's even there to represent you when we found this 16 and complex 50 units

occupied, 45 plus of those occupied units did not know there was even anybody there to

support them.

They thought they were on their own and through the education now region and of course we

can't go door to door like we did there on 43,000 units.

But we did once we knew there was a problem, we went door to door, did a survey with

personally at every door with translated everything else we can get the full information.

So we're learning yes that we need to put a program together and what exactly does that

look like over in less than four years.

We're talking in the next year what does that program look like.

So we'll be an intense outreach department association is also updated there, listen provided

you know so that they're also assisting us to make sure that the landlords and tenants

have know the rights through that process also is some collaboration already starting.

Well I was happy to support the one year extension but my colleague has put a five year extension

on that I think would be much better and so I'm going to support that.

Excellent thank you vice chair yeah and I think that we put some additional considerations

on the table for next year and beyond some policies to look at.

I think the question of a sunset is whether or not we think there should be a local program

and I think the question of future policy changes and updates to council is a separate

and related question and so I appreciate the consensus that appears to have developed

on this dius.

I will say obviously I mean folks know I've tried at this committee before to talk about

you know changes the right cap changes to eviction protections the votes aren't there

and so I can accept one.

I think that this is an important step forward and I think there's strong consensus on

the dius to keep the program in place so that we can keep supporting both tenants and

landlords.

From an education perspective I'm cautious about leaning too hard on the apartment association

they obviously have a constituency that they represent and so I do want to make sure

that whatever we do moving forward has both those tenant organizations that I know exist

in those legal service organizations as well as the apartment association.

Everybody has their own interest to play and I just want to make sure we're being balanced.

So I do have enough direction Peter to bring something back.

Speaking sure the date we're talking is December 31st 2029.

Correct.

And we put some additional things for you to mull on as you continue refining the program

next year.

All right thank you.

Awesome thank you all.

Oh sorry I have Councillor Emberger.

Yeah I just want one last thing for Peter here and it has less to do with the policy but

more on the finance side.

You know it's particularly when we have like a case like that where we had an entire complex

that was you know being taken advantage of what I'd like to do and you don't have to

bring back here but if you could get me the information on the total cost of the hours

on that because you know I do think that we're going to have the next couple years going

to be tough but we need to figure out how to best maximize and look at code enforcement

and we've this council has supported growth in code enforcement as well so I think this

is a way we need to better understand what the cost of the service is as well.

Thank you.

So the great consideration because when the ordinance was really passed simple simple

is sexual self-help housing was never budgeted as part of the ordinance.

We didn't budgeted budget in the enforcement side of it and now that we have two and one

that's actually not in our budget for how that's being managed that's something else the

council votes on through SHRA and the hearings.

And I think that the programs are a lot more expensive and a lot more detailed than we believe

not going into this we didn't realize how intense they were and these rulings are very

legal, very detailed, there's always legal representatives and such so yeah there's a lot

higher cost than we ever imagined and our enforcement was like I said never included in there and

we didn't never included that we had to have dedicate teams to this.

Absolutely.

Yeah I know my colleagues brought up the idea of things like right to supervisor which I think

we all support, you know, nobody should not be able to defend themselves because they

can't afford council but the dollar amount on that is just staggering. And so I think

continuing to explore these partnerships with our county and other service providers to

make sure we're providing that safety net as much as we can to ensure nobody is not enforcing

the law because they just don't have the ability to do so is definitely something worthwhile.

So thank you, Peter and your team for and the community development team I know as well

for your work on this.

Yeah, our team is the only tenant protection program in our county. So everybody who

Google's tenant protection calls us. Our staff is on the phone full day and answering emails

for everybody in the county.

I appreciate that. Yeah, I saw them on the survey as well. I did a pretty thorough review

of the survey responses in the stakeholder meetings and those county folks, poor guys, they

really want to be a part of our program. So maybe we can show the county how to do it

there. I took the phones for one week for myself to see what it was like and I was answering

county or answers for every city and jurisdiction in our county. Wow.

And outside because I had calls from LA residents. Wow, thank you, Peter. All right, thank

you all so much. So the direction is clear. We will now move along to item five policy

direction related to cannabis consumption lounges. Hello, Fiona. And as Fiona comes up

to do the presentation, I guess I just want to remind folks in the audience once again,

if you haven't submitted a comment slip, please do so. But also, please remember, we have

talked about this several times a council. Our direction to staff has been fairly concise

and clear. So I just want to make sure that we don't reopen, rehash other things that

we've already discussed and that you keep your comments to the nature of what Fiona will

be presenting today for feedback and discussion. Thank you, Fiona.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Fiona Matson. I am the program specialist

for the Office of Cannabis Management. And today I'm here to discuss cannabis consumption

lounges. In September, 2023, staff was directed to develop a pilot framework for cannabis

social consumption lounges. It may have this year staff presented a permitting framework

that would create two permit add-ons. Injustible only and injustible plus available cannabis

products with permit preferences to the cannabis opportunity, reinvestment equity program

also known as our core program. The committee directed staff to return with a pilot program

that would allow for any storefront dispensary to be permitted for cannabis consumption if

necessary conditions are met. That direction is being fulfilled today.

The pilot program would offer two types of social consumption permit add-ons. Type 1 would

allow for cannabis infused drinks such as mocktails, canned beverages, bottled drinks,

and infused cannabis edibles such as cookies, popcorn chips, chocolates, and gummies. Type

2 would allow for all type 1 activities and the ability to smoke cannabis products such

as flowers, pre-rolls, and concentrates. The type 2 permit add-on will require the premises

to have negative pressure smoking rooms, designed to limit the extent possible leakage of

smoke and particulate matter into the non-smoking rooms and have HVAC systems separated from

the rest of the facility that does not recirculate and has high rate of air exchange.

The type 1 injustible products only would not require negative pressure smoke rooms and

specialized HVAC systems. Both permit add-ons will need to comply with all permitting requirements,

plannings, land use, and zoning, and buildings mechanical ventilation and air exchange requirements.

Staff is seeking committee direction on whether to move the social consumption pilot program

utilizing the two permit methodology to counsel for consideration. This will offer staff to

collection evaluate data, respond to questions, and concern as they arise, and take enforcement

action if needed. This staff is also seeking direction on the length of the time for the

pilot program. This would give storefront permits the opportunity to decide whether to invest

funds and explore the strategies for potentially temporary business opportunity. To implement

social consumption, the city would need to adopt an ordinance of many various sections of

the city code and complete a fee study. Staff is also recommending the city conduct an

education and safety outreach campaign for the city. Thank you.

I thank you, Fiona. We will now start public comment and once again, obviously, it's public

comment. You're allowed to comment on this item as you see fit is related to this item,

but the two points of comment here should we move forward and how long should the pilot

be? So just highly recommend you restrict your comments to that if you would like us to

really weigh that as we move forward today. So go ahead, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Chair. We have 18 speakers on this item. As your name is called, please line

up behind the lectern. Our first is Donald Lyman, followed by Faith Galati, then Lynn Silver.

Good morning. I'm Dr. Donald Lyman. I am here representing the local medical society,

all the physicians in town, and the topic is cannabis in front of us. I'm very happy

to be here today. I was the one who started our tobacco control program for the state,

and I noticed there are no ash trays anywhere here. We won. We did that. That's very good.

Now I was also a proponent on Prop 64 in 2016, which legalized cannabis. So this is

sort of our baby. It was put forward by the state medical association, and I represented

them as part of that effort. So our intention was to bring this issue out of the shadows,

put it out in public so that our elected officials could deal with it. And here we are. We

did it. So that was a good thing. I'm very happy about that. The Medical Association

brings you two cautions about the actions that are underway, which I suggest you proceed

with. The first is to recognize that second-hand smoke is indeed dangerous. And that comes

in all kinds of forms. Tobacco clearly, a big problem. But with cannabis with different

green stuff that's there, it's a problem. And you've got to be very careful about what

is coming off of these products. There's smoke that you can see that's particular stuff,

and there are gases that you cannot see. So be careful with what's there. The other

is to be careful about who you view as the people at risk from a second-hand smoke. At

the end of our tobacco control program, we had the industry attack us trying to keep us

from banning smoking in bars. We constructed a 15-second ad, which opened with a woman

walking through a bar, the bar made, and she picked up glasses and she served people.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is now complete. Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Faith Galati, filed by Lynn Silver, then Isaac Altamoreno.

I'm sorry, sir. Your time is complete. Sir, your time is complete. We need a lot of people

want to speak today. Thank you.

Good morning or afternoon. My name is Faith Galati. I am speaking in opposition of the

lounges, but I do as our previous speaker, I have to tell you that I was, in fact, in favor

of our legalization of marijuana. And I have to say that we did so believing that our lawmakers

would protect the community and its health and safety. And this is where I think we maybe need

to slow our role in my capacity working with youth. I have a whole new battle in addition to

trying to help them achieve their academic potential. Now I have to educate them on the fact

that the things that look like candy may not be. And that has nothing to do with these lounges,

but it does have everything to do with how do we focus on making sure that the health and safety

of our community is actually intact. The previous speaker explained that we have research that

supports the dangers of inhaling smoke. And I do want to share that we did vote in favor of having

no longer having smoking available indoors and restricting it outside. So I do see this as

going backwards. I'd like to say that I respect that these dispensaries need support. It's expensive

proposition and they're being taxed and they're being undersold by illegal sources. Even AB45

has become an incredible danger to the youth that we serve and is taking away opportunities for

them. I want to sign it. We'll tell you that we did take kids out to two or three different

locations where they were able to find Delta eight and nine products just this last weekend

and purchase them. My concern ultimately is the rarely discussed collateral damage

to ultimately the pregnant women, the employees and the youth who will be exposed. I want to

make sure we're being very careful here. We don't want to go. Thank you for your comments. Your time

is now complete. Our next speaker is Lynn Silver, followed by Isaac Altamirino, the Myra Altamirino.

Chair Bountainsweila, members. I'm Dr. Lynn Silver from the Public Health Institute. We've

worked with Sacramento officials since Prop 64 to make legalization safer. Like Sacramento as of

January, three quarters of the 195 California jurisdictions that allow storefront retailers wisely

prohibit onsite consumption. Smoke free air and worker protections are one of the great advances

of public health. My kids and yours grew up smoke free. Allowing onsite consumption and temporary

events undermines this progress. Workers and customers will be at increased risk for heart disease,

stroke and other harms. Cannabis is our leading substance of abuse. It is a significant contributor

to serious mental illness, including psychosis and mood disorders. One in 10 young adults now

uses weed daily, triple 1991 rates. The tenfold increase in potency of

interbi-charged extracts like shatter, more than doubled the risk of addiction. Here in Northern

California, even used during pregnancy, double to 9% with major racial disparities. This is

associated with more maternal complications, more harm to exposed babies, including low birthweight,

pre-matured and long-term developmental harms. Workers will inevitably be exposed to second-hand

cannabis smoke. If she is a woman who becomes pregnant, her baby will be exposed. The science

so far shows cannabis smoke is, or maybe is harmful or even more harmful than tobacco smoke.

You may have lobbyists coming to tell you that cannabis smoke is safe. They are, frankly,

blowing smoke. HVAC systems do not solve this problem according to the engineers.

This is a bad idea, instead to help retailers. Don't license too many so that

licensees are not competing in a race to the bottom of low prices, enforce against the legal

market and take real action to end competing and intoxicating hemp sales. These steps would provide

real relief to retailers and protect our kids. No one should go to jail for weed possession,

but no one should land in the hospital or be exposed. Thank you for your comments. Your time

is now complete. Our next speaker is Isaac Ultomeranol, followed by Myra Ultomeranol,

then Tuyla Laster.

Good morning. How is everybody doing? I'm Isaac. Once again, I'm here. Same topic.

I just wanted to remind everybody that legalization without consumption is not legalization. There's

a whole bunch of people who can't smoke at their homes. That's why we're here. What I want to talk

about really is the way this is going to come to pass. We still haven't discussed the fact that

the state doesn't regulate consumption and we haven't discussed an off-site option or an option

that is standalone and delivery retailers can power. Additionally to this, this is a perfect example

of the road to hell paved with good intentions. There is not enough retailers that are on board

and any modifications to the current city ordinance will give an opportunity to outlaw private

gatherings and infringing on our first amendment right, which is to actually gather in assemble.

If we spark up what we're assembling, we shouldn't be criminalized. We shouldn't deploy code

services. We shouldn't deploy the police department to try to stop us from privately gather.

So, additionally to this, the consumption lounges, yes, I'm kind of in favor, kind of not. I get the

on-site off-site discussion as a technicality. We haven't discussed and explored the details on that.

What concerns me at this point is that we've gone to the point in which we're now going to amend

the city code and perhaps amend the city code and weaponize code enforcement and criminalize

us once again, marginalize us and take us down a path that we don't want to go. So, we have done

events. We keep doing them safely. We have not had any incidents, no robberies, no fights, no

no medical emergencies. No, no, these things have happened to us because we know what we're doing.

This is our lives. We have done it forever and we will continue to do it. So, I just want to

bring this to you guys. It's important that you remember that if we are allowing on-site consumption

only, we should not outlaw people privately gathering at a commercial building or something because

not everybody has a home or a mortgage where they can invite their friends or somebody to do something.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is not complete. Our next speaker is Myra Altamirino,

followed by Tpaila Lester, the Maisha Bahadin.

Hello, everyone. Please, once again, I'm going to reiterate what we just heard. Do not take away

the right to assemble. This is under the First Amendment and if consumption

lounges happen, we need to make sure that private gatherings are not taken away from us.

I cannot, I have a birthday without having a smoke. I'm sorry. I want my private

parties to happen every year. Off-site consumption, once again, the state has repeatedly

inserted, I have emails proving that they do not regulate consumption. Why are you guys doing so?

We need this pilot program to be, once again, outside collectible. Collectible is extremely

expensive for people like me that want to actually throw an event. Please help us build this bridge

that is between the events and lounges. We need some plays for people to stop walking around the city,

smoking around and getting those violations. We need to stop from people to harassing others

outside and private space that they can actually consume the medicine. Please have this consideration.

I know that there's a lot of people that are against it, but this is a benefit that is going to come

for the city. You need to give the opportunity to allow this lounges to happen. Outside collectible.

Outside of our homes for kind out loud, not a lot of people have that privilege.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Twila Lester, followed by Amba Yisha,

Bihari, Benzair, Michael Gaston. Good afternoon, council members. I am the project director for

saving our legacy, African-Americans for smoke-free safe places. We're dedicated to promoting healthy,

smoke-free environments by African-Americans, youth, and other populations who are disproportionately

affected by tobacco use and related social conditions. With the growing use of cannabis,

particularly in conjunction with new emerging products, it is increasingly important to address

intersectionality of smoking, vaping, and cannabis. Public health advocates, medical professionals,

and unions have worked to promote clean indoor air and protect workers from the public

hazards of smoking for years. Second-hand smoke marijuana contains many of the same harmful

chemicals as cigarette smoke and has been shown to be more dangerous over shorter periods.

Cannabis lounges present legal and regulatory challenges that could complicate enforcement

of existing workplace laws, smoke-free workplace laws that is, and create uncertainties about

where smoking is permissible. Even if lounges are separate entities, the potential for smoke to

drift into nearby buildings and public spaces such as childcare centers, schools, and parks

could undermine efforts to maintain smoke-free environments in the community. Furthermore,

cannabis lounges inadvertently normalize youths among youth and young people influencing their

perceptions and behaviors. Thank you for weighing in on the factors in your decision-making process

to ensure a well-balanced approach considering the broader community's health and well-being.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Maiisha Bahadi, followed by Sarah, Michael Gaston,

the Christine Trimble. Hot topic. Good morning, a long legislation committee. My name is Maiisha

Bahadi. I am the owner of Crystal Nogs Delivery and Dispensary. We are located here in Midtown.

I am in full support of a pilot program for on-site consumption lounges. When I was going through my

permitting process, I had a public hearing and I had 10 letters of opposition and they all range from

we were going to attract children. We were going to be a new sense. We were going to attract crime.

We were going to have a lot of loitering. We will have been open 10 months next month and we've

had zero issues with those. At the planning commission, cited with the opposition, we would not have

been open. All because of a preconceived notion of what we were going to do. As we talk about

on-site consumption lounges, we're back to these preconceived notions of what we're going to do.

I hear a lot of comments about secondhand smoke, ventilation, pregnant women, employees working

in lounges. That's why a pilot program exists. You can find out what works, what doesn't work,

on a smaller scale before releasing it on a bigger scale. The conversation at consumption lounges

is not going to go away. As the city is already going to release more dispensaries through the

core program, there's going to be more people consuming cannabis. But yet, when we want to open

up a consumption lounges, all of a sudden there's a big issue. There's ventilation systems in place

for that. We're moving with technology. I know there have been some comments about ventilation

not working. Maybe there are ventilation systems with them good. Why can't we use the preconceived

notion in Sacramento that this can work out? That there are good ventilation systems, that the

public is going to be safe doing this. Again, I approve or I support a pilot program because that's

the only way you're going to know what works and what does not work. Thank you. Thank you for your

comments. Our next speaker is Sarah Michael Gaston, followed by Christine Trimble, then Kyle Mase.

Good morning council members and city staff. My name is Sarah Michael Gaston. I'm the deputy

director at youth forward. We oppose the cannabis consumption lounges proposal. Youth forward

opposes this proposal based on concerns for the negative health impacts of cannabis smoke and

vapor and cannabis secondhand smoke and vapor on patrons of the lounges and employees. We are

particularly worried about the negative health impacts of smoke on pregnant women and their developing

fetuses. Kaiser researchers have found that cannabis used by pregnant women increases the risk for

several health concerns including gestational hypertension or high blood pressure, pre-clamsia,

and even a serious complication of pregnancy. Furthermore, babies will be at greater risk for low

birth rates and long term developmental delays. With these lounges, we are essentially going back to

days of smoke-filled restaurants and bars. Personally, I have asthma and have always struggled with

secondhand smoke and how it makes me sick. I do not believe we should further normalize smoking

cannabis by permitting these cannabis lounges as it will go out into our community and young people

will see it and be impacted by secondhand smoke and think it's okay. I ask you, does this economic

benefit or do you think that the economic benefits of advancing cannabis in Sacramento outweigh the

value of protecting the health of women and children? Please do not move this idea forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Christine Trimble, filed by CalMase,

Thin Favio. Good morning.

Okay. Hello.

Good morning. I'm asking for off-site consumption because I live where I am not allowed to smoke,

so I go walking to be able to. By my medicine. And twice since the last time we were here,

I've been assaulted and approached. So instead of risking being assaulted again or getting arrested

or a ticket, please give me a place I can enjoy my meds at my own pace and not be worried about

those other things. Thank you in advance. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Kyle

Nase, filed by Favio. Thin Bettina Rees. Hello. I was up here last time as well and I'm happy to see

the movement forward from last time because now we're at least allowing the onsite. I also do

urge to keep looking at the off-site as well in private events because as stated before,

the consumption lounges only being lounges would make it for people that have enough funds

allocated already to be able to either create a new storefront or have a storefront with something

big enough to have a lounging. I'm grateful for those lounges but it would be nice to see

smaller events as well like gatherings of 50 people or so instead of a bigger event. And another

thing as well, I hear a lot of comments about second-hand smoke from these lounges but something that

is proven not only like hoot lounges but other cannabis consumption lounges here in the state

and San Francisco and Los Angeles show that people that are going into these lounges aren't under

the assumption that they are going into these lounges that are going to be completely smoke-free.

There's ventilation in there for a reason and it's not like they're going into a casino or a bar

somewhere that they're going to do something else other than consume these consumption lounges and

these private events that hopefully can come forward as well or everybody that is showing up to

these events are under the assumption that this is what's going to happen so it's not like it's a

it's not like nobody in the target nobody in the area is being targeted when they're not

wanting that you know that everybody that is there is there for consumption and once again I'm

hoping that you guys can open up your minds to off-site consumption as well the private events

because it is it isn't fair just to only have people that are financially able to get huge areas.

Thank you for your comment your time is complete our next speaker is Flavio followed by

Bettina Reece than Jay Johnson. How's it all? How's it all? I'm glad to see this here and actually

moving forward with you know consumption and lounges but I am opposed to it just for the simple

fact that we need to be able to consume off-site as well we need a safe space for people that can

consume whenever they want I work with many brands I work at a dispensary already and I'll tell you

that some of these dispensaries can't even keep the products on their shelf you know what I mean

some of these stores are having a hard time already so having just adding more something more

for the store to do is just it's another obstacle we need to be able to have off-site we need to be

able to keep the private events we need to be able to not we need to be able to smoke safely wherever

we were able to smoke if we just limit one type one or type two it kind of defeats the purpose

of letting us smoke anywhere because I can't even smoke in my apartment I have to find an

event that I'm able to smoke out in general so I feel like we're moving in the right

or direction but at the same time we're not going we're it's not going down the right path we

want to be able to have anyone smoke where we should be able to actually consume safely I feel like

with all the dispensaries that are in California already there's only certain cities that are

allowing the consumption in their dispensaries and those ones are super boutique I mean they have

a lot of money you're kind of hurting the mom and pop spots that like want to have private events

we need to be able to the brands that are really small they depend on these small private spots so

they can actually showcase their brand showcase the community in a safe environment of what they

really have and if you take that away then you're taking away from the small businesses as well

so I think you just need to be more open-minded to the offside idea and we'll I think we can move

somewhere better in that direction I appreciate your time thank you for your comments our next speaker

is patina reese followed by Jay Johnson then Sherry Eglund hi I am a community pediatrician and

constituents of district three on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California chapter

comprise of over two thousand pediatricians I'm here to talk in opposition to the

permitting of cannabis consumption launches in the city of Sacramento for decades public health

activists have fought to protect people from health risk associated with tobacco smoking and with

second hand tobacco smoke and to promote clean indoor air we oppose the permitting of cannabis

consumption launch as such an action would undermine this progress and will increase health

risk for employees and customers research shows that cannabis smoke contains a higher higher levels

of harmful chemicals than tobacco smoke these toxins not only affect employees and patrons but

also extended extend to their families particularly children who may be exposed through smoke residue

on clothing or in cars pregnant women are of particular concern as second hand cannabis

smoke has been linked to pregnancy complications such as preclampsia and developmental delay and

low birth weight in newborns finally we are concerned that if the city permits the establishment

of cannabis launches we will take a huge step backwards in the goal to reduce the use of cannabis

by young people in our state cannabis use can worsen existing mental health issues increasing

the risk of psychotic disorders in teens who are at risk frequent marijuana use is in early adolescents

can lead to altered brain development impairing executive functioning which is key key component

of implanting for the future although things will not be direct users of cannabis launches it

will note that we'll amourize the substance thank you for your comments your time is now complete

our next speaker is Jay Johnson followed by Sherry Eglund then Zion Tedessi

a committee how's it going I'm Jay Johnson license holder active here in Sacramento I'm here to

speak in favor of opening the cannabis lounges for a multitude of reasons first I thought I had

addressed the fallacies that have been talking about some of the other speakers for one if we open

this up seeing how as I am a license holder I hire the people that will be working in these cannabis

lounges they're well aware that they're going to be in a room filled with cannabis smoke and they're

not going to have a problem with it the second point is that pregnant women will pregnant women we

can either have them not be there or they're at a dull and they can make their own decision if

they're going to be in a smoke filled room we don't need to have legislation come in and say what

we can and can't do the third point is with zoning the way it already is we're not allowed to be

by schools daycare centers and around kids already so that's not really going to be anything that

factors into this decision the next fact is if you go and look at some of the statistical

evidence developed by CalNormal actually in the last five years teenage smoking has gone down

with cannabis and a lot of the research that these people are bringing to you today about people

going to be having health complications this that and the other that data comes from what's

taken from what we call the traditional or black market it's not going to come from the legal

market where all of our stuff is stringlessly tested over and over again before it meets the

consumer so we have to take these things into consideration the last part is I would ask for

an amendment for it if we're going to have HFAC systems with negative pressure rooms that's very

expensive that's going to be a hindrance to people opening it up I would say this put us on

the same level as you do cigar rooms do they have to go through all that and there's no way in hell

that tobacco smoke is less dangerous than cannabis smoke there's no way I'd love to see the

studies that they're using for whatever facts they're coming up with and we just want to push this

forward because we know it's going to take a while for you guys to go through the necessary stuff

so just give us approval so we can have hope at the end of the day thank you thank you for your

comments our next speaker is Sherry Eglund filed by Zion Tadeshi then Ben Johnson

my name is Sherry Eglund I'm the associate director of on-eath programs and nonprofit

and Sacramento we've been offering drug prevention programs to youth and their families for a

long time now I personally have been working with youth for over 35 years of the Sacramento area

and it's from their perspective that I speak today many of our youth have helped me frame

actually the words I'm using today the perspective of youth is often overlooked with discussing

the topic of cannabis policy because of the incorrect assumption that because the legal age of

uses 21 youth are not affected by cannabis policies and I can tell you firsthand this is

absolutely untrue no matter the substance the more visual and party like atmosphere the use is

the more likely youth are going to use we saw this in the 80s and 90s with tobacco and alcohol

um the same is absolutely true with cannabis I can send you the studies from the 70s all the way

till the mid to till 2010 perceived harm is really affecting what youth do if they perceived

harm of use is high use is low if perceived harm is low it kind of goes back and forth against each

other although the types of drugs attractive to young people I have changed the effect of perceived

harm on youth drug rates are very consistent many youth have told me that their perception of harm

comes directly from the adults in community around them perception of what is normal can

significantly impact individual behavior when drug use is normalized whether it's cannabis or

whatever it serves as a model for behavior um in summary allowing cannabis sound just in our city

affects youth use of marijuana by shaping their perceptions reducing their perceived risk and

influencing their behaviors we have seen this happen over and over again with other drugs and I

really hope we don't do this again with cannabis thank you thank you for your comments our next

speaker is Zion followed by Jen Johnson then Rhonda Mitchell

sorry hi everyone good to be here so I do support cannabis lounge as we know cannabis is a plant

it's a healing plant it's not a drug it's not there's no evidence that cannabis has harmed

anybody we can't even compare it with alcohol in tobacco that was a God-given plant that to heal

you know our mental health our physical health a lot of things so as you know you guys are

even hard even to get us any licenses so with this cannabis lounge it's not there's always

going to be the rules in regulation that we have to follow so I don't think most people have

nothing to worry about being school around school church or kids and and other you know pregnant

women and and as for me I already have a space for it it is going to be um get it not everybody

will be people will be have to be a membership even to get in the facility that we built with the

team as well as you know that I already have the CUP for it so we've been waiting for this for a

long long long time so it's about time to you guys to approve it so we can actually support our

community who especially the cannabis community who are out there hustling and working hard

to be able to heal our community through cannabis because that's what I I feel cannabis is a

healing plant it's not a drug and people are still talking as if it's a drug and and we can do

educational marketing so in that way youth or pregnant women you know stay away from whatever

we at or whatever the lounge is at so I'm really really thank you for your comments your time

is now complete our next speaker is Ben Johnson filed by Ronda Mitchell then Velley Bird

all right hello councilmembers my name is Ben I would like to start off by saying thank you

for getting us one step closer to finally having a legal space to consume our cannabis here in

Sacramento the lounges propose zero dangers to anyone they will have clean air filters that only

pump out clean air anyone who enters the lounge is not worried about secondhand smoke they are

about to inhale firsthand so it's kind of a void point these lounges will be heavily regulated

it will not give any extra access to children then they already have nothing can be seen from

outside anyways it's all supposed to be hidden let's see if if anything this even gives parents

a place to consume cannabis outside their homes outside the vision of their children the agenda

states that on that the your agenda states that the state only allows on-site consumption on

storefronts but when we reached out to the state we were told that they do not oversee any

consumption at all this is completely up to local jurisdiction that means that we can get

outside the box and allow cannabis consumption outside of a storefront dispense recently many of

the shops in Sacramento cannot even input a lounge into their current shop layouts this extremely

limits the space that people will have access to consume it even if we have legal lounges I don't

think we should pretend consumption is legal because there's two stores that will be able to allow it

people deserve safe safe places to consume cannabis especially in a city that collects so much

taxes from the cannabis last thing I'd like to say last thing I see is that you would like to set

up framework for events outside CalExpo I appreciate that and think that would be greatly

appreciated by all of our Sacramento cannabis community as the people and cannabis brands if possible

thank you for your comments your time is now complete our next speaker our next speaker is

Ronda Mitchell followed by Valerie Bird then our last speaker Sean Busby

you to me here and happy to see you I want to first say that I'm for adding the pilot program

but I still from the last law and ledge and we were talking about adding more dispensaries I feel

that we should halt doing that until we find out literally what's going on in this with zoning

and adding more dispensaries because the very people that want you to add more not add more

dispensaries are the same ones that's going to be able to grow their business and the ones of us

like me I have a non-store front it's not a shared space it's 2500 square feet it's in a community

but because I am not a dispensary I cannot have a consumption lounge right even if I have a

space for it I cannot have it even though I'm a retailer I cannot have it and I feel as though

my next step to grow in this industry would to be together dispensary but now we have people in

the industry saying no more dispensaries and um council member Katie Maples which you said you

cannot halt an industry you got to let it free you got to let it breathe you got to let it grow

and I just think that there's more opportunities out here for us to continue growing our build

business if things are open the dispensaries have a cap on it deliveries don't

we don't have a cap on it there's every day there's people we're competing every day and imagine

this we are non-store front dispensaries holding a retailer's license and we have no signs out front

we can't advertise like that and so when we we have to get it from the ground out the out the mud

get it from the ground up and advertise and I have done that and have done a great job but now it

seems like the doors are shutting for certain people and opening wide for others and so I'm saying

hold everything until we figure out the zoning and how many dispensaries we're going to add

then let's add the pilot program so to be fair to us all thank you

you

the next speaker is Valerie Bird and our last speaker will be Sean Busby

good afternoon everyone my name is Valerie Bird and I just wanted just to speak on the pilot

program that you guys have I currently do have a license on the non-store front the delivery

I'm kind of kind of up in the air with everything I am opposed to having a having to have a pilot

program only in a dispensary and being that is the fact that I'm looking at safety security issues

coming inside a dispensary and I am a non-store front delivery I have my product we're not allowed

to have anybody come into our area because we're in a industrial area and you're not even looking at

the fact that it could be like other areas where we could have a lounge so I am for having a lounge

outside that actually looking at actually having a confined area inside a dispensary it could look

at the risk of somebody could come in case in the plates anything could take place if we're not

allowed to have it and I'm a non-store front delivery and people to come in because I'm looking at

the fact my product is in there it's the same thing but I am kind of conflicted because it would

be a good idea to have maybe if you guys can think different have something that is secured

regulated outside of cal expo and maybe have some type of consumption lounge available thank you

thank you for your comments our last speaker Sean Busby

hello my name is Sean Busby and I own four campus lunches but I also want to probably

announce to flag you some portal out private events and ensure that regulations don't allow

private consumption gatherings we can achieve this by establishing clear guidelines that expect

each person policy and communities of well-being additionally

implemented a part a program for events outside cal expo can provide valuable insights on how to

manage and support gatherings affect the leaf there's a post can help create a framework that

accommodates private events without comprising public safety or community centers and that's all I

have to say thank you all right thank you everybody who came and gave comment man we covered the

gamut from don't do it and do more so just want to thank you all and I hope that when listening to

this conversation you hear and may perhaps hopefully appreciate the needle we're trying to thread

right now by saying let's crawl before we walk right like let's show that it works let's show how

it happens and then the conversation can occur about how to thoughtfully expand if that's the choice

of future council makes I want to ask staff in the future presentations if you could correct the

timeline because I actually put this on the agenda in 2022 and so I do want to just note that it

has been over two years that we've been trying to have this conversation and as just prerogative here

you know this to me is why it's so important to start at dispensaries because I don't

appreciate when we talk about like this is going to waif into childcare centers this is going to waif

into schools dispensaries are intentionally zone to be away from those uses for those reasons we do

appreciate we hear you we don't want children right next to facilities where it's even being sold

much less consumed for me this is very critical because as a renter I don't want someone smoking

next order me I don't want them smoking outside my building I'm an I'm an asthmatic I don't want

any smoke nearby but legally there is no other place that my neighbors can go and I think that's

a real issue that we need to grapple with here is we look at the medical communities we look at

other communities who are saying well what are we supposed to do if we are a tenant and we'd like

to use this product instead of high dose like oxycodone or something like that right and so I think

that's incredibly important I also hear and have heard from parents that are in my age who don't

want to take this product home they don't want to smoke at home they don't want to eat at home they

want to keep this away from their kids and this is a path for them to be able to do that and so I

can hear and appreciate both sides of this discussion this is just where I have fallen is that in

this case in a very tailored way when we only have 30 of these sites across our 40 I think now with

the court ones that have just opened sites across this entire city to say let's start here let's

start where it's protected let's start where we already know a little bit about what to expect let's

research it let's see what's going on so I'm in favor of moving this to council and I do want to

ask my colleague specifically in your comments I see a couple of you cute up is both whether or not

you want to move this to council and how long you think the pilot should be I want to note that the

type two which personally I'll never go into because I have asthma but for those who do type two will

require a pretty significant investment and so I know staff is hoping that we'd be willing to

authorize a pilot for at least three years you know I think that's up for us to discuss today I'd

become for maybe five years you know to talk so I want to hear my colleagues thoughts on how long

they think that pilot should last before it has to come back to council obviously you can always

come back sooner if issues arise but I think that would be a three to five years is where I'm looking

and I'm curious to hear my colleagues I'm input on that as well as your general sense about moving

this forward today after more than two years of discussion but thank you staff for all the work

you've done on this I guess before I close I'll just also say I mean we've had probably sick

six presentations at long-ledge about this in that ballpark one of those presentations involved

other cities from throughout California who already do this and I do want to say that for folks

who are worried about what will happen those communities did not report any of those issues those

communities did not report finding a bunch of kids under 21 who were in there they did not report

seeing a bunch of new activity happening outside of these sites I mean this is not like we're

pioneering this we're really trying to model after what already works in San Francisco and you know

all the other cities that are doing this already and frankly around the world so I will stop

there and defer now to my colleagues thank you for that indulgence and start with council member

Garrett thank you very much chair and I look I do appreciate your diligence and the hearings that

we've had the the only one gap where I think we haven't had from a presentation and it it

landed self because we're more of a land use agency not a public health agency but we haven't had

true presentations on the public health impacts of of of you know this particular topic here

but let me let me just you know as you close your last comment I know where the votes are and I know

where things are and and so while I agree with you know the our pediatricians and the pediatric

society and also are the experts and youth public health who say that you know this this can

continue to to encourage youth consumption and the impacts of it I understand that this council

wants to move forward with something here so I would implore the council though and I would

implore my colleagues to listen to the public health and and the pediatricians and the doctors

who have come before and before as to talk about this issue okay if the council is going to go

with any type of program I I highly encourage that we only go with the type one and the fact of

the matter is is that the city should not aid in normalizing smoking and vaping we have spent

years and decades of going after and recognizing the impacts of particulates and any type of

smoke that affects folks in fact that's why California by the federal government had been given

its own authority to regulate air because of the harmful effects of particulates on lungs on

the development of lungs of young children on the development of lungs and adolescents the impacts

of folks who are asthmatic and normalizing that only continues that issue you know I should say we

also should not aid you know encourage you know the and diminish the impacts of second-hand smoke

you heard today folks both Dr. Donald Lyonman you know you heard from Faith Colletti you heard from

Dr. Lynn Silver all nobody here came and said they're completely opposed to cannabis in fact some

of them were proponents of Prop 64 but what they all have urged very strong caution about is negating

the effects of second-hand smoke and and you heard from the very organizations we worked with to

eliminate the the flavor tobacco and create tighter restrictions on smoking and vaping to say that

we're moving down a very a very precarious and dangerous path I took the time to read a lot of the

comments that were in the e-comment and also the letters that were brought to us from one from the

Public Health Institute and also one particularly from Dr. Suzanne Schick from the University of

California of San Francisco who has studied this and has had a number of peer reviews on the issue

of second-hand smoke to cannabis okay and and and again the issue here comes to the exposure of

particulates and she puts out essentially three points number one that even smoking indoors

has not created not not only an unhealthy scenario but for those of us that are on the air

district she her studies and you can read them and see the peer reviews and and judge for yourself

but have showed an index of 301 and that's not unhealthy in the red zone that's not even in the

purple zone it's in the maroon zone in the hazardous zone when you're that close to exposure

and and that's the zone where we've been dealing with when it's wildfires I mean that's again

this is University of California of San Francisco one of the leading medical centers okay second

ventilation doesn't reduce you know pollution to a safe level so while ventilation does

remove and reduce particulates it's not at a safe level and finally that you know banning

just smoking and allowing vaping and this is the other issue it doesn't reduce the PM 2.5

concentrates which is the very reason why we've been regulating you know vehicles for their emissions

because the PM two numbers are still out there and you have other chemicals that are being burned

when vaping is occurring so those the those two key points and one thing that I saw from multiple

letters and I didn't see that there was any correlation or a or what do you call it a form

letter that we use but all of them cited cited here the the Americans Society of Heat refrigeration

and air conditioning engineers these are the folks who set the standard and actually make a living

off of creating ventilation systems and what they cited was from the very engineers who build

this that say that the that the standards for ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality that

there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke so both the doctors that use at at at our

leading health institute that is identifying particulates that lead to cancer the public health

institute you know who who is saying you know you know this this normalization of secondhand

smoke and the engineers who build this are saying that there's no acceptable level of smoke so

this is where I really implore us to listen to the pediatricians to listen to our own Sacramento

Sierra Medical Society and to listen to pro-euthan family who is engaging young people on this and

to think through about how and how we move forward on on this issue I would I think the council

should not even consider a type two license now I understand from all but one one all on one

person who said that they needed to use their medicine one we should not again encourage exposure

to secondhand smoke when there is already many alternatives to consumption that aren't that of

combustion that impact people and frankly when it comes down to it if I'm here having to judge

testimony the bottom line is everyone who's come here to pur push for this have all been those

who are business owners and have the right to profit but I will always side on this side here with

the issue of those in the medical community public health community of what is safe and what is

not safe and when I'm hearing this that this is not safe that I encourage our our city to not my

preference would be not to move forward with consumption language and if this council decides to

move forward it should only move forward with type one because I don't buy the argument that just

because you don't have a place to smoke or the user consume that we should make it okay would it be

okay if we said hey let's just have fentanyl you know lounges too no of course not it's the same

issue so with that with that I would say that it's from the audience we heard everybody's testimony

it's a it's about making sure that we maintain public health as we move forward on this issue thank

you thank you chair all right councilmember Garrett vice mayor maple thank you chair and really also

want to appreciate everyone who came out and shared shared your viewpoint and appreciate the

professionals and some of the comments of my colleague of well you know I respectfully disagree with

some of the things I do understand the concerns that folks have I think there were some really good

points one that you brought up and you're opening statements but also that some others do I think

the bottom line is this in my mind in 2016 the voters of California voted for proposition 64

which gives people over the age of 21 the right to possess transport obtain and consume cannabis

products that's the law that the people of California voted for and so you know we since then have

put into put in place a robust regulatory structure at the state level and at the local level

various jurisdictions all over California have you know higher restrictions including here in

Sacramento we have many higher restrictions in the city then then is even required in the state

and I think that's because this body and previous members on this body care about what happens

to people and and the outcomes but we also recognize that at least from my perspective that a lot

of this has been you know fear based policy making we've I think kind of tampered down on some of

the things that we've done and I think that pilot is the operative word here for me this is a pilot

program we're not going to do everything at once but we do want to see what what could happen we

know that this is another jurisdictions already I think in West Hollywood it's already been going

on for something like five six seven years and so you know we're not we're not creating something

brand new here we're trying out something that is already in existence in other places and

you know I think the other thing as it relates to the medical piece yes you know I read some of the

the letters and and the research but we also recognize that in the state law we we recognize

medical cannabis people use cannabis for medical and medicinal purposes this is in the law

in fact so much so that you and you buy medical cannabis from a dispensary you get state tax

benefits for doing so you're not charged the state excise tax if you're a medical patient

with with a qualified license and so you know there are people that are using these products

to heal themselves to treat pain and various other conditions and so I just want to acknowledge

that I know a lot of some of those people are in this room so you know I see that you hear that

but also acknowledge some of the the the concerns that folks have you know just like with the alcohol

industry you know we you have to be 21 to enter there have they've they've done studies on this

where they've shown that in Sacramento you're checking licenses you are not getting into a dispensary

unless you are 21 years of age there's security there's checks and all that is required by the

law will continue to require that and so I would support both types moving forward chair I would

also support I think five years makes sense to me for a start for a pilot project I think it makes

sense to start with the the businesses that already have the ability for people to come in I do hear

the folks who have non-storefront delivery dispensaries and your concerns you know under the state

law you know they in regulations people aren't allowed to to enter them and obviously this is

the ways that they're zone make it challenging but I'm also open during this this pilot period

taking a look and seeing are the things that we can do to help other license types just explore

those possibilities but I definitely want to start with dispensaries and then and then possibly move

out if there's support from the rest of the council on that and so does this require a motion

this is direction no this is direction okay well then that is that's my direction and I know

this has been a pretty pretty long process over a couple years I look forward to hopefully seeing

it before I know that there's others in the community that are looking forward to it too thank you

thank you um vice chair Janine's yeah I um

um I'm very much in favor of taking a look at a pilot program that can answer some of the questions

that I can't seem to answer myself um I wish I was smarter in this whole area in this whole

uh business um that we're talking about but this is not my level of expertise and so I personally

need a whole lot more time to understand it better but what I do understand is the health impacts

that my colleague has talked about and I think when we can at some point in time have

whether it's a workshop or an L&L session again that really focuses on the health impacts

then all of us will be better informed as to the impact that this has and so that would be direction

from me is for us to take a session that really just focuses on health impacts so it's not

what we think we know it's not what people are coming in here telling us what we know that

our papers are giving us to us while we're on the dius trying to read and listen at the same time

you know I'd like to have experts come in and talk to us about the health impacts

I think the only way that we can really understand whether or not um pilot program works is to pilot

the program um and I think that's going to also help to inform us and so I think from an education

standpoint I want to try to get the health experts in here to speak to us from an educational

standpoint and then once they do that then we can make a decision to decide whether or not to move

forward with the pilot program um I am in favor of taking this to the full council with full

council to have a robust discussion and developing a timeline that allows us to do just that so that we

get the education that we need to get we get the additional information that we need and we

develop a timeline for a pilot program that allows us to know whether or not that's something that

will work here in the city of Sacramento. So I'm to be clear vice chair you don't have a position

on how long the pilot should be but you are not it not it not at this time I don't um I think

you know I'm not opposed to the time that I've already been mentioned by my colleagues

I just I'd be guessing at this point in time for me as for what how long a pilot program should

last and then I'm asking them to invest in a pilot program

an investment that may not last as long as they wanted to go so you know I think that's

information I'd like to hear from the public as well is how long should a pilot program last

so that we can all be an agreement as far as how do we move forward if we're going to go in this

direction. Okay and I will also say I mean I've had this conversation with staff before about

how to look at the public health side of this because we aren't a public health agency um I mean

I frankly think things that may be the state you know um agency is probably the best position

to help us look at what they're seeing in terms of data and usage um to help inform how this goes um

so I'm trying to figure out how to thread the needle to work forward because we are working

against a fascinating timeline right now um we're trying to sync this up with the zoning changes

a little bit too and so if you hear the wheels turning out loud that's part of what I'm trying to

balance and I see our community development folks in the room really hoping that comes to the

November L&O I know you're working hard on that um any later than that and we're gonna just run

out of time with this council and that would be a shame um so so you're in favor of moving it

to the council so if it the council meeting because I imagine our broader council colleagues might

have questions about this as well um if we broaden a guest to present during that discussion

about what they're seeing in terms of statewide trends and data on public health with cannabis

would that satisfy your your request council member absolutely okay okay so um is that clear to

staff we're in favor of taking it to council we'd like there to be a guest speaker from the state

agency to talk about trends that they are seeing from the statewide level um and usage and health

potential health impacts etc and then at that time we will consider the length of time for the pilot

but no a position to three to five years yeah we're open to five years so I think those would be

some of the options we put on the table for our colleagues if they agree I also think that

rather than it be an agenda item that's intermixed with a lot of other agenda items that because of

the content of this subject matter this is more of a workshop to have the discussion and an

extended conversation about the health issues and and moving forward or not moving forward so

I'm just throwing that out because I think it's gonna take longer than just an agenda item okay um

let's how about we work talk to staff and circle back to you in the next like couple days and we can try to make a plan here

just given the time I think what I'm trying to resist is like starting all over with the next council because it's already been

over two years since I've been on this council and I'd really like to see us one way or the other settle the discussion

um at some point but yeah let's um I'll handle a staff after this and maybe we'll circle back to you rice chair

with some ideas and get your feedback okay okay um there you go staff any further questions

from us right now no okay great so that is it for item five um moving right along to thank you

everybody again for being here if you could please leave the room as quietly as possible we do have one

more item in front of us today um this is item six a council member proposal request um for committee

consideration regarding landscaping requirements um as folks may know who are here in the public to

comment on this item again if you haven't turned in your slip please do so um this is a little bit

awkward because we can't have this person answering council members come present to us and so what we'll

do is read like we'll look at the document she's submitted we will take public comment from the public

on this item and then we'll discuss and the options in front of us so that you are aware we won't vote to

finalize this request today what we're voting on is whether or not we want staff to bring back an ordinance

um to us about implementing the changes that they are suggesting and so just so you're aware of the

process moving forward um it's not a vote today on yes or no it's a vote today on should we do

this so um just so you have that context so go ahead madam clerk with the public comment thank you

chair for speaker is Chris Bush followed by satnam scene and followed by rindy scene

Chris

and it folks would mind like you could line up or sit here in the front when we call your name just so we can

make sure we have time to hear everybody thank you hello everybody I bought the house in 2005 when I

bought the house there was a concrete around the drive is already but in 2007 there was some cracks I

heard a licensed contractor he fixed that crack concrete he didn't not say anything to me is

this legal or illegal you know so then a couple of months ago my kids told me that there is a

ladder hanging in front of the door then I um with the tape I opened the ladder then I found a

violation then I called the officer um then I told her ask her is this new ordinance she said I

asked her if this applies to whole Sacramento she said no I said in the whole committee she said no

only one state so bitch I think this is discrimination even house cross-state from me I ask her

did they get the violation she said no so so she wants us to remove the concrete

we are a family big family I have two parents living with me they are handicapped me myself I'm

con handicapped I have two kids two grandkids and to move the wheelchair we can't if we they go all

the concrete out there is no way we can move the wheelchair on top of the other thing there is a

drought city all the we can water the land then the water dries then they want to look at the

the land worst or they want to look at a clean another thing they go the concrete so there is

no way to park our cars we will park all the cars on the street if other side and my side

be park the cars there is no way to pass the car there are so many accidents going on every day so

I originally I request that this ordinance should be removed so

be sure to be given a more time more thank you for your comments your time is now complete our next

speaker is satnam scene followed by randy scene satnam scene oh that was you okay so we're missing

Chris so okay okay next is randy scene

thank you very much

we're just requesting if we can have extension or some kind of resolution on

the concrete situation actually the frontage of our houses that have been cited

the other than that being that the street is narrow and more cars are being parked into the

street instead of the driveways it's causing a little bit of an issue with people with

elderly that have walkers trying to walk on the sidewalk when there's cars there and trying to

get around them and crossing the street and cars coming in they don't see them so that so we're

asking for a more auditorium on just the issue of the concrete in our landscaping thank you thank

you for comments our next speaker is deep sandu followed by a mar

yeah hello everyone thank you for having us here i'm on this issue because i'm one of the

residents that received this ordinance citation for paved driveway extensions there's a lot of

issues and i have been noticing them first and foremost this is a neighborhood with a lot of joint

families these are five to six bedroom homes and people are living with their joint families

elderly and there's easily more than three cars at each residence and with the driveway only

being able to accommodate three cars issues like folks that are handicapped in wheelchairs they cannot

access their home safely there's a lot of people's mirrors being hit or their cars being

side-sweet because the road is narrow and with all those cars on this street it's not safe and

especially when exiting the vehicle so therefore a lot of homeowners or previous homeowners they've

extended those driveways a little bit secondly because of the water consumption the city was actually

urging to you know lower landscape landscape watering to conserve water and I feel like because

extended driveways is in favor of conserving water and on another note I have been seeing this

issue and a lot of homeowners have purchased these homes when it was already paved and they should

not be held responsible for this so I kindly and humbly request you guys to amend this ordinance

and come up with a solution that positively benefits everyone thank you thank you for your

comments our next speaker is a marr followed by cat car then fill good afternoon ladies and gentlemen

I'm here with my fellow neighbors and here to request the council to pass a proposal that's

been put forth by the council member Kaplan and supported by our Mr. Mayor Steinberg if for

the asking the city manager to put a moratorium on the existing citation that's been issued to

the neighbors I've been living in the neighborhood for 10 years and if you look around the group the

city acted on a complaint that was given to the zone enforcement investigator and only particular

ethnicity that has been targeted in this complaint each individual address was given to the city for

each house that has done a pavement if you look around the group everybody lives in extended

family we have grandparents we have parents we have kids and when these houses were built three

car garage were given 2.75 driveway when you park the cars in there it does not leave any room for

anybody to go up the driveway or even the elders to walk up the driveway so what do we do we for

respect our parents everybody paved additional driveway for their safety but now the city decided

to come out my question was does that fall into the ADA violation the city allowed these builders

to build these houses so who's responsible did we do anything wrong yes we did but the question is

we did it abundance our safety of our parents so all I ask this council to do put a hold on the

existing citation by this zoning department allow city council member Kaplan to propose if the

current existing rules and regulations are in violation are the discriminatory or we need to

amend them because last time the law was passed was 1999 as 25 years ago so that's all I ask for

is that we need to put a hold on these existing citations till we deal with this matter thank you

thank you for your comment our next speaker is Petr filed by Phil and then go sing

good afternoon everybody I'm here on behalf of the law although I don't live here but I've seen

the situation and people getting a letter of violations and all that either love came in the fact

in 1999 many of the people who bought the houses many many years back and they have no idea what

they have to follow or what they have been violation of suddenly a couple of street they fell

they were discriminated against and all these two two streets got a notice and like people mentioned

before that streets are very narrow and if you have third car parking or fourth parking streets are

very narrow that could also effect fire department in order to help somebody if needed fire department

and a lot of people are seniors they need a wheelchair access they extend you some other

driveway area and I have grandchildren I'm putting grandchildren in the seat I know I'm trying to

put one in the seat another one is running around so it's a lot safer to be on our private

paved area than on the street where some passerby might hit them so these are the things we

concerned plus the water everybody should have the water problem and a lot of people have the grass

but they want to maintain the neighborhood drag grass and seeing landowner firecrackers regret

like about unnecessary problem for the neighbors so I hope you guys look into it and do some

solution for it we appreciate that thank you for your comments our next speaker is still

solved by gocane

hi my name is Phil thank you for what you guys do for us and the community

I've been there over 17 years I've saw all these neighbors I'm good friends with all of them

I saw them all moving and I saw all their kids grow up from their bicycles to go to college

and you know what they all do they all work at their houses they all pour money in their houses

if you go to google and look at their houses you're going to see they're not an incense

even with the driveway their houses are beautiful I wrote a letter to the city supervisor and

I'm just going to read the letter and it says dear city supervisor I'm writing to request an

exemption to the public nuisance complaint concerning the width of my driveway located at

321 Aldebrook Circle Sacramento California 95834 I understand the city's concern regarding

driveway regulations and I wish to provide a detailed justification for maintaining the current

width the driveway was designed wider to accommodate multiple family vehicles provide safe access

for a family member with a disability to enhance safety by preventing on street parking this

design has significantly improved the functionality and safety of our property without negatively

impacting the neighborhood I have insured the driveway meets safety standards and does not

obstruct pedestrian pathways or traffic law traffic flow additionally the driveway is aesthetically

consistent with the surrounding properties several of my neighbors support maintaining the

current driveway with furthermore there is a fire hydrant right in front of the house so we really

can be parking and blocking that in 2007 I asked the city planning customer service if I needed

a permit for paving my driveway and they said as long as it had 25% vegetation I was okay to mine

neglect I had no idea of the 50% rule of paving at this time I am primarily disabled and I have

been out of work for almost a year and now I am back at work but unlike dude thank you for your

comments your time is now complete our last speaker on the item is go-sing

hello everyone my name is on kagusan we've been living and that same neighborhood for last 20

years when we moved we had only two cars me my wife now we have kids my parents moved in you

know they got aged and so we extended our driveway to accommodate six or seven cars now versus

two cars and the time we extended it was 2012 so almost 12 years ago and that time city was also

offering cash for grass in addition to that you know doing that the more benefit was if we are

saving the water also and no fights with the neighbors because cars are all on the driveway and

for profession I do you know I own a small business I do my own deliveries and I go to a lot of

neighborhoods in Sacramento each neighborhood when I go around I see hey they done their stairs

all they extended their driveways it looks good it looks beautiful but for some reason

cordon enforcement is after our neighborhood and you know we just need a chance to keep it that way

it is and we're gonna be really greatly appreciate it it's not just for us it's most all the neighbors

around it's not it's not looking bad it looks beautiful but for some reason if we're gonna start

taking them out only choices we're gonna have is putting a grass but we cannot water them we're

gonna turn brown then we're just gonna be with the same exact problem we were back in 2012 2010

thank you very much thank you for your comments

all right great we will start now with council deliberation council member gara okay thank you very

much I do appreciate all the other constituents who came here and I had a good conversation with

council member Kaplan about this issue and it reminds me of an unfortunate situation I had my

council district with two different residents who had bought their homes those homes had built

1952 somewhere in the 60s or 70s they had expanded the driveway and then received the code

violation and in both of those incidents they were seniors who also needed the space on the driveway

and one of them who abuts to 65th expressway and without the ability to make a turn would always have

to back out into the double lane on 65th expressway and so I found it really frustrating in this

situation that the city asked them to basically rip out that and pay fines for something that

they purchased the home with it and weren't aware of the issue and actually needed that level of

space and you know I think what the what has been asked here today is not to change the rule

but to put a moratorium on enforcement and let us review this I mean we we do have a city that's

you know well over a hundred years old and things were built and designs were built but we

shouldn't penalize you know new homeowners particularly when it comes to mobility on this issue so

I would support you know madam chair and however direction you suggest in supporting a staff

direction to set a moratorium while we figure out what the right solution is clearly we have a

requirement of at least 25% of green space but also the 50% requirement so that front

yarders don't turn into parking lots either I mean you know and and that's an important thing too

we don't want to add more concrete when we have a city with heat island effect but what I do not

think is okay while we figure this out is that we penalize the homeowners while we're trying to

find what the right solution is and I think what the council members is intent here is not to change

the ordinance but let's let's give time to work it out so that's my direction and if that requires

motion glad to make a motion it does and I would like to clarify are you making motion one for

staff to work on this and bring it back to the committee or motion two first have to work on

this and bring it to the council without coming back to the committee I think since it's a moratorium

let's send to the council we've done more atariams in the past if it was going to change the policy

I would say definitely bring back to this committee okay I just wanted to clarify your motion so

that's a motion for option two all right second by vice mayor may be our go ahead vice mayor

okay I thought you were cute up to speak you're up to second okay well there we go all right vice

chair Jennings thank you very much I just want to make sure the on the motion that the hold on the

existing citations that that's a part of what you're saying okay so I just want to be clear on

that because I think the citations are concerned to everybody the money that's owed and the money

that would be owed if you don't pay it in a timely manner and so those citations we put a hold on

that until we know for certain what's going on and how do we move forward so just want to make sure

that that's something that I think you want and I would want as well I believe that's a part of

the proposal is to North Korea on both tickets and enforcement until we can review and

I'm sure if I just had a clarification I think there is a statutory limit on how long a

moratorium can be in place in I don't know if staff has that answer right now I know I think

that's part of our direction is for staff to work on it yeah what they bring to council

would be illegal moratorium correct illegal moratorium yes so good and another problem with this

process is they haven't even had a chance to look at directing them now like go work on that hello

and bring us back something that is legal that we could adopt at the full council and one I'll ask

one another thing you know which is maybe a question for the city attorney on this if you know

where it is in some situation statutes of limitation are two years so where does how does that

interplay here maybe it doesn't on land use but I'd like to know where our finability comes in when

something like that happens so that's part of the question so okay yeah and I know we update our

building standards and do all of that every couple years and concurrence with the state so I don't

know how we're covering that but that is part of the reaction is a direction excuse me is that

staff works on something the city attorney make sure it's all legal and yeah I would appreciate

you doing that I would just make an editorial note just because it bothered me and this council

of a request that like paving over things is not better for a water like retention and droughts

we actually want the water to be able to go into the ground it's really about not watering grass

because we don't want to waste water by watering grass but that's just more an editorial note to

me just because bothered me but happy to support the motion today definitely appreciate I don't

think any I mean honestly the part that really bugs me about this too is like the contractors I

mean they should know the law and at some point you should have been told this is the law so that

at least you were informed but even that aside you know inheriting this or having this happen

and not knowing that that was an issue is is a concern as well but now that I've voiced those

things we have a motion and a second all in favor please say aye I oppose abstain that passes

unanimously so next step will be staff will work on this and bring it to council we don't know the

exact timeline they go as quickly as they can but stay in touch with the sponsoring office and

I'm sure they'll keep you posted thank you all for coming all right do we have any committee ideas

questions reports nope seeing none do we have any public comment not on the agenda no seeing none

all right with that we are adjourned 1256 thank you