Welcome to the April 8th Sacramento City Council law and legislation committee meeting.

If we could please call the roll. Thank you. Councilmember Dickinson. Councilmember Jennings.

We expect a councilmember maple later in the meeting and vice chair plucky bomb here. Councilmember Dickinson. Would you mind doing the land acknowledgement?

Rick volunteered. I'll do it sir.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands. If you are able.

To the original people of this land. The Neesion people, the southern my do, the valley and plains, me walk and Patton, Wooden peoples and the peoples of the Wilton Rancheria.

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk besides us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples history, their contributions and their lives.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Next we have the consent calendar. Any comments or anything needs to be pulled? Do we have any public comment on this?

Thank you. Next we have the consent calendar. Any comments or anything needs to be pulled? Do we have any public comment on this? Do we have any public comment on this? Do we have any public comment on this?

Good morning, Chair and all members. OPEC Director Dr. Rosen didn't investigate SPD providing me forgery police report. I filed a complaint to the Ethics Commission. However, City Clerk Ms. Mindy claimed no jurisdiction for my complaint.

In January, I submitted a letter to this committee to request to add my case to the agenda item, but there's no response. In February, UC Davis Student Internship Ms. Romeo emailed me the same forgery police report.

In March, City Attorney Ms. Wood sent me a letter, but she didn't confirm Jun Soul Fong was the driver that killed my father. She didn't confirm it because State Bar of California could take action to her. It also proved that Jun Soul Fong is not the driver that killed my father.

The Sacramento City Government is covering a scandal 25 years ago about the investigation of my father's death. I have been here since February 2024. I'm still not able to find out who killed my father.

And the police chief revealed to stand here to confirm Jun Soul Fong was the driver that killed my father. There's no response from the city. So the city keeps silent. So how can I find out who was the driver that killed my father?

Could you respond, Chair?

Thank you for your comment.

Vice Chair, I have no more speakers on the consent calendar.

Do I have a motion?

You have a motion. I've reviewed all three of the consent calendar items, and they appear to be in order. I'd like to move the consent calendar.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion passes.

Next up, item number four, in ordinance, amending various provisions of Title 17 relating to cannabis land use.

Welcome.

Good evening, Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Kevin Collin. I'm the zoning administrator for the city of Sacramento.

I'll be providing some brief introductory remarks. If I can have the presentation loaded, please.

Thank you.

We're going to provide a very focused presentation on the direction we originally received, present recommendations from staff in the commission, and then summarize our next steps.

I wanted to start with why we're here.

We are here because the city commissioned a comprehensive study of cannabis, the industry in this city, after five years of legalization to inform public policymaking on the topics of economics and land use.

On that latter point, this study provides important information on the existing regulatory framework and marketplace and land use activity of cannabis.

An important findings of the study include common questions that you would hear in a public hearing about cannabis business, including that cannabis businesses do not result in crime levels above those of other comparable businesses.

Additionally, cannabis businesses have not had a negative effect on retail, industrial, and residential districts.

And finally, that cannabis businesses have not reduced the property values of nearby homes.

It's that factual basis that staff use to follow the council's direction on seven points that pertain to land use.

These points are, there's a lot of details behind them today. We are going to focus on two of those.

I'm going to at this point hand it over to Kirk Skierski, our project lead on this particular item to speak to those.

Thank you. Kirk Skierski, senior planner, community development department.

The first council point of direction I'm going to focus on was to review cannabis business zoning.

So what does that mean specifically? With that point of direction, we evaluated the permitting process for cannabis land uses.

So that is cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and dispensaries.

Currently, cannabis land uses require conditional use permit.

The one exception being consumption lounges. We currently do not have any Title 17 provisions for consumption lounges, and thus they are not prohibited, or they are prohibited within the city.

Staff recommended to require an administrative permit for all cannabis land uses with the exception of consumption lounges.

When this project was presented to the Planning and Design Commission on March 13, the commission generally agreed with staff.

However, this was one area they forwarded a revised recommendation.

The commission recommended to require an administrative permit for all cannabis land uses with the exception of cultivation, dispensaries, and consumption lounges.

On the screen right now is a, it shows how we currently process conditional use permits in the series of steps they go through.

A few items to note is when an application is received.

The property site is posted providing early notice.

In addition, a public hearing notice goes out, and ultimately the conditional use permit is heard at a public hearing.

With this project and staff's recommendations to change from a conditional use permit to an administrative permit, staff saw an opportunity to apply new policy related to cannabis administrative permits.

With staff's recommendation, we included applications, some middle notice of administrative permits to adjacent property owners.

This process, the processing and administrative permit would look largely the same compared to the conditional use permit process.

So administrative permit application would still include a signposting, the one primary and large difference being no public hearing.

So instead of a public hearing, there is a staff decision on the administrative permit.

It's either approve or deny, and then that decision is again noticed to the adjacent property owners, allowing further participation among community members.

Essentially, did staff get the facts right?

The next point of direction I'm going to discuss relates to sensitive uses.

This is the other area, the Planning and Design Commission forwarded a revised recommendation from staff.

So currently on the screen is a list of our sensitive uses.

Of the sensitive uses, we have a 300 foot buffer from residential zones, and the remaining sensitive uses have a 600 foot buffer.

Presently, the sensitive use buffers with the exception of K through 12 schools are not mandatory.

This means that there is a process for a dispensary today to locate next to a park or a youth center or a daycare.

So in regards to the proposed recommendations, I'm going to kind of combine staff and commission, since there are quite a few layers.

First, both staff and the commission recommended to maintain K through 12 schools as a sensitive use buffer.

Staff and the commission also recommended to redefine three of our sensitive uses.

So redefining parks to now include neighborhood, community, and regional parks.

Updating the youth oriented facility definition to mean non-profit entities that primarily cater to minors.

And to update the substance abuse rehabilitation center definition to capture state licensed rehabilitation facilities.

And this is where staff and the Planning and Design Commission slightly disagreed in removal of some sensitive uses.

Staff was recommending to remove faith based institution, childcare in-home and center, other dispensary, cinema, tobacco retailer, and residential zone.

However, the commission felt forwarded a recommendation to maintain faith based institutions, childcare centers, and other dispensaries.

The staff and the commission both recommended to add three new sensitive uses, those being community centers, libraries, and museums.

And to keep the 600 foot buffer.

The last area the Planning and Design Commission differed from staff's recommendation was to allow for dispensaries to locate within a sensitive use buffer with Planning and Design Commission approval.

If a dispensary was located outside of sensitive use buffer, it would be reviewed by the zoning administrator.

So this is largely a representation of the status quo, what currently happens.

And I just wanted to provide some visual visualizations.

So on the screen right here is staff's recommended sensitive uses.

So schools, parks, community centers, libraries, museums, rehabilitation centers, and youth facilities.

The Planning and Design Commission had the same with the addition of faith based institutions, childcare centers, and other dispensaries.

A little side by side comparison.

And the reason we're here today, staff is looking for direction on how we should proceed.

Should we proceed with staff's recommendations?

Should we proceed with the Planning and Design Commission's recommendations?

Or is there another alternative the committee would like to consider?

Either some variation of the two or something discussed here today.

Following today's meeting in front of the law and legislation, it is anticipated that we will then proceed to the City Council in May.

And with that, that concludes my presentation. Be available for any questions. Thank you.

Any questions before we hear public comment?

Seeing none, let's hear public comment.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I have 22 speakers. So I'm going to call up a few and please line up in the middle aisle.

Jeanette Carpenter, Lambert, Mayisha Bahati, Macworthy, Chelsea Haskins.

And don't be shy if someone has said something you've previously, you wanted to say, just say in support and we'll keep moving. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Council.

My name is Jeanette Carpenter and I'm with Child Action Incorporated.

CII respectfully urges your acceptance of the recommendation to keep childcare facilities within the sensitive use buffer requirement for cannabis dispensaries.

We strongly recommend that Sacramento maintain alignment with California's statewide policies, which mandate a 600 foot buffer between dispensaries and childcare centers alongside K-12 institutions.

To our knowledge, Sacramento would be the only city in California to eliminate this precaution.

Furthermore, we strongly urge your rejection of any attempts, including through conditional use permits or CPUs, to circumvent this critical buffer for childcare facilities.

Since 1976, CAI has empowered Sacramento community, sorry, Sacramento County's families by connecting them to subsidized high quality childcare.

We are proud to partner with 2,405 childcare providers serving 13,498 children across our community.

Essentially, we strongly urge that, like I said, the CPU should not circumvent this buffer in line with existing regulations prohibiting CPU applications within 600 feet of schools.

We strongly emphasize that childcare facilities must be explicitly included alongside K-12 institutions in this policy.

Childcare centers serve many of the same age groups as K-12 institutions.

To reiterate, CAI supported families alone represent thousands of children ages 6 through 13 in Sacramento's childcare programs.

We implore you to uphold the 600 foot buffer by specifically naming childcare facilities as protected locations and crucially ensuring the safeguard cannot be bypassed.

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Lambert.

If you could line up as we've got quite a few comments. After Lambert.

Yes, anytime I see cannabis, I always try to make an appearance because it's a very peculiar situation.

You have a department in one of the city manager's divisions. There's five divisions here. Last time I checked.

And it's a department just on cannabis. So to me, there should be no confusion on what to do.

Unless the only reason you are approving this is because you're able to extract higher taxes on this issue.

And then I keep hearing where you take the money from cannabis and put it into the Children's Fund.

My question has always been, does some of that money go to Grant High School?

Grant High School is bringing tremendous exposure to the city of Sacramento.

There's not a dollar figure on what Grant High School teenagers accomplish.

They're winning state titles. They're traveling all over the world as the drum line.

Are you putting some of that money into them?

Because you're putting money into other youth around the city and I haven't heard anything that they're accomplishing.

They may be accomplishing something, but I don't see it in the paper and on social media.

The Grant Pacers should receive a lot of this money. A lot of people went to prison that look like those teenagers.

And the people that are coming up here now that are representing cannabis, they didn't go to prison.

And they also were heavily involved in distribution, cultivation, everything you're talking about.

So it needs to be balanced. Put some of that money and take the restrictions off a core.

Thank you for your comments. Maisha, then Mac Worthy.

Hi, good morning, Council. My name is Maisha Bahati. I am the owner of Crystal Nugs.

I'm the first Black woman owned cannabis dispensary in Sacramento.

My location is here in District 4. I'm located at 2300 J Street.

I am one of four dispensaries here in Sacramento that have the space to accommodate an on-site consumption lounge type 2 license.

I'm also within a sensitive use, a faith-based institution.

When we got our dispensary in 2021, the same faith-based institution was there.

We were, I want to say, the second or third to have a CUP hearing.

Phil was on that commission, so I presented in front of you.

We had a ton of support and we were approved unanimously to open our dispensary.

We have been open going on two years now.

I am here to support the Planning Commission to allow dispensaries who want to open a lounge within a sensitive use to get a CUP hearing.

I think it's important that businesses are allowed to show their merit, that they are allowed to show the community support, and they are allowed to show what they've done.

I don't think that's a good thing.

I'm not located in District 2 next to the community center.

I'm in Midtown.

There's about 50 different businesses surrounding me.

Bars, restaurants, hookah lounges.

I'm right in the middle of the nightlife.

There's a new concert facility opening up.

I think it's called Channel 4.

I'm in the middle of the nightlife.

I'm in the middle of the nightlife.

I'm in the middle of the nightlife.

I'm in the middle of the nightlife.

I'm in the middle of the nightlife.

There's a new concert facility opening up.

I think it's called Channel 24.

So that's where I am.

I recently met the pastor and his wife of the faith institution, and they were very supportive of a black woman trying to elevate her business.

So I just want to be clear that I do believe that if you are a dispensary within a sensitive use, you should be allowed to have a CUP hearing.

Allow us unos to prove ourselves to our community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Halcy Haskins.

People this been on the agenda for some time. I really want to know what are you trying to do to

poll folks going into business. Now you don't want a public hearing. Now you don't look at the

basic. What about a person using cannabis got churned in the household? Now you're

going to be in the church. Many people in the church use it. Why are they going to be in to say

you should have this and you should have that? You need to study. Now O-Park was a red line of a

bar. Yes. How did Cabin get the bar license? You are moving to bullshit participation of your

choice. The same thing you are doing here of contract. No bidding. That's peddling bids. This is the

same thing you are going to do with this here. There is a lot of money there. Get out of the way and let

these people make money. Let them go into business. I experienced business for 59 years here and never

point to the clock. How did I go into business? On my own. A lot of people have spent big dollars

here but you are still there. We are going to do this. We are going to do that. Get the hell out of

the way and let people understand this business and go into business. You didn't do this with

liquor license did you? Some of you weren't in here for liquor license. How many black liquor license

on here in this time? None. One was on Stock and Bulls Royce. She is dead. Why? Because the

agency of the government here on a racial basis. You want to go on a racial. Get the hell out of the way

about a racial. If you got the money, deal. Thank you for your comment. Chelsea Haskins and Angelica

Sanchez. Good afternoon members of committee. My name is Chelsea Haskins and I am the director of

state and local licensing for perfect union. I am also a proud resident of district 2. The ordinance

before you is grounded in solid data, public health input and meaningful community engagement. It reflects

the findings of the 2022 comprehensive cannabis study and supports Sacramento's broader vision for

equitable economic development. Unfortunately, the planning and design commission's recommendations

roll back that progress. While they incorporate parts of staff's work, their final proposal reflects

policy making based on stigma over evidence. Their changes would bring back unnecessary CUP

requirements for retailers and cultivators creating barriers to entry due to cost. Eliminate

RMS zones which are walkable transit connected areas that are often underserved, cutting off key

opportunities for local businesses. It would reinforce the over concentration of cannabis

businesses in industrial zones, especially mine district 2 and district 6. It would maintain the

sensitive use restrictions that are not supported by data and it would stall investment especially for

equity focused businesses. In short, these changes run counter to the intent of the ordinance to modernize,

simplified and build the cannabis zoning framework that is equitable and efficient. I hope you will stand

with Sacramento's cannabis community by recommending an administrative review process for retailers and

cultivators, inclusion of RMS zoning for storefront retail and that sensitive use buffers be based on

data and not stigma. These recommendations are balanced, evidence based and aligned with Sacramento's

values of inclusion, transparency and opportunity. Thank you.

Your comments, Angelica Sanchez, then Christina Rogers.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Angelica Sanchez and I'm here representing

Perfect Union, a cannabis company that's operated in the city of Sacramento for 14 years. We want to

highlight that the planning and design commission made significant changes to staff's original recommendations,

changes that move us away from the city's goal of streamlining cannabis permitting and supporting equity. Most

concerning is a decision to exclude retail and cultivation from the administrative permit process while

allowing other cannabis license types like manufacturing, distribution and testing to move away from the burdens of

a conditional use permit. This inconsistency is not supported by the city's own 2022 comprehensive cannabis

study which found no land use impacts that justified treating retail and cultivation differently. Keeping

these uses under a lengthy and costly CUP process creates unnecessary barriers. Second, the PDC recommended

removing residential mixed use zoning for dispensary. Despite staff support, the severely limits location

options and undermines access to walkable mixed use neighborhoods where these businesses are more

compatible. Finally, the expansion of the sensitive use categories lacks justification. For example, a

therapeutic alternative has operated next to a licensed child care center and church for over a decade with no

issues. This demonstrates that proximity alone does not create conflict and overly broad restrictions only

reinforce stigma, not safety. We respectfully ask the committee to recommend that retail and cultivation be allowed

under the administrative permit process just like other license types, that RMX zoning remain available for dispensaries

as originally recommended by staff, that only truly necessary sensitive use restrictions are retained based on

data, not fear or perception. Sacramento's cannabis policy should be shaped by facts, not fear or stigma. Thank

you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Christina Rogers, then Joy Patterson, Jennifer Copenhavell, and then

Kelsey Meader. Good afternoon. I have a different take on this. I have no problem with legal businesses selling their

products and we know other adult only products have restrictions to keep them from harming children in sensitive

groups which makes sense. Although consuming cannabis can take the form of chewable and topical, many users

prefer to smoke it. And when cannabis users smoke, everyone around them is impacted. If a cannabis business located 600 feet

from sensitive areas wants to provide smoking lounges which contains the smoke inside the property, that seems reasonable to me.

But the rules are being bent for this proposal. The language on page three of the agenda notes, cannabis may qualify to be

closer to many sensitive areas with a conditional use permit. I'm not okay with this. Smoke travels. Whether new shops have

smoking lounges on site or not, the smoke is new now in sensitive zones. Think about it. Smokers will want to enjoy their

product in a nearby park or outdoor space. This is human behavior you cannot control. And law enforcement doesn't have the staff

to walk around and constantly enforce the rules. So people will smoke cannabis in public around children and those with long

sensitivities like myself and nothing will stop it. Equitable seems to imply anyone should be able to open a cannabis business.

But it should not imply that when the current zones are already taken up, new cannabis businesses are allowed to be closer to sensitive

areas due to equity. That's a misuse of the term. And it's now imposing on the rights of others of all races and income levels.

I'm old enough to remember when I could smell cigarette smoke everywhere until it was tightly regulated to protect children in sensitive

groups. It took years to change and now it has. Cigarettes are still legal but people cannot smoke anywhere they please. Cannabis should not

get a pass either. Please take more time to consider thoughtful changes before implementing them and be equitable around ensuring all children

and sensitive people throughout Sacramento are protected. Thank you very much.

Your comments. Joy Patterson and Jennifer. Good morning, chair Plochibom and members of the committee. My name is Joy Patterson,

resident of East Sacramento and former principal planner and zoning administrator for the city of Sacramento. The ordinance before you today

amends the zoning code to add land use category for cannabis consumption lounges. However, some of the original legal dispensaries, including one in my area,

therapeutic alternative, would like to create a cannabis lounge at their existing business but the proposed ordinance prohibits a few existing legal

nonconforming dispensaries within 600 feet of schools and other sensitive uses from applying for a conditional use permit. In order to allow these dispensaries

used by city residents to apply for a CUP and appear before the planning and design commission with their lounge proposals, I suggest an amendment be added to the ordinance that pertains to legal

nonconforming dispensaries and allows them for a limited time period to apply for a conditional use permit for cannabis consumption lounge. If this proposed language is not feasible, I suggest modifying

or eliminating the proposed nonconforming use section of the proposed ordinance to allow existing legal dispensaries to apply for a lounge under legal nonconforming use provisions for a limited time period.

A therapeutic alternative has successfully operated in its current location for over 15 years. The business does not generate complaints as supported by adjacent residents and businesses. It provides a service used by residents of the

East Sacramento community. I encourage the law and legislation committee to amend the proposed ordinance to allow exceptional established dispensary operators the opportunity to apply for a conditional use permit to allow lounges to be a part of their

business. Allow good, solid, responsible businesses keep up with new ideas and trends.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Jennifer and then Kelsey.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Copenhaber. I'm the HR manager at a therapeutic alternative. We currently operate within the outline sensitive use areas. However, we have had zero impact, negative impact on the community.

And we pose no danger to minors or those in our sensitive area. In fact, we have participated in securing the area as a safe space through participation of the Yellowbrook Road project partnering with Mesa that provides a safe path for the Miwok Middle School students to walk home from school to and from school.

We agree with safeguarding our community's youth. However, we would like to have the opportunity to provide a safe responsible consumption garden that is private and would not include smokables. This would in no way pose a threat or harm to those within the sensitive use areas that we currently operate.

A therapeutic alternative serves a large population of the senior community in Midtown, East Sacramento and the city of Sacramento and surrounding areas. In fact, it's the most serve demographic within our member base.

What we're trying to do is create a safe space for older adults and seniors to come enjoy a tranquil space, read a book, have a tea, enjoy a therapeutic massage with infused topicals and things of that nature in a private and serene space.

We're not promoting smoke sessions, DJ street events or any sort of party atmosphere. Instead, we would like to provide that safe social space and healing space where older adults and seniors can reap important benefits that these social opportunities that we provide can help them in their everyday well-being.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Kelsey Mater, then Pastor Ronnie Walton.

Hello, Council. My name is Kelsey Mater. I'm a 15 year long certified massage therapist and the copywriter that is human for a therapeutic alternative with public educations and marketing.

I like to have an emphasis with health, wellness and disability advocacy. I work as an advocate to give voice to folks with chronic pain and particularly neurodivergence as I have a rare genetic disorder called Ailer Danlos Syndrome as well as autism as a neurodivergent person.

I worked with a therapeutic alternative in conjunction with Ability Central as a copywriter and I joined a therapeutic alternative because our goals were congruent.

They were active in community, explained their dedication to programs around the neighborhood that help children with safety, in particular with coming home, especially in face of the housing crisis.

For me, I also walk and bike to work and so it made me feel a lot safer to see that implemented as well.

I quickly became a we with ATA because I was seeing what we were doing for our community members, working directly with older folks and people who are sick in recovery.

Folks who are in harm reduction and want to socialize with their friends in a way that leans away from alcohol.

I see a lot of people who are in chronic pain a lot but the other thing I see a need for in our dispensary front with our age demographic is there's a lot of elder loneliness and we are in a space that might provide some socialization that is not alcohol based for our aging population.

We are proposing a smoke free space and most of our members empirically use edibles.

So respectfully we are seeing.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Pastor Ronnie Walton, then John Johnson, then Kimberly Cargile.

I believe it's good afternoon committee.

Pastor Ronnie Walton, I've lived in district two for over 70 years.

And with me there are several pastors that are pastors in district two. I've heard several people mentioned district two and that everybody was in favor of it and none of these pastors have been contacted.

I don't know how we didn't get reached.

But our concern is we don't want you to change the CUP.

We think it needs to be in place.

We think it's important.

I heard somebody mention about, I think it was Kirtna mentioned about possibly not having any public hearings.

Well let me express this and I expressed it with love to all of you.

The public is the ones that elected y'all.

So you don't want to exclude the public from not being involved in this.

So what I'm speaking on behalf of several pastors that are here, I met with the commission committee several weeks ago and expressed our concern.

That's probably why you see some of the changes that are being made.

I think it's important for us as faith based institutions.

Naturally we can't do anything about what's already been passed.

But I think you have to take under consideration like you have K-12 and others, child care centers.

Take under consideration in what you've seen faith based organizations.

We've been in the community a long, long time.

And so please take that under consideration.

We're here.

We're not going nowhere.

We'll be back to see you.

We thank you again for the opportunity.

Hopefully you'll hear what we're saying.

Thank you for your comments.

John Johnson and Kimberly Cargall.

My fellow commissioners pastor John Johnson.

District two is where our church is located.

And I am a product and person is raised, one raised in San Francisco and as well as California.

I recently moved here 12 years ago and have saw the changes in the life of the people that live in the city and know that our children are very important to us.

I passed through an area where the children pass by constantly all the time from one end to the other.

The bike path or the hit down to the residence from the schools.

And I just want you to consider that having something of this sort of a cannabis, any type of thing in our area, it poses a problem.

When I moved there 12 years ago into our church community, we had a growing area right in the backyard of one of our homes.

We did was we just went over and talked to our neighbors, explained to them by them trying to have a growing product in the back of their home.

Was not right for our community.

I read for our church.

At that time, our church where sat at was 98% of drug infested and on the police list of mile long.

But since then in the last 12 years, we have been able to change that by working with our community, working with you, working with commissions to ensure that a betterment could come from that part of the community in district two.

Our trailer park has changed, our bike path has changed, and a lot of areas have changed.

And along with our pastors, we just believe that better times are coming.

So we just believe in you and trust in you that you will make the right decision.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Kimberly, then Leslie, Lindsay, a her.

I think the camera is not available for publishing.

Good morning.

My name is Kimberly Cargile.

I'm the owner of a therapeutic alternative.

I'm here today because this matter is very important to the future of my company, my patients, my employees and my neighborhood.

I'm the CEO of the community council voted for onsite consumption to move forward.

I understood the intention was for the current dispensaries to be able to provide this service to our customers.

As it stands, there are only actually a few dispensaries that want to move forward with applying for onsite consumption.

And the number is already limited for citizens access.

Now with changes to title 17 proposed today, my chance of applying for onsite consumption will be taken away unless you make amendments to the recommendation.

In 2014, I went through the conditional use permit process in which artist sensory a therapeutic alternative located at 3015 H street was provided a conditional use permit with the with our neighbor support.

We were approved for a variance since we are near sensitive uses.

At that time, I gathered many letters of recommendation from my neighbors and over the last week I have gathered many more which I have emailed directly to you, including the Eastside neighborhood association and the McKinley Montessori School.

Open in 2009, a therapeutic alternative has operated for the last 15 years without causing any problems in our neighborhood.

On the contrary, we have prevented problems, prevented crime and supported our community.

We participate in the McKinley Eastside neighborhood associations yellow brick road program where we pay our guards to come in early every morning to watch the kids as they walk to school and again watch them in the afternoon.

One day a child was hit by a car and you know who stayed and called the police and waited with that child until his mother got there.

Our guards did.

If it were not for us, the children would not be safe on our block.

We are not the problem.

We are a solution for many years now.

I have planned a beautiful healing garden in our backyard hidden away from past or by is totally private a place for education for seniors.

Please allow us to go through the conditional permit process for onsite consumption.

Please allow our neighbors to speak on this issue.

Please allow the thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Lindsay Ahern, Deanna Farla and then Kathy Badaway.

Thank you for the time to speak.

My name is Lindsay Ahern.

I am a Sacramento native.

I am a Sacramento native.

I have worked in the industry for over 15 years.

I am here today to ask for your support for a therapeutic alternative to be a designated location for safe cannabis consumption for adult cannabis patients and recreational users.

I understand that we are located in a sensitive area but our past and present duties in the community are positive and we help maintain a safe environment for our neighbors through community walks, the yellow brick road program,

and with an aware staff and security team.

I have worked at a therapeutic alternative for over 10 years and no, our membership majority are those over the age of 55.

Because our seniors depend on our staff education and compassion, these values will translate when holding space for their safe guided consumption of beverages, edibles and topicals.

Our space is private, out of the view of the public, maintaining safety, discretion and respect for the community.

It's beautiful and serene, creating a sense of relaxation, comfort and peace.

Some members are still navigating their usage and with our educated staff on site to answer questions and guide them, I believe that we can create an even deeper understanding of the therapeutic benefits of cannabis.

I ask again for your support in allowing a therapeutic alternative to be a safe, educated, compassionate consumption location. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Diana, it's Farla, maybe Garcia.

Following Diana, it's Kathy, then Mindy Galloway.

Good day. My name is Diana Garcia.

I've been a cannabis advocate here in the city of Sacramento since 1998.

I am a core member, which means I've graduated core program here in the city of Sacramento, and I'm also a business partner of a cannabis dispensary in District 7.

The city had a report done and the report shows that cannabis businesses are good neighbors.

I just would wonder and ask myself, why would the city take away a public hearing?

Why would the city take away a right for the residents to come out and be able to speak on their good neighbors or maybe they're not so good neighbors, but everybody should have a voice.

And limiting public hearings for cannabis businesses just seems wrong.

I also am here to ask for 600 foot buffer from dispensaries. Retail to retail, I'm asking for 600 foot radius. Have a great day and thank you for your time.

Your comments, Kathy, Badaway, Mindy Galloway, Richard Miller, Jennifer Pratt, Carla Black.

Good afternoon. My name is Kathy Badaway, District 6. I am a senior, of course, and I'm here to ask for a buffer of 600 feet from the dispensary and the cannabis business.

I'm also here for alternative treatment. I go there myself. It's a wonderful place. It's a safe environment. It's clean.

These people in there know what they're doing. They're very helpful. And also, I have a friend who is a retired fireman who had to have both shoulders and knees replaced.

And I told him about it, but thank God they have elevators there for the elderly. This place is so safe. It's so clean. And everybody there is very respectful.

And I hope that you'll let us have the garden there. I'm looking so forward to going. And also, one other thing is a lot of seniors wanted, I've given a lot of seniors some of the medicine, the creams, the oils and all this.

And it's very helpful. And they wish they could afford to go buy it, but they can't afford it because it's so expensive because of all that is taxed.

Your taxes are so high for this product. And I wish that it was, I wished everyone would be able to use it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Mindy Galloway.

Hi, good afternoon, Council. My name is Mindy Galloway. I'm CEO of the Pocket Dispensary and District 7. I grew up in Sacramento and I am pleased to say through hard work and dedication, we are a successful business that provides to the Sacramento economy.

And I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that. We have had very positive response in District 7 through our neighbors. We did go through the CUP process, which is probably one of the hardest processes and time consuming and money consuming that we had gone through.

And through the different studies that have been proposed or found, and then also our experience, we are good neighbors. We are able to provide positive, the things that also keep us safe in our security, such as locked doors, such as the reception being separate from the dispensary will also keep the community safe.

So I please ask for the dispensaries that have gone through this renew process already, please let us have public hearings when it comes to onsite consumption, because everything is solvable and I do believe that we can work with our community.

Second, I would ask you to also consider a sensitive use buffer from dispensary to dispensary 600 feet as a small independent business. There are other multi store operators in Sacramento that can buy at bulk and drive the prices lower, which can hurt the smaller businesses in our community.

And I've always appreciated the way that Sacramento has supported our small businesses and our independent businesses and continues to do that. So thank you for your consideration and thank you so much for listening.

Thank you for your comments. Richard Miller then Jennifer Pratt.

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Richard Miller and I'm here today to ask you for your support and allow on a therapeutic alternative to be grandfathered in this designated cannabis lounge.

We fully understand the concerns of the area presents, especially when it comes to the proximity to schools, parks, but our track record speaks volumes.

We have been a positive responsible presence in the community committed not just to compliance, but public safety, education, integrity within our community.

This space would serve as a safe, private and guided area where patients and members, especially seniors, can explore the therapeutic potential of cannabis under the supervision of trained professionals.

With cement walls, less vegetation, including the lounge, there is no public visibility. Discretion, public safety, respect and privacy are the foundation of the design of our consumption area.

Beyond consumption or lounges and educational hub, patients and members will learn proper dosing, safe usage and be introduced to a variety of modalities from drinks to topicals to tinctures through compassionate one-on-one guidance.

Many of our seniors are navigating cannabis for the first time and deserve a safe space to do so what and join our other health modalities.

It's hard. This request is about empathy and compassion. It is about meeting people where they are and support with dignity.

We respectfully ask that your consideration allowing us to continue our mission respectfully, privately, with the community's best interest, always in mind, and allow it a therapeutic alternative to move forward with their consumption area.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Jennifer Pratt, then Carla Black.

Good morning, committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jennifer Pratt. I'm here in full support of the therapeutic alternatives proposal to establish a medical focused healing tea garden consumption lounge designed specifically with our community seniors in mind.

For over 15 years, the therapeutic alternative has been an integral part of our community. It has operated responsibly with no issues, even in such close proximity to sensitive uses.

In fact, the presence of a therapeutic alternative has made the neighborhood safer and more vibrant.

Their commitment to the well-being of every person who walks through their doors as well as the neighbors around them speaks volumes about their dedication to this community.

Now this proposal offers something truly special, a place where seniors, a demographic that often faces isolation and health challenges, can come together.

Socialization is vital to their emotional and mental well-being, and a tea garden consumption lounge offers a unique and peaceful environment to foster those connections.

Beyond the therapeutic benefits of carefully selected products, you can't find at other dispensaries that are not psychoactive.

The lounge would provide a safe space where our seniors can feel valued, connected, and supported by their neighbors.

It's not just about the tea. It's about creating an environment that enhances the quality of life for our seniors by bringing them together in a way that promotes healing socially and physically.

Our long-standing track record of responsible operation and its positive impact on the community are exactly why we can be trusted.

To extend this service to our senior citizens, I believe that this initiative will make our neighborhood even stronger, safer, and more connected.

I ask the committee to make an amendment to the motion and allow a variance so we can be grandfathered in and consider how this tea garden will not only enhance health and well-being,

but also contribute to the warmth, safety, and spirit of our community, as well as help bolster local small businesses who we can partner with and thrive together.

Please allow us to go through the CUP process, allow our neighbors to speak up on this issue, and thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Carla Black, then Zion Taddis, and thank you for lining up.

Hi. I just wanted to say eliminating public comment is, that's our voice, that's our right.

We live in a democracy, so you shouldn't eliminate public comment.

The study that staff keeps referring to, like, oh, the neighborhood thinks it's great. Look at the study.

There's no impact to home values. Look at the study.

So if you look at the study of the data is from 2019, 2020, and 2021.

So in my opinion, that data is outdated. And if you look at the person or the people or the organization who created the study, funded the study,

they are a cannabis company or organization. That's like having a tobacco company tell you how good tobacco is in the community.

Like, it's, I think there needs to be a little bit more, like, separation and independence.

If you're going to reference a study and keep referencing it, it needs to be legit.

I have a lot to say. I don't think I'm going to make it through at all.

Staff redefining sensitive uses is a bit unfathomable.

They aim to exclude private and public spaces for youth development and expose them to the dangers of drug use.

They also said it themselves, they want to streamline drugs into the community.

No CUP process. Let's just streamline everything.

Faith-based institution, I'd imagine, would be heavily opposed to these changes.

My church would fight this. I spoke to my pastor about this, and he's spoken on behalf of our congregation.

We vehemently opposed this happening. The idea of removing sensitive uses and putting a drugstore next to the church is very harmful.

No one in our community benefits from redefining sensitive users and changing the permitting process from conditional to administrative.

Small businesses don't want it. Current cannabis permit holders don't want it.

It'll harm the youth. And we're talking about intoxicating and harmful drugs with a street value in that time. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Zion Taddis, then Jacob Schmidt will be the final speaker on this agenda item.

Hi, my name is Zion Taddis. I'm the founder of Shashamane Land on Florin Road.

It's a three acre of land. I have a five CUP on it. One of them is for to do an event, which is allowing me to have around 300 people to have at that land to have an event.

So I really believe not just dispensary. As long as we go through the CUP process and we are allowed to do at least lounging, not just non dispensary.

We also private lunch as long as we are away from the church and the schools like you're talking about.

But I went through for five CUP. I went through so much money, so much time. It took me to get to that point.

And we're here right now, but I don't trust the administration to be honest.

I would rather go through the CUP process because the administration is already corrupted.

They're only giving you specific, especially when it comes to our kind of equity.

That's what we have to see. Kind of equity was supposed to be originally for the community that have been affected by war and drug.

Right now it's only what, 10%, 20% of us benefiting. The money is going somewhere else, but not the community that have been harmed by war and drugs.

So I don't trust the administration. They are corrupted already.

We already way behind when it comes to black businesses, kind of businesses.

The whole point we got into the kind of equity is so we can get from 2% to 4% 8% but right now most of the money is going to a different community that our black community that have been affected by war and drug.

So I trust in the process. Let's go through the CUP. I don't trust in the administration the way how they administrate our kind of equity as it is.

They're alone giving them a whole and other administration responsibility so they can be even more corrupted.

Thank you for your comments, Jacob.

Vice-chair, this is our final speaker on this agenda item.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for your consideration and help evolving this industry over the last decade and a half.

I'm here to express my concerns about lifting the 600 foot buffer from dispensary to dispensary.

Sacramento is already experiencing over concentration of Canada's businesses and removing this buffer will only make it, only make the over concentration worse.

Instead we should increase the buffer to at least 2000 feet to promote balanced growth across the city.

Maybe you can even consider one mile between dispensaries. It's a big ask.

Small buffer zones create unhealthy competition, especially for existing license holders, core participants and new applicants who made significant financial investments.

This will not create more revenue. All this will do is divide revenue and eliminate existing jobs.

There are local businesses trying to survive in this market. It's already hard enough. Please protect existing stores. Thank you.

Your comments.

All right. Seeing no other comments. Do you have any questions?

Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions and a comment or two.

First of all, I want to make sure that I understand the staff recommendation in the following respect.

Is it correct that if it was adopted, it would be a ministerial permitting process and that the review subsequent to the granting of a permit would be based solely on whether the criteria, the buffers and the like were met.

It would not be discretion but beyond that factual inquiry. Is that correct?

You are correct, Council Member.

Okay. Thanks. Secondly, can you elaborate on how the different buffer distances were selected recognizing that 400 feet is roughly equivalent to a city block and traditional measurements.

So we've got 300 feet. We've got 600 feet. Can you talk a little bit about how these distances have been identified?

So I don't have a legislative history to reflect on that is explicit in stating the reason for that particular distance.

But I think that if I had to surmise why it might be that you hit the nail on the head with a block distance so essentially if you were in the grid in downtown 600 foot would put you in another block from a business from a cannabis business.

Okay. So perhaps the idea was not to have say two dispensaries in the same block.

Correct.

Okay. And you showed us a couple of maps focused on what the locations of sensitive uses are depending on which uses you select as denominated as sensitive.

And we talked about this before. Have you taken a look at a map on the inverse of that that what would be left as available locations?

Yes. So we have we have looked at that. What that would do is it would reduce the area of where dispensaries could locate throughout the city by approximately 70 to 80%.

And that depends that that's the with the full complement of sensitive uses that have been requested by various members of the public.

Of the planning what was reflected in the planning and design commission's recommendation.

Okay. Yes. Okay.

And then did you did from the staff perspective, did you give any consideration to retaining the conditional use permit requirement but combining it with some or all of the conditions essentially to to lay the groundwork of where the where

someone could look to go with a conditional use permit?

Absolutely did. And what we've explained throughout our community engagement process in our deliberations of where where should our recommendations land is that the legislative purpose of a conditional use permit as provided in city code is to specifically address land uses that having

So that combined set of information led us to conclude that an administrative permit would provide a fairness and equity of for the business owners in the location of existing and future cannabis businesses.

So not withstanding community sensitivity.

Your review and I'm assuming that was expressed with some of the conditional use permit applications that the applications were granted not withstanding that.

Not withstanding and that we would debate publicly where which zones and what distances today should that standard be if revised.

Okay.

I do have a thank you for the answers to the questions.

I do have a comment or or two and I say this with make these comments with the foundation that I fundamentally have supported efforts initially with medicinal marijuana as as a member of the the board of supervisors and as a citizen.

With the expansion of the availability and access to marijuana including state state measures so I don't have.

I don't I don't have any hesitation with regard to the the basic proposition of access to to to sit to marijuana either for medicinal or recreational purposes under appropriate circumstances and limitations which we've tried to craft at the state level.

We've tried to craft at the at the local level over the years not not withstanding that that view.

I would say I'm hesitant to move away from the conditional use permit approach and I say I say that in the context of thinking about the fact that we apply conditional use permits to things like gas stations to the.

Desire to sell alcohol although obviously state licensing has a big role to play in that.

And and we might have a study that would would show fundamentally the same results as the study that that's referred to here with respect to those types of uses but we have recognized that that there may be a particular community sensitivity to various uses.

And so it makes me hesitate in suggesting that we move to a ministerial approach particularly with respect to dispensaries cultivation and consumption lounges and I know you're not proposing to move away from discretionary review on those.

In the district I represent.

I can't.

Think of a of a of a person off hand who has spoken to me about this mostly unsolicited that that is is happy with what they perceive to be the number of marijuana related operations.

Whether it's dispensaries and cultivation or any any other aspect of the business.

So those who have spoken to me have perceived and do identify what they think are adverse community impacts from that to reduce this to.

To reduce this process to thinking about whether a number of items have been numerically satisfied in order to award a permit.

To me is at least at this point I'd have to say a bridge too far.

And so there are a lot of there are a lot of elements to the recommendations in front of us in light of the time.

I don't want to walk through all of those one by one but I think the the core issue here is the conditional use permit or the ministerial approach.

So that's that's my sense of that.

I think some time here to work through all the efforts of this may be a may be appropriate a little hard to do in the time we have available today.

But if we if we look at some of at some of the baseline requirements plus the conditional use permit approach that to me could could be beneficial not necessarily all the conditions that you that you have have suggested but some of them.

And I'd be I'd at least entertain the idea of say a 400 foot separation as opposed to as opposed to this this the 600 feet.

There are some of the sensitive uses that I might consider unnecessary to include but I certainly I would not admit residential zones.

I would not admit faith based institutions.

I would not omit child care centers or or in home oper operations from the sensitive uses list.

So there are a few thoughts.

Councilman Janice.

Yeah, I tend to support my colleagues comments that he's made but I also support many of the people who came up and spoke.

And I just want to start off by thanking you for taking time out to come here today to give your thoughts on this important matter.

There's there's a lot to unpack here.

I mean a tremendous amount to unpack when you hear the conversations of all of you.

It is about the commission conditional use permit.

I think that's the foundation of what we're talking about here.

And I heard you loud and clear.

Everyone who came up said don't eliminate conditional use permit.

It is the voice of the people.

It's it's the opportunity to have a hearing and be able to say what we have to say and and fight for our community.

It's unfair to think that all communities are the same.

And so therefore the conditional use permit allows us and and what I don't understand is.

When we start talking about an administrative permit versus a conditional use permit, I don't quite understand why we would move from one to the other.

And what are the advantages or disadvantages of that.

So I just want to let you know because I need to be clear on that.

I just don't know how much time we have on this subject matter today.

So I'm going to ask the chair.

Tell me what what we need to do today because I do think I personally need more time to unpack everything that's been said and been done to understand the difference between the two recommendations that are in front of us and understand the impact unintended consequences that they have.

If in fact we move to one versus the other.

My preference would be if we could pass a recommendation to move this to the larger council with discussion about, you know, bringing bringing forward some of these items about sensitive uses and CUP so that we can have that as a full council.

And I do think the full council needs to be here because there are districts that are not represented on this body that will be represented at that full council.

And then you'll have a greater voice of the entire community as well.

Being able to speak on the subject matter and it does give us time to really unpack everything that has been said.

I have I just have a hard time with the magnitude of the information that was presented today and trying to come up with any kind of path forward.

So I just need to sit down and kind of break it down for myself and try to figure out what's the best way for the city.

What's working and what's not working.

Right.

And so I'm in favor of that recommendation.

If you need if you need a motion, I would be willing to make that.

Councilman Dickinson just cut to the which we're discussing is just forwarding it with no recommendations substantively just forwarding it to the full council for for conversation.

Okay, I would second that that motion and I appreciate councilmember Jennings mentioned with something I neglected to which is I also appreciate the comments from from everybody.

I know that there are lots of different viewpoints on this and they evolve over time they change.

So I want to thank you all as well for taking the time to come here and and speak or communicate.

However, whether it's an email written letters, whatever you have you whatever medium you have used that it's all helpful and appreciated.

Thanks.

Before we vote staff if it's possible in the next conversation for us to specifically address the concerns are raised around the therapy alternative.

I think the correct so that issue is the 600 foot boundary from schools.

If we have discretion in the CUP process to you know grant a waiver inside that good.

Yeah, I heard the concern and certainly with the help of our former zoning minister and have been suggested some ideas about how that might be addressed so we're prepared to respond.

Great.

And for the rest of the public, we heard your, you know, loud and clear desire to continue to have the CUP process to review these applications as they come forward.

Also, I think there's a strong desire to provide that flexibility so that you know we can apply that discretion as needed.

Just one more thing.

Yep.

One more thing.

The child care programs that serve our youth that are six to 13 years of age.

I think the buffer that we use for the schools has to be the same buffer that we use for childcare programs.

There, in my opinion, there is no separation from K-12 to childcare programs.

And so I want to make sure that they're not, they're a part of the sensitive youth program.

They're not taken out of that.

I think that's very important.

I think it sends a wrong message.

If in fact we do that.

So I just want to put that on record that they should be the same.

And we should make sure we uphold the childcare programs and the buffer that we have for our childcare programs.

All right.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstained?

All right.

That passes.

Thank you.

Next up, more cannabis policy direction regarding cannabis consumption lounges.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members.

My name is Fiona Matts and I'm the program manager for the office of cannabis management.

I have a brief staff presentation as the committee considers policy direction relating to cannabis consumption lounges.

On November 19, 2024, council adopted an ordinance for a five year cannabis social consumption pilot program.

This pilot program creates two permit add on types to allow storefront dispensaries to operate consumption lounges.

Those two types are type one non smoking consumption and type two, all consumption, including smoking.

When the council adopted the ordinance for the pilot program, staff were directed to return with an ordinance addressing equitable geographic distribution of consumption lounges across council districts.

As well as the ability for call up review for business operating permits in relation to lounges.

Staff conducted a survey of the 36 storefront dispensaries to gauge the interest and feasibility of opening and operating a consumption lounge across the districts.

Eight responses were received and all were interested in the type two permit.

With the low interest in the consumption lounge pilot program, staff are recommending no more than five storefront dispensary consumption lounges per district to fulfill the equitable geographic distribution direction provided by council.

Additionally, all cannabis consumption lounges will be required to receive a conditional use permit under the proposed title 17 amendments.

Under these proposed amendments, if passed by council to operate a consumption lounge, a storefront dispensary will need to obtain a conditional use permit and then later a business operating permit when the business has made investments, including HVAC updates,

needed to comply with the additional consumption health and safety requirements.

Due to the significant investment needed to meet these requirements to apply for a business operating permit, staff is recommending a call up provision be added to the conditional use permit process that would allow a city council to

call up that approval in their district prior to the business beginning operating permit process and before significant investments are made.

Unfortunately, there's only three of us here today and when one leaves, we have to briefly adjourn.

That's fine. So we're going to just pause for one second and if we need to take a quick break and then we'll come back in about two minutes.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Save the best for last. Any questions before we move to public comment?

Seeing none. Go ahead.

I have 15 speakers.

Mayisha Bahati, Lambert, Mcworthy, Tin Lam, Kelsey Maider, Jennifer Copenhaver.

Hello again. Now I'm all thrown off with that last agenda item, but I want to, I'm definitely in favor of the fee waiver for core participants for the consumption lounge.

I think it's needed and it's wanted for the program.

I also want to just kind of reiterate that this is a pilot program. And I remember Jennings, you said it yourself, you said, we're not going to know how this works unless we pilot the program.

Based on those stats, it appears that there's only around six of us who are interested in this pilot program.

Three of us are in District 4. Two of us are with insensitive uses. And so I still stress that you allow those of us, myself, in therapeutic alternative to have a CUP hearing.

So we can, you know, my business has a lot of support. Again, I'm in a community where there's a lot of nightlife.

There's a lot of bars. We're in the center of everything. So again, sensitive uses, they're different in different communities.

We're not around schools and stuff like that. We're around nightlife. And so I just want, again, to just reiterate that there's only a few of us willing to put the financial risk, the liability risk, the time to see this program go through.

And so I would hope that you guys would allow us the opportunity to prove ourselves as businesses to do this. Thank you.

Next speaker is Lambert, then Mac Worthy. Following Mac Worthy is Tin Lam.

Cannabis is really an interesting business because you don't even hide that you tax it more than I believe any business. I'm in the cheesecake business.

You're supposed to have integrity when it comes to these businesses. It's like Mr. Worthy said you should actually sit down with the people who run these businesses on how to run the business and work with them.

Thank you for your comments.

Well, good that I tried to drink cognac out on you. But I think you're not doing some things right here. You got two issues here. You got a lounge. Can I own a lounge without owning a cannabis?

Ask those questions. Put it on the bar perspective. Somebody will have to answer that sooner or later.

Now, we got an issue here also coming up about entertainment. Now all bars and little social places got a number of people should be in there. Why are we going through that? Why do we got a fire department? No. So check with the fire department.

And remember now how long I've been here and how much fun we had in the smaller places. I met Ike T. Luton as the coconut grove. I met her in Depeche House. These are the little things you're trying to cut out here and not allow these people to be absolutely within themselves of what they're doing.

Now, some of us ain't been nowhere to make decisions here. Have you ever been to Philadelphia? You know where the capillary party is?

If it's not a permit, they back the paddow wagon up and load up. You're not doing something here that you should do because you don't know how. Just like Cheesecake Man said you should be talking to the people that run the business.

Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Tin Lam and Kelsey Mater.

Hello, my name is Tin Lam and I'm a regular shopper at a therapeutic alternative. When I heard that they were working on a tea garden such as Crystal Nugs is working on their consumption lounge, I think that it's a good idea to have like minded individuals in an enclosed space.

Rather than crossing the street to the big park across from a therapeutic alternative, they can go there and enjoy themselves although they won't be provided with the knowledge that is readily available by the staffing.

And they can make a friend while they're there at the garden. I believe that this adds another element to a business such as a restaurant opening up a patio for outdoor dining. This will equip them with another necessity to join the business, continue shopping and supporting the business and can come home and say, hey, I actually enjoy the business.

I enjoyed my products at the site as well before I even got home. I got to enjoy it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Kelsey Mater, then Jennifer Copenhaver.

Hello again. I'm Kelsey Mater, once more certified massage therapist and a copywriter. I am here to implore that we allow for a therapeutic alternative to have a consumption space that again is vape free and smoke free to honor the existing commitments that we have to our community.

As a person who frequently does education events, I take a lot of time to research the information which I'm hearing from several district members that that education is imperative to making decisions moving forward that respect all aspects of the community.

I strongly believe that that is true for a therapeutic alternative space. I do think it's also important in these times that we're using our EQ as much as our logic and our IQ.

It's people who feel seen and appreciated and unafraid to ask questions and have public comment that ultimately creates the concept of a council in general and you're representing different aspects of our community as well.

So it's really positive to me to have the ability to have public comment. It also encourages people in my age bracket of millennials, some of us who are in sort of different body types or mind types to be able to develop a sense of bravery and also show up to spaces like this and to participate in the land of the

community. So I think that's a great way to engage with people in the community and to have a sense of the language that we want to see and create the culture and so having an opportunity to speak here today and represent that in a respectful way is really appreciated.

So I hope you take into consideration our proposal.

Thank you.

Jennifer, then Kimberly Cargile.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you once again.

According to the National Institute on aging research shows that older adults and seniors with an active lifestyle are less likely to develop certain health problems including dementia, heart disease, stroke and some types of cancer.

The NIH conducted a study on social participation of older adults. This study found that social participation and community based activities reduces loneliness, depression and stress in elderly people.

It found that social participation is viewed as one of the important and effective factors influencing the elderly's welfare and health.

A therapeutic alternative serves a larger population of the senior community in Midtown, East Sacramento, the city of Sacramento and its surrounding areas.

Again, like I said before, it's one of the most sort of demographics within our member base.

What we're trying to create in our outdoor space at a therapeutic alternative is a tranquil healing garden.

This can be a space where older adults and seniors can come to enjoy an infused beverage or edible, maybe read a book while enjoying the fresh air surrounded by beautiful flowers and plant life.

We envision seated chair massages, guest lectures, high tea, private tea parties, Mother's Day celebrations, sound healing and the ability for older adults and seniors to enjoy a cold infused beverage on a hot day and perhaps meet a new friend.

We want to provide that safe social and healing space for older adults and seniors can reap the important benefits that social opportunities like ours can provide.

A tranquil healing garden with on site consumption that excludes smokables will serve our community's aging population in a positive and therapeutic way. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Kimberly Cargill and Lindsay Ahern.

Hello again. My name is Kimberly Cargill, CEO of a therapeutic alternative. Our team has been working diligently for years to create this vision of a serene and healing tea garden in the rear of our dispensary.

You know, I won't say what everyone else has said and talk about how beautiful it will be. I've sent you pictures so you can see that picture is worth a thousand words.

But it will mostly be a place for us to educate patients. A lot of people don't have the education that they need in order to consume cannabis responsibly and be able to use it for all of the symptoms that they have.

And so that is our mission. Our mission is education. We want to provide education on the variety of administrative techniques, cannabinoid profiles, dosage and contraindications as well.

We look forward to educating patients on the endocannabinoid system over 150 different cannabinoids. No, it's not just THC and CBD. There's 150 different ones that each cause different pharmacological effects.

Most people don't know that humans have an endocannabinoid system. We create cannabinoids within our body. Our system naturally regulates pain, inflammation, sleep, appetite, and mood.

Much others, phyto or plant cannabinoids can be supplemented to help the human body create homeostasis. This education is much needed when it comes to cannabis and it's not provided readily in our community.

Whether this plant was created for us or it evolved with us, it works perfectly with the human body to treat a long list of symptoms associated with hundreds of illnesses and disorders without toxicity.

As a medically focused dispensary, we primarily serve patients over the age of 60 with a professionalism and discretion of a doctor's office. Our goal has always been to create a welcoming and supportive space for seniors.

Our motto is where the place you can send your mom and your mom's mom. Please allow us to move forward with our tea garden. I'd also like to support Mayeshia with Crystal Nugz and ask that you allow her to apply. I would love to go hang out in her stylish lounge.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Lindsay Ahern, then Deanna Garcia. Lindsay, then Deanna, then Kathy Badaway.

My name is Lindsay Ahern. I am a Sacramento native, also a cannabis patient, advocate and have worked in the industry for over 15 years. I'm here today to ask to please allow us to go through the CUP process and allow our neighbors to speak on the issue.

In April 2024, published report in the journal Current Alzheimer's Research looked at over 4,700 adults over the age of 45 and showed that recreational use led to a 96% reduction in subjective cognitive decline.

Also, a University of Toronto study published in 2024 says, quote, our data suggests that you can be hardworking, motivated and a cannabis user at the same time. I can attest to that because I'm a student and I have a 4.0.

I want to ask again that you allow us to go through the CUP process and allow our neighbors to speak on it. Our space is private, making sure that we are out of the view of the public and it's safe and respectful of the community.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Deanna Garcia, then Kathy Badaway.

So Kathy Badaway had to go home. She has a job taking care of elderly people if you can believe that.

My name is Deanna Garcia and let's go over a few talking points here of the information that was given today.

This is just a pilot program of five years and the cost of putting this pilot program together for the core members and for the regular retail stores is going to be enormous just like everything is in cannabis.

The costs are always enormous. Here we are allowing more retail stores to open up.

But then here we are putting a cap on how many can do on-site consumption.

So the study must show that we have enough customers to allow more stores to come into our area.

But for some reason we're putting a cap on how many can have on-site consumption, limiting the ability of retail cannabis stores to be able to have on-site consumption.

The fee waiver for core would definitely be a beautiful gesture from the City of Sacramento as the cost to put together this consumption lounge is going to be enormous and it is only a five-year program.

I would love to go and hang out in Myisha's cool on-site consumption when it's done and I think you all will too.

And I just ask for a therapeutic alternative and crystal-nug and any other cannabis retailer who couldn't take the time off of their busy schedule to come out here and speak with you in person.

In a treatise like any other business, we're here to better our community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Mindy Galloway, Richard Miller, Jennifer Pratt, and then Zion Taddis.

Hello again. I just want to thank you all for moving this discussion forward.

I'm very important topic to the dispensaries that would like to have on-site consumption spaces.

And I would also very much appreciate a fee waiver for core participants.

This is going to be a very expensive and lengthy process to do it, but we are doing it because we do want to create community and provide added benefit in education for our members.

This, you know, being a pilot program, please also consider, you know, the responses from the survey.

There is very limited dispensaries that have the space or even want to have a on-site consumption lounge at this time.

So please consider the people that are applying because what does that entail is it first come first serve at that point?

If there's a cap, who's to say who gets it and who doesn't?

And so it would just involve a lot more stress on the operators that would want to do this.

And again, just in reiteration, please allow for a CUP process for the dispensaries to be able to look to the neighbors to have an on-site consumption,

such as a therapeutic alternative and crystal nugs.

They are a very integral part of the Sacramento cannabis community,

and I believe they would provide a very beautiful and safe place for their members.

Thank you.

Thank you. Richard Miller and Jennifer Pratt.

Rich Miller, thank you and good afternoon.

I just like to say that I've been in this industry now for 34 years.

I started in this industry working with HIV and AIDS patients and have gone on to a number of other conditions over the last 34 years of approximately about 700 medical conditions.

People say we're taking a step back by allowing consumption lounges in our community.

And in fact, we are taking a step backwards because when we started this program,

our culture was to help those patients to have compassion, empathy,

and to give them the education that we had.

When we had our first dispensary in San Francisco, all the patients met upstairs.

They had the ability to converse, to understand which cannabinoid worked best with them,

which therapy was best for them, which modality was best for them.

So essentially, we are taking a step backward, but we're taking a step back into our culture,

giving us the foundation and the ability to move forward in a positive direction.

And to make sure that those members and those patients understand the pharmacological effects of cannabis

and the ability to understand what's his best for them.

Because everybody has a different biochemistry and metabolized system.

They must understand the total nuances of the cannabis plant and what is going to work best for them.

So keeping in mind that it's very important that we not stigmatize this any longer, such as we have.

We want to compare this to alcohol. I don't think it is compared to alcohol, but we have regulated it like it's alcohol.

So in moving forward, we must take that same stigma that we associate with alcohol and cannabis.

Now right across from MiWoc, general high school, middle school, we have a gambling casino, we have a bar.

So why are we stigmatizing cannabis clubs?

They're more likely to walk into that safe way and get that bottle and slip it in their jacket and walk out with a bottle of liquor with no oversight there, which is directly across.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Jennifer Pratt then Zion Taddis, then Dr. J. Johnson.

Hi again everyone. Good afternoon now I think it is. I just want to thank you again everybody for their time.

I know it's a complex issue ahead of us. I would like to echo again to please allow us for the CUP process.

I think it's really important that we allow to hear from you, you hear from us, hear from our communities and go from there.

Prior to working at a therapeutic alternative, I cared for my father. He got pancreatic cancer 20 years ago and I helped him stay at home and cared for him through hospice.

That's how I got involved as a licensed activity director for assisted living communities.

While I was there, I would put together calendars and the families would come to me and ask, I've been hearing about this CBD. Can we go to one of these stores?

This was some time ago. This was before a therapeutic alternative was in existence and I remember creating my calendar and wishing I had a place to go. They're asking for it.

This was Greenhaven Estates in the pocket area. It's a beautiful community. Over 100 residents and over 50 memory care residents I believe.

I still remember to this day, I think of them all the time and I try to call and get their activity directors. We would be the place they want to go.

I see their family members to this day and they ask, is there somewhere I could bring my mom? She's got a lot of questions. It's hard for me to tell her, can I bring her here?

Can we sit here and you can show her how to do it. Please allow us that opportunity.

I think it's important. It's not a one size fits all issue and each neighborhood should be allowed to choose whether they want this or not.

I think as you've heard from all of us, we support Crystal Nikes as well and we hope that you consider both of us with these variances moving forward.

Thank you for your time and have a great day.

Thank you for your comments. I have two more speakers. Zion Taddis and Dr. J. Johnson.

Hi again. So for me, definitely for all the carnivores lounge, but the only problem I have is from the beginning, how it's been distributed.

It's always for specific people, for specific, just like how they distributed the carnivores for the dispensary, lottery, they actually felt us miserably from 10 out of, they give 10 people.

Right now it's only two, three people functioning. So how they're giving you to the people.

I know Mahesha deserves that and few other people deserve that too, that I believe I also deserve to get the carnivores lounging because I have a private land.

I need to be able to do my fundraising doing carnivores lounge where it is private. There's no school. There's no church. There's no debt care.

I should be able to have that chance as well, just like how they left me out when it comes to the carnivores dispensary, lottery, the same thing.

I don't want to be left out when it comes to this as well, especially on carnivores equity.

I already have CUP for event on that land. So I believe I not only just few people, just like every money goes to only specifically for few people, everything.

So that's why I don't trust the administration honestly. They need to be checked how they really spending, how they really giving the licensing, the funds and everything they do.

I've been trying to get into the carnivores industry ever since I myself fought for carnivores equity by myself.

Right now, I'm not even nowhere near getting into the business. That was the whole point we fought for us black people to get into the carnivores industry.

So we don't be left behind just like every other industry, but with the administration, how they administrate, they still trying to leave some of us behind.

So I really want to be able to also apply just like everybody.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Dr. J. Johnson.

Hey, Council. How's it going? I'm Jay. I want to come today and say that we should move forward with the five year pilot program for consumption lounges.

It's something that our community needs and I'm not just talking about the cannabis community. I'm talking about the greater Sacramento Sacramento community as a whole.

I would say that's my biggest concern because if we're going to achieve equity in the cannabis space, which is what the court program was designed to do, then if the license is going to be attached to storefront retail, then this is a chance for you guys to kill two birds with one stone.

You can achieve equity. You can achieve a lounge program and it won't take long.

So we see this as another opportunity. So if we're going to use an RFQ process, talk to the community on what should be needed to get a lounge. You guys don't have a lot of experience in cannabis.

So go on to some of us, you know, some of us do have doctorates in this cannabis game and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Vice Chair, I have no more speakers.

Any questions or comments?

Council Member Jennings.

Excuse me, Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks. Again, thanks to all who have spoken.

We've heard a lot of comments about the pilot program and other things. What is before us today is simply whether to amend the code to, excuse me, provide a call up procedure where a conditional use permit has been granted for a lounge. Is that right?

Correct. So it's two things. One is Council gave direction to put some geographical limits on to make sure that lounges aren't concentrated in any particular district and as well as initiate the call up procedure, which you just mentioned.

And so this action would forward both of those things to City Council.

We've got, for example, one that was issued under the core avenue that's not yet open, but it's permitted.

Yeah, so we have a total of 40 available opportunities.

Right.

Currently right now we have 40 available opportunities.

So the other four permit or four opportunities, those people are in process of applying for and operating a storefront.

That's why we only have 36 operational dispensaries.

So the 36 you counted doesn't include the other four that are permitted but not yet operating.

Okay. So I know there's at least one more in district two that's been permitted.

I think this makes sense to send to the Council.

I certainly support the call up option and it makes sense to apply that before people go through getting a business operating permit.

I don't know the extent to which we would have discretion to modify the pilot.

So I need to explore that I suppose with you all.

But I will say I do not support lounges where smoking is permitted.

I don't think we should treat this any differently than we treat bars or restaurants.

So that was a decision made by the Council previously to the extent that there's a sense that that bridge has been crossed.

I can understand that to the extent there's an opportunity to revisit it.

I would be in favor of doing so.

Council Member Jennings.

So one of the speakers and this might be on the same line.

One of the speakers talked about being a part of the pilot pilot and gave the impression that there was a limitation to who could be a part of the pilot.

And I just want to make sure I'm clear on that that there is or is not any limitations on who can be a part of the pilot pilot.

So Council Member Vice State law only permitted storefront dispensaries can have a consumption lounge.

And so you need to be a permitted storefront dispensary in Sacramento to be able to apply.

But if you are there's no other limitation aside from the geographic limitation if Council approves that.

Right. So of the 36 who have licenses all of them are able to apply.

And it will be granted based on some kind of geographical equity.

Correct. Yeah.

So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear to the speaker who came up and asked about the limitation of that.

And then have we considered any kind of fee waiver for core members.

Yes, that's built into the staff report.

It does say that we will be waiving their fees for the consumption lounges.

That was another question that was asked by.

So I just want to if you want to clarify that.

Yeah, that's correct.

So we want to be consistent with our practice with other fees for core members and waive these fees in order to support the core program.

So if there's a motion on the table, I'm willing to support it.

Staff recommendation.

I will support it.

Second.

I think we should have said this on the last item.

But as we're moving forward towards greater normalization of the industry, thinking about what a metric would be for over concentration, something less temporary, maybe then council districts.

Otherwise we're going to be running into challenges every 10 years.

And thinking about what we can do.

I want to share council member Dickinson's concerns about combustibles smoking and vaping.

But obviously there are some folks that choose to partake.

And if you do not have access currently to private residential property, you have no legal place to do that activity.

So if you are a tenant.

I think we're missing an opportunity there with that.

But conversation for a future day for sure.

Any more discussion?

All in favour please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

Passes.

I need a brief recess if we can before we move to the entertainment items, take a momentary pause.

Come back at 1 o'clock.

For video stream.

All right.

Item number six discussion on proposed entertainment zones. Tina.

Good afternoon.

Vice chair plucky bomb and members of the committee.

I'm Tina leave out nighttime economy manager joining me is Dustin Hollingsworth assistant director of the convention and cultural services department.

Today we are asking the committee to review and provide direction on a proposed ordinance to amend the city code to allow entertainment zones.

Additionally, if the committee supports moving forward with a proposed code amendment, we are asking the committee to pass a motion to forward the ordinance to the city council without full law and legislation committee review.

As you know, special events play a pivotal role in our city.

They are vital to our economy and culture, providing spaces for connection and creativity.

This is especially true of our street markets, concerts and festivals.

Unfortunately, there have been barriers that prohibit bars and restaurants from fully benefiting from special events, held adjacent to their businesses.

State alcohol licensing regulations have prohibited them from selling, take out alcoholic beverages for consumption at these outdoor events and activations.

Businesses have complained that special events can negatively impact their bottom line as attendees purchase drinks from vendors outside of their doors instead of them.

This impacts businesses and their ability to grow and recover financially as they remain challenged by the COVID epidemic.

In 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 76 that defined entertainment zones as zones that may be created by local ordinance for authorized consumption of alcoholic beverages on public streets, sidewalks or public rights of ways adjacent to and during special events.

Unfortunately, this law was limited only to San Francisco.

However, last year, the governor signed Senate Bill 969, which expanded the ability to authorize entertainment zones to jurisdictions throughout the state.

So what are entertainment zones?

Well, they are areas where people can buy alcoholic drinks to go from licensed bars, restaurants, breweries and wineries and enjoy them outdoors in common spaces like plazas, sidewalks and streets during certain hours.

The intent is to create engaging spaces that encourage economic growth while enhancing the event experiences.

Zones can activate commercial corridors and boost revenue for local businesses.

Since San Francisco was the first jurisdiction allowed to authorize entertainment zones, others are using them as a model.

San Francisco uses a two-tier approach to implement their entertainment zones.

First, their Board of Supervisors designates the boundaries and hours of operations of entertainment zones.

Then, administrative staff approve managing plans to regulate the operation of the zone.

This process offers flexibility to adjust conditions and allows zone operators to identify the most effective strategies.

It also provides administrative oversight with conditions that address specific community concerns.

Entertainment zone management plans are critical to the program and are really pretty comparable to the conditions that our entertainment permits have.

Management plans have several key components such as entertainment zone leads, defining the hours of operation, requiring compliance with additional permits,

requiring marking entertainment zone boundaries, requiring submission of security plans for police approval, and requiring aid verification.

Last December, our team joined a webinar offered by the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development and its Entertainment Commission,

where they provided information on their entertainment zone program.

It was very informative as they shared a few lessons that they learned.

First, they stated that the administrative process made the zones more adaptable.

Also, they noted that zones are most successful when community partners are sufficiently resourced to implement them,

and that zones should align with permitting requirements.

Staff from the Office of Nighttime Economy and the Entertainment Services Division are working with our city attorney's office to prepare a draft ordinance

that creates entertainment zones as authorized by SB 969.

And the intent is to have an ordinance ready for city council consideration by May 2025.

It should be noted that consumption of to-go alcoholic beverages in public spaces is only allowed in association with a valid special events permit within the entertainment zone.

What we're proposing wouldn't be prohibited in other times.

The intent is not to become New Orleans, but to expand opportunities for our bars and restaurants to benefit from events and activities adjacent to their businesses.

We would appreciate your support for entertainment zones and look forward to hearing your feedback.

If the committee supports moving forward with the proposed amendment,

passing a motion allowing staff to bring the ordinance to the full city council will assist in expediting implementation of the zones.

This concludes my presentation.

Dustin and I are available for any questions.

Any questions before we move to public comment?

Seeing none.

Public comment?

I have five speakers.

The first is Christina Rogers, Mack Worthy, Madeline Noel, Kari Miskit, and then Lambert.

Good afternoon.

I love the idea of creating more nighttime entertainment zones.

And it'd be lovely to go to a fun night market in Sacramento.

And as I read the agenda document, one thing is glaringly absent and that is public safety.

Right now, especially on weekends, areas like DoCo and Old Sacramento discourage people like me to visit in the evenings.

The local news and social media highlight regular fights breaking out and there have been shootings too.

So what will you do to mitigate these dangerous problems at new entertainment zones?

Will there be security?

Large events where people pay like the annual aftershock event have security.

And I assume these event entertainment zones will be free to the public.

So how will you pay for security to ensure I'm safe when I attend?

Since budget season is here, I already know we do not have enough police to manage these proposed night markets.

They are understaffed and work copious amounts of overtime that some people already complained about.

It seems law enforcement will be out of the picture except to react after an incident has happened.

So please rethink how you will ensure people like me and Sacramento families can arrive and enjoy these wonderful night markets

without being concerned about violence or personal assault.

Because I'm all for a good party but expanding alcohol and cannabis use brings a certain type of revelry which can create negative impacts.

So you have to figure out how you're going to mitigate that so we can all enjoy ourselves and safety. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Christy, no.

I see no movement.

Mack Worthy.

There's a lot of questions around this.

When you said evening nightclub, now evening can people bring their kids to these events?

Who's going to check the age of babies around on an open?

Now if that just kid come here, I got a place to show the FBAs right here on K Street when they come to town.

Some things going on about liquor moving from one place to another.

It's a place in Oak Park. I got to show the FBAs and just put surveillance on it.

And you'll see that that liquor is getting in those babies' hand too.

See when you leave the bar to the streets, who can show them who drank their liquor?

These are the things you got to think.

You can't think because you never are affiliated in those type of areas.

It's going to be sad.

It's going to be sad people.

This woman at the Inman manager, she should be in jail.

Her name shouldn't be on this. She should be in jail.

That's one of your top corruptions here.

This is the reason you get these type of things come up.

Because they're about a dollar.

They're not about respect of people, kids and families.

This woman's about a dollar.

The stuff that I have received on her, she should be in jail.

I hope I'll be in the court and let the judge put her under the jail and she would participate with chant.

Wake up people, these are the things that kill in the city.

How can I ask somebody to come here and visit with the corruption?

Even the police department, there's something going on bad about that.

And I tried to show that woman.

DA was in here. Tried to show her, show him.

You panned the black man against each other.

They will kill each other. Willow Lynch told you to control her.

We don't need that.

That brother, the brother of the shit and the devil has a hike.

They know they're doing it.

Because the little DA stood up here and talked about it.

I tried to go to see, won't even meet with me because she knows she lied.

Thank you for your comments. Madeline Noel and Carrie Miskit.

Good afternoon, chair, council members.

My name is Madeline Noel and with the downtown Sacramento partnership,

a property based improvement district here in downtown Sacramento represented sending six to six blocks in our urban core.

And I'm here to offer our full support and enthusiasm for the proposed establishment of entertainment zones.

There's so much growing momentum in our city.

Loved talking about the A's just during our recess.

There's so much chatter about what's happening from the double headers coming into town to the limited entertainment permits that were just passed last week.

And we ask that we just capitalize on this momentum and implement these entertainment zones as quickly as possible.

We've seen the success in San Francisco.

I pull up my computer and see articles all the time.

So we're not starting from scratch.

Tina and her team have been doing thorough research and outreach to our partners in San Francisco and to our organization ourselves to understand how we're going to adopt these guidelines and adapt them to our own local environment.

So we are committed to helping implement these.

We want to offer resources and insights as far as guidelines, safety measures, any ongoing evaluation on their impact.

We definitely want to see these zones be successful and be a positive addition to our environment.

And we ask that we expedite them as soon as possible and get this framework online.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Carrie then Lambert.

Good afternoon.

I'm Carrie misket here on behalf of visit Sacramento.

We just wanted to voice our support for the entertainment districts.

And if you agree, we would urge you to expedite them quickly to the full council.

We have some events that we think would benefit from this as well as some from our partners.

So we'd love to see this come online quickly and thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Lambert is our final speaker on this item.

Yes, I was actually heading out of town and family and the millennials shot out to the millennials.

There's a tremendous following of us all different nationalities, races, both sexes, shout out to them.

They getting ready to take it to the next level.

All I got to do is do what I do.

I noticed on here it says pass a motion forwarding ordinance to council without full law and legislative committee.

This is my first law and legislative committee.

You should never give that much power to a city manager where you just pass something on to council.

You should study whatever comes out of that.

Also the city manager's office of innovation and economic development.

Anytime I see anything like that on the agenda, I come and put the focus on it because that's where I was guided by a guy named John Silva.

Some of you may not know who he is, but I remember him.

He was with Mayor Steinberg and Del Paso Heights and he tasted our cheesecakes and he said, hey, there's a lot of grant money inside the city manager's office of innovation and economic development.

And that's where the nightmare began for me because I submitted a lot of paperwork there and they always had some kind of excuse on why they wouldn't fund us.

How more innovative can you be than to create a cheesecake business that appeals to all races, most people, etc.

And then at the end, I always acknowledge Megan of convention and culture.

Why? Because she has supported the grant teenagers and what's more entertaining than the grant drum line.

They're going to Ireland this year, by the way.

It should be some money for their food lodging and travel.

They're wonderful teenagers and it's a tremendous legacy there.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you very much.

And Mr. Davis as a fellow millennial, I agree with you taking it to the next level.

So appreciate your comments.

And so do I have my due colleagues and who want to comment?

Councilor Pletka, your problem.

I'm obsessed with recommendation.

All right. We have a motion.

And we have a second.

Any comments from my colleagues?

All right. Councilor Dickinson.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

You know, I support this.

But something occurred to me and I don't know if there was any comment on this out of coming out of San Francisco's experience.

But if you are in a section of this of the city that features a number of restaurants, wine lounges, et cetera, but you're not a nightlife entertainment zone, whereas somewhere else not too distant is do.

Is there is there any evidence or comment that it may be a disadvantage to the area not designated as the entertainment zone or not operating as entertainment zone that that in urge to the benefit of the area operating as an entertainment zone?

Because I can certainly see people saying, well, you know, we'd go over there.

But but if we got to stay inside all these other limitations, if we go over here, we can be out on this sidewalk or, you know, they've closed the street, whatever, where it is.

I'm just sort of curious whether whether there's anything along those lines, because I can think of places in the city where where an entertainment zone could be a good fit.

But other areas where it might be more problematic, even though there are entertainment related businesses in the vicinity.

I think because that's relatively new, we haven't received that kind of feedback.

But I think what's nice about the way the entertainment zones are is that it's not always related.

I think the name is a little bit of a misleading because it's not really nightlife based.

It's really more activity based.

So it might be that it might be an area that might not be appropriate for maybe more nightlife kind of related activity.

But if they're doing some other kind of special events, they may not even be doing more of a family rated special event.

But maybe you want to make sure that dad can get a beer and then maybe go out into the space.

There's a lot of measures for age verification as well as security.

So there might be other opportunities for those spaces that may not be considered part of what was initially envisioned.

But I think that there's a lot of different things we could explore.

Well, I appreciate that perspective.

But one of the things that made this occur to me was in the staff report talking about how much better the bars in the area designated by San Francisco did,

that they had their best nights ever, that they had several multiples of patrons more than they had before.

Well, were those new people or did they just come at the expense of some other area that they would have gone to?

And so we may not know anything about that today.

But as this moves toward the full council, maybe you can inquire folks in San Francisco whether that issue has come up or there's any comment on that issue just to test it.

We can definitely look that up.

And even as we were preparing for the meeting, John and Erie, the analyst in my office, was looking at his phone and he's like, oh, today they adopted five more.

So as we were sitting here waiting to present, we read that they adopted five more zones.

So we'll definitely have more information to get feedback on.

In terms of the increase in population, I think what was reflected in that increase of people attending the event was that because the businesses were able to participate,

people that would maybe be frequenting those businesses actually increase their attendance.

One of the things we frequently hear about events, especially for example in an area like Old Sacramento, sometimes businesses complain because it does actually reduce the number of people going to their locations because there's something happening in the Old Sacramento space.

So people being able to go to a business within the area, I think is what raises the attendance.

Well, I think that is the operative question.

Does it actually increase the number of people who go experience something that they otherwise wouldn't or would they anyway maybe in a different location or at a different time?

That's I think the relevant question that I'm raising.

Anyway, thanks, Mitt.

Really good questions.

Councilor Bridgettings.

So again, I want to thank all those who came down to speak and I want to thank the presenters for presenting this information.

So I'm one of those visual learners.

And so what this says to me is if Visit Sacramento supports it full support and downtown partnership is in full support.

Then I see a reason for me to be in full support as well.

But I still have a question because one of my colleagues who's in my district talked about where's the public safety aspect of this, right?

So I'm not going to ask you to answer that question, but I am going to propose that we take a field trip to San Francisco.

So we go to cap to cap every year in order to be able to find support for what we do here in Sacramento.

So why not go to San Francisco and go down there and take a look at this firsthand as a field trip and understand the benefits that this has given firsthand and also the unintended consequences that have come up and how real is public safety as an issue.

So I'm willing to drive, I'm willing to rent a van to take us down there.

The train, we take train, we can take train, that's even better.

But I just think a field trip might be something that would really help us understand this a whole lot better while we go through the process of maybe bringing.

I think we, I'm not going to say whether we have support for it or not until we take the vote.

But if there is support for it, we can at the same time move on the field trip in order to while we wait, while we're going through the process of supporting this issue.

So that would be what one of the ideas I put on the table that would help satisfy me and I hope my other colleagues as well.

Excellent comments and I'd be happy to go along on a field trip.

I said, hope everybody brings their permission slips, you know, ready to go.

First of all, thank you so much for the presentation.

Sorry, I missed part of it, but I was listening in the back.

And I think this is a really exciting and not unique.

Obviously we're taking a leaf out of other cities books, but I think that's what we should be doing.

I think we should be thinking outside the box and finding opportunities where we can model successes of other places and find ways that we can support our small businesses, you know, improve spaces for people from, you know, young people and all over to want to spend time and

in patron those businesses and enjoy the spaces.

And also when I think about some of the trips that I've gone in my life and, you know, traveling and other places, I always think about the times that I've been able to go and do something fun like trying to think about something unique that we would do.

Like I think at one time I did a yoga in the park where they offered wine from a local winery there and it was benefiting the local small business wine opener, wine owner and as well as, you know, we were doing something active and fun.

And so it wasn't necessarily us, you know, having a great time late into the night, though there have been other things like that too.

And I think all of those are great opportunities for us as a city to really continue to grow and be the city that we want to be.

And I know that we are and so I'm really supportive of this.

I'll be supporting it along with my colleagues here and unless there are any other questions, I'll say all those in favor.

Please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Anyone opposed or abstained?

All right.

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, you're in charge of the field trip?

Absolutely.

You're in charge of that?

Okay.

And now we move on to item seven, which is me.

You may be able to tell.

I have a very rusty voice.

Anyone else having allergy problems?

I know I'm not the only one.

Okay.

So I'll try my best to make it through this without coughing or sneezing.

That's Sacramento in the springtime.

So this item, colleagues today is a council member proposal with myself and Councilman

who's not on this committee to create a revolving loan program for housing developments.

And so really proud to be introducing this today.

We know that housing is one of the most critical challenges that we face in our city and especially the urgent need for affordable housing, housing that is accessible, stable and lasting.

So we're proposing that this committee consider the development of a loan program specifically designed to support this type of housing need restricted affordable housing.

So it would create a revolving loan fund that would provide low interest flexible financing to projects that offer affordability in our communities.

So it's grounded in the reality that developers have strong projects often face insurmountable financing gaps.

And I'm sure we've all heard this from folks in our communities where that construction costs have skyrocketed materials, labor and interest rates are all at historic highs.

And so we're always trying to find ways.

How do we get this housing to be built and do it in a way that makes sense?

Another thing that I've been thinking about and actually our former mayor, Darrell Steinberg said is how do we find ways to invest in Main Street and not Wall Street?

So we know currently that a lot of our financing that we're, our loans that are going to the stock market in our investments.

And so we're also looking at ways.

How can we create, take some of those funds and actually use it to create something real in our communities?

Something that we can see that we can tangibly use and that our community members can use.

So we envision seeding the fund with resources like the remaining unused funding in our legacy scurros account.

So I want to be clear.

This is not just it's smart policy but smart investing.

Instead of letting our dollars sit tied up in the stock market or an abstract financial instruments.

This is about investing in our neighborhoods investing in Main Street and not Wall Street.

So, and the other thing that also came to mind for me about this and this is very recent is thinking about our economic climate at this time.

And so we know that we are in, as our city, our interim city manager has said, we've got some, some dire economic straits that are in front of us.

Not just as a city, not just as a state, but as a nation, especially with, with tariffs and other things that are coming down the pipeline.

We know that it's very challenged right now on the stock market and Wall Street.

And so I think often about how we can make sure that we're using our funds, our local funds in the best way possible.

So, and that for me, that's homes for seniors, that's homes for families, that's homes for people in our communities that do not currently have the ability to create them or to find them.

And so with that said, our goal, we've already had initial conversations.

I see our city treasurer here is in the crowd.

We've already had initial conversations with staff about this, but we got to a place where like we really need to make sure that this gets submitted as a proposal.

So that we can decide as a body whether or not we want our staff to move forward and actually have conversations about this, figure out what it looks like, you know, what our options are.

And it might be that they come back and say, hey, this isn't going to work exactly the same way.

It might work somewhere else.

But I just, we just wanted to make sure that we're getting this in front of you all and the council and ensuring that we actually can spend time on this.

So that's my ask is that not, you know, that while we work out the specifics of the policy, what it would look like that we allow the staff to do that.

So that's our request today.

And so with that, I want to open up first for any public comment on this item and then I'll move it over to my colleagues.

Thank you, chair.

I have one speaker, Jonathan Cook.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair, members, Jonathan Cook, executive director with the Sacramento housing alliance.

We really appreciate this thoughtful framework for being able to utilize a loan fund, which would offer lower rates than the market for our developers are nonprofit affordable developers in particular would really be able to utilize us to make projects pencil.

We would just request that we put some thought into making sure that these resources are reserved for low income folks for zero to 8% AMI.

Thank you.

Right. Thank you very much.

And then I saw that we have our city treasure in the audience. Do you have anything that you would like to say?

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

I just want to, the genesis of this was when we met with the council members and the mayor, we're trying to find methods to invest in housing.

And in the past, we've used the risk fund.

And we looked at potentially using the water fund.

And the risk fund is that capacity. So the mayor always challenging me. The prior mayor always challenging me to think creatively.

I said, potentially we could use the scurrers assets.

And we, there used to be an asset allocation to real estate when I started with the city about 20 years ago, but the plan was a lot different then.

So in order for us to use this plan and we've had this conversation, there's going to be very specific standards that need to be met.

The portfolio is only worth about 250 million right now.

So in order for us to be comfortable with any allocation of real estate, it's probably going to be 10 million or less.

That's going to be the revolving amount.

And again, it's in, it's a closed portion of its existence.

So there's only one active employee left.

So we need to be liquid. So, and we can't go long.

So it would be a five to seven year investment horizon.

As far as what we charge for interest, it would be higher than the pools like we did the real estate.

Because we are fiduciaries in this regard.

So it would have to be a treasury plus a risk premium.

So we're looking in probably the five, six percent, which is still cheaper than what the market offers out there for those folks.

And finally, they would need to pay interest on a monthly basis because we are in a payout state.

So these criteria are very rigid.

We'd have to be in the first position in the debt structure so that we get paid.

So we're working with economic development, Leslie and Mike Jassow,

to determine if this would be acceptable to the development community.

So I have no problem working on it.

I just want to set expectations on this, that it's not the poison pill that's going to save there.

There's very limited assets, but it is a pool of money where we could potentially earn a sufficient income,

which helps the retirement plan and helps these projects.

And finally, since it's governed by a governing board,

this would be projects would have to be approved by the AFM board.

It wouldn't actually go to you folks on the dais.

It would probably be a recommendation that you have and we would look at it as the board in determined.

And the board is made up of city employees for the most part.

So that's all I have.

Is there any questions anyone would have?

Well, I really appreciate that.

And as I mentioned, we've had these conversations internally,

and I think this is the right time to bring it to this body and say,

is this something that others are interested in?

Is it worth our time as a city and a staff to do this?

And I would argue yes, otherwise we wouldn't have put it up here,

because we're just trying to be creative.

And I just want to say I really appreciate your creativity and being willing to think outside the box with us

and answer those hard questions.

And I know we've had a lot about, what about this?

What about that?

And you've always been great to work with, so I just appreciate that.

So yeah, I want to open it up to my colleagues.

Any questions?

Council Member Dickinson.

John, I don't have a question for you.

I appreciate the proposal.

I have been thinking for some time along these same lines.

Councilman Guerra, and you just beat me to it in a formal sense.

Enjoying on board.

I'm very supportive of exploring this.

And I think that one of the opportunities we have is to invest in our own community

to look at doing that on a triple bottom line basis.

When Phil Angelius was the state treasurer, he did much the same kind of thing,

and I think with some real laudable results.

So to me, I hope we will look and explore how we can expand this, not how we curtail it,

but how can we maximize what we can do?

I heard the caveats that John articulated, but what are the opportunities here?

And I come at it from that point of view.

So I'm pleased to, if we need a motion, to make that motion to send this onto the council.

And I hope that in adopting that direction, we would add to it to try to enlarge this to whatever extent we possibly can.

It's a great beginning, and certainly affordable housing is a critical need in the community.

But we have other economic development opportunities that I think we probably all would like to support if we could find a way to do it.

I'll just add that my own assessment of where the city finds itself in terms of its current and future budget circumstances is that we are going to have to grow our way out of it.

We are not going to get to where we want to go in any sense by cutting what we're doing, reducing service levels, raising costs for community center use and things of that kind.

That's ultimately, yeah, there's some of that unfortunately involved.

But if we're going to prosper as a city, we've got to grow our economy because it's that private sector activity that generates the revenues that then become to the benefit of the city and allow us to do what we want to do in a municipal and community sense.

So to me, we've got to look at every opportunity to make that kind of investment that provides that kind of return in the community.

Well said.

So I have a motion with what I heard with direction to also explore other opportunities for these types of funds for these projects.

Does that make sense?

Sources, other uses.

Other uses, all right.

And then I have a second from Councillor Plucky-Bombe.

Any other comments or questions?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

And with that, I believe we have come to the end of our meeting.

So do we have any public comments from not on the agenda?

I do have three comments.

Lambert, Kai-On, then Mack Worthy.

I tell you, I'm really inspired by Roger Dickerson because it's true.

You're going to have to grow yourself out of this.

And you're also going to have to make some very difficult decisions.

Now, as a person who's never been in a deficit and didn't get hardly any money from City Hall, we have a manufacturer in Southern California and we're working on one in Northern.

What does that mean?

We can grow our business whether we get money from City Hall or not.

But I have an issue with not getting any money because I'm a native.

Now, one of the things that I think you should do, and I hope a federal audit comes and proves me right, people working remotely from Sacramento should not receive a raise.

If you study how much money has gone into paying people who don't come to work minus minty cuppy, then you will know that there's millions of dollars that you're wasting that way.

What's the raise for?

Look at how they're reacting at the state.

Who wouldn't want to work, have a three-day work weekend every weekend?

That's what they're getting if they come back for four days and they're complaining about that.

Why?

Because they took advantage of COVID, which I put on record, and some a lot of people, including from City Hall, have moved away from Sacramento.

So now that they have to come back, oh, it's a burden.

It's always a burden when you go to work and have to take your children to school.

COVID hasn't changed that.

It's just that people have become used to that and it's exposing what you've done.

I don't believe anybody at City Hall should get a raise.

You should not get a raise if you want to grow it out.

Except minty cup.

Thank you for your comments.

Kai-Oan.

I don't see Mr. Owne.

Mac Worthy is our final speaker.

People are sad to say that we're in a critical position.

We need to meet and put some notes together.

We talk about things with housing.

How many people in this city operate a business that had a mortgage?

See, you can't, all that stuff about a dream house, that's bullshit.

Let that go.

Because it's not being carrot-ridden.

That adopted a portable property would be bonds.

You've got enough corruption here now.

You can't even manage $2,000.

You've got all that kind of corruption here.

You're going to go out and say, oh, well, we're going to have all that bullshit.

It's sad.

But mainly people, the aging kid came here twice.

Now, we've got attorney.

This is why the Brown Act wouldn't expose.

You could have told the police and come and aglize him.

But if he called me, I know where to take him.

That's the unsyped homicide.

Two young black men just killed that arduous, bashing up the center.

Never was solved.

But yet, still, the DA goes to come here and talk about what you got over there.

They should close it down.

Nobody has brought up people in Louisiana.

Nobody never solved that unsyped homicide.

FBI agent and I'm going to get them involved with the FBI agent.

And go for a ride back.

A ride back, what's going on?

What's going on in the city?

The corruption.

You've got to get out of the corruption.

It's like you said, you've got to grow people.

You've got to bring people in and have the ability of investing.

Not people can talk about it, have their belt, have owned something before.

Instead of race equity, dollar equity.

That's what New York Trump buzzed because he put dollars in.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Oh, God.

Sorry about that.

I was putting the cough drop in.

With that, we heard your adjourn at 1.43 p.m.

and I will see you all at 2 p.m.

Yeah.