30 seconds has started.

Chair, staff is meeting you are.

Thank you, Clerk.

I've got a evening and welcome to the Thursday September 12th

to my third floor by 3pm planning a design commission meeting.

The meeting is now called to order.

Please call the roll to establish a quorum.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, please unmute.

Commissioner Zhang.

Commissioner Chase.

Commissioner Lamas.

Commissioner Buckley.

Commissioner Caden.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Commissioner Maseus Reid.

Vice Chair Young.

Commissioner Blond.

Commissioner Risky.

Commissioner Thompson.

Chair Wallace.

Chair, thank you.

We have a quorum.

All right.

I would like to remind members of the public and chambers if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn to speakers slip when item begins.

You'll have three minutes to speak once you're called on after the first speaker will no longer accept speaker slips.

We'll now proceed with today's agenda.

Please arise for the opening, knowledgements and honor of Sacramento's Indigenous people and tribal lands.

For the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu Valley, and Plains Mewok,

Potwin Wintun peoples, and the people 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 beside us today on these ancestral lands,

by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous peoples, history, contributions and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the public, to the religious fans, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

Let's see.

Next we have the Director's Report, Disha.

Thank you, Chair.

One item for the Director's Report this evening at the Commission's next meeting on September 26th.

Staff will bring forward two items for review and comment.

First, the 2025 Planning and Zoning Work Program, which constitutes the Commission's anticipated work program for the next year.

And the draft 2024 Commission annual report.

So we'll walk through the last year's priorities, what's been accomplished, what we anticipate to be working on this next year.

So we'd like you to begin thinking about what your policy priorities are, things you'd like to discuss.

And so we'll look forward to a good discussion on that on September 26th.

And again, both of those will be for review and comment with the final versions coming back to you in November.

That's it for me, Chair.

Thank you.

So, Disha, a couple of announcements.

First thing is that after we approve the consent calendar, we'll be moving item six up following this consent item approval, a consent calendar approval.

And then item number five, which is the Ardenway CUP appeal has been continued by recuss of the applicant to October 10th.

And then next we have approval of the consent calendar.

There are any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar.

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speakers lips for this item.

All right.

All right. This is approval of the Planning Design Commission meeting.

Meeting minutes.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

I see someone in the queue and I'm not sure who it is.

I believe that's me.

It looks like we have no titles in our system.

Okay.

I'm working on it in the back.

Understood.

I will, I would like to make a motion to move.

All right.

Commissioner Messius, we thank you.

And then is it who's next to me?

Second, I guess.

Okay.

I'll show you in seconds.

Oh, now we're showing up.

Commissioner Blight.

Sorry folks, a little technical difficulty on the dios here.

Clerk, can you please take the vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Zom.

Aye.

Commissioner Chase.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Buckley.

Aye.

Commissioner Kaden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Since this involves the minutes, I will abstain since I was absent.

The last commission's meeting.

Commissioner Messius, read.

Aye.

Vice Chair Young.

Aye.

Commissioner Blight.

Aye.

Commissioner Rishki.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson.

Aye.

And Chair Wallace.

I will also abstain as I was absent from the previous meeting.

Thank you, motion passes.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then as I mentioned, we're going to start with item number six.

California Arts Council.

Creative core, Artists and Residents Program.

That's right.

It's kind of arts and culture night at the planning commission.

So start with NGing.

Well, thank you so much for inviting me to present what I've been doing the past year in long range planning.

So let's start.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm just going to introduce the Capital Region Creative Core Program.

That was initiated by the Creative Arts Council.

And then give you examples of the creative engagement I've been doing in long range planning.

So the California Arts Council received $60 million from the general fund of 2021.

And then the Sacramento Office of Arts and Culture received $1 million of that fund as like a workforce grant toward creative messaging related to COVID-19 prevention, climate mitigation, civic engagement and social justice.

So five professional artists.

I'm one of them was selected amongst a great pull up artists.

And we were coordinated with a theater director.

Another artist Richard Falcon.

So our goal was to go into different departments, listen to the staff, and think of creative activities and events to engage the community in these four sectors.

And so I was placed in long range planning, a really great team, by the way.

And so the first part of my tenure, I was really thinking about different types of engagement.

And I'm a conceptual artist and I was trained as a painter, but I can work in different mediums.

So the idea of creating engagement starts with listening to what we need to do, what is our plan, what are our obstacles.

And so these are some of the ideas in the beginning and then I started working closely in the different teams.

So I started working with Greta Suz, Associate of Planner.

And we were thinking of a bootcamp, a series of workshops to teach the community about housing element and affordable housing.

So we thought of a game called Equalopoly.

And it was a spin-off of the game monopoly, except for instead of just amassing as much property as you can and get rich,

what about the idea of teaching them about AMIs and different income levels, different types of industries,

and then also the different amounts for those housing.

So it was really about increasing empathy.

And another workshop, which we did with the community ambassadors, and then they will also do Andrea Virelle and Greta Suz will do the workshops with these chat bags.

And we thought, well, you know, lots of times we give the participants literature or a merge or maybe lunch or dinner.

And what about using those ideas of the placemat and the bag and using that as also a workshop tool.

And so here we would divide the group in duos and they start debating as if they're debating on a text chat on a bag and using emojis.

And thinking of these devices to engage the community and make learning fun.

And another one was the Woop Tree.

A Woop Tree is a spin-off of the wishing tree.

And so it's really getting participants to think about not only their wish but also the obstacle that they might encounter and then a plan.

And all of this was related to housing and infill development.

And the idea was the more participants you have, the further the tree becomes.

And I was invited to observe the planning academy.

And the first thing I noticed was a lot of acronyms.

So when you go into a workshop, a lot of presenters forget that the general public don't know all these acronyms.

And so I thought, hmm, you know, understanding is going to be minimized if they don't know those acronyms.

So it was this idea, a great wall of acronyms was kind of a joke.

But they would have table menus in front of them where they could flip through those acronyms and know what the people were talking about.

So I was doing all these workshop devices and tools.

And I thought, you know, I really should be modeling to the staff how creativity can enhance engagement.

At this spot was an art walk. It was inspired from the historical tour that the planning academy organizes.

And I thought, you know, there are other ways that we can plan a walk where, you know, let's give the mic to the participants.

A lot of amazing participants in the planning academy.

And let's hear what they have to say about the environment in the present.

And it was another approach to examining the built environment not just by a planning, but also about the visceral experience of a space.

So it became a game where they would have prompts and they would have cards that they had to choose.

And one of the cards would be, look at the sidewalks and notice if they're wheelchair compliant.

Or on this street, count the number of trees that you see.

Or another card could be close your eyes and listen to at least three sounds.

So it's really encouraging people to closely look at the built environment and the natural environment.

Okay, so this is like the last project I did. It was called Yester Granny.

I worked with Associate Plan Nguyen Nguyen on this.

And this was like in the first two weeks of my being in Long Range planning, we were talking about intergenerational living and the housing crisis among our aging of population.

And maybe this is a solution, intergenerational living, infield development, and encouraging people to build ADUs as one solution to the housing crisis for the aging population.

So this became a fun campaign with a mock demonstration.

It was really an art performance that looked just like a demonstration we did at the Midtown Farmers Market.

So you see we all in our t-shirts, we had our signs, we had the pamphlets, the stickers.

And if you notice on the right side, it's not city staff that's engaging with the community.

It's one of the participants from the community engagement ambassador team.

And so it's like modeling how they as a community can engage the community.

So you're just kind of like passing the baton. And you're not relying on the artist in residence.

You're just modeling a concept where you empowered the community to empower other community members.

So that was my last project I did. I've been in Long Range planning for a year. This is a one year term.

And I want to say that I want to thank Long Range planning. Wonderful team.

I want to thank Elizabeth Boy, who's my supervisor. She's a great leader of the end-at team,

neighborhood development action team. And also Matt Hurtle, who's a wonderful leader obviously

because he was promoted to assistant director. And I would like also to do a short activity with you if I may.

And that involves the yes to granny. So it's a call back. It won't take much.

I'm going to just do a short call back, just like when you're doing a demonstration.

So the call back is when I say yes, all of you say to granny. Are you game?

Yes.

Okay. All right.

Ready? When I say yes, you say to granny. Yes.

Awesome. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Clerk, do we have any people who wish to speak on the side?

Thank you, Chair. I have no speaker slips for this item.

All right. Bring it back to the Dias. Commissioner Chase.

I'm sorry. I thought Robert was on the did before. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Call me off, guard there. I just want to say for a commission that's typically dealing with land use issues,

you know, the boring stuff, but we need to do that. This was so refreshing.

Really nice to hear what you're involvement, what's going on, but what are brought to what you're bringing to long range planning and what,

you know, that you'll take away from it, though, I think, but just a great program.

And I really commend you all for doing this. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Chase. Commissioner Messias Reid.

Well, great job. There's a nexus between, you know, the work that you're doing, the public art, the art expression and community and economic development.

And so I think the city should be doing more of this work. I think all of us in the development planning world, we are constantly in a world of acronyms.

And when we're, you know, going to community meetings or hosting community meetings or putting on meetings, planning commission as a great example, you know, we have a ton of people here tonight from the community and we're constantly speaking in, you know, planning jargon.

You know, terms that people don't understand because they're not, that's not, that's not what they do.

And so I really appreciate this work. I actually just scanned the QR code right now.

I'm familiar with the ADU process because I have a construction company myself, but I am so excited about what you guys have done with this website.

And the message is that you're providing to the community because this is, it's just another way that, you know, they can understand how to invest and how to build these products.

And it's extremely digestible for anybody. So again, you know, Commissioner Chase's comments I commend you on the work.

I think we should continue to have artists partner with our in that team whenever we can to continue. So, so great job.

Commissioner, I'm a CS read. I'm sure you're young.

Yeah, I just, I was thoroughly impressed. Not only was I impressed with just the beautiful artwork.

I was just also impressed with how you sought to listen to the staff, but also created sort of an interface with the general public.

And you, you allow for another perspective like, Hey, I don't know anything about planning. How can I go about communicating these concepts that a lot of people within the planning community and even in the affordable housing community.

It's been a struggle for I think for the past 15, 20 years of how do you go about communicating affordability, right, to the general public.

And they've really, the community has had some really make efforts to figure out new terms of how to go about making the work that they do more accessible.

So, Angie, I really appreciate kind of the energy also because I think a lot of times were, you know, within the planning world, you're taught to kind of be objective and speak in kind of not monotone, but, but, you know, in a very steady, steady speak, right.

And I think you demonstrated that planning can be energetic, it can be fun. And so, yeah, I would love for, you know, in future meetings when we talk about land use, which is in the past, considered a boring thing.

I think it can be quite exciting, right. And so, so yeah, so thank you very much for just being able to just demonstrate different communication patterns as well.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I don't see any other comments, I want to make some comments. I wanted to thank you so much for all your work.

I want to encourage us to always include the planning academy in projects like this. I gave remarks at the beginning and Angie was also there.

And I graduated from planning academy in 2013. And I noticed a significant demographic shift in who was participating in the planning academy.

And I know that the work of artists like Angie and our community to engage people and help bring them along and integrate them into our planning processes is part of why more folks are actually taking the initiative to learn more.

And, you know, it's my dream that we all collectively understand our responsibilities and have opportunities to participate.

And so, anything that creates more access is amazing. And I just keep up the great work everybody. And thank you so much for your time.

All right, next item. We're moving back to items, the order of items.

Item number two, Greenfire, North Lake Development Agreement, Amendment, P24, Gash 017. Are there any disclosures or recusals for this item from the commission?

Commissioner Zhang.

Hi, yes, I did have a call with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Thank you. I also had a call with the applicant consistent with the staff report. And now we will have a presentation from Dacia.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Dacia Harris, associate planner with the community development department. I'm here to present the Greenfire North Lake Development Agreement, Amendment.

The Greenfire Development, now known as North Lake, includes 577 acres south of Elcorn Boulevard, west of state highway 99 and north of Interstate 5.

The previous approvals included the entitlements to facilitate the development of residential commercial sites, parks and open space, a school site and related facilities.

This item is a request to amend the Greenfire Development Agreement. The development agreement amendments that are considered substantive are adopted by ordinance and require approval by City Council for which to planning and design commission for its a recommendation.

The proposed Greenfire Development Agreement clarifies the required timing of the obligation that the landowner construct the Maestroay Overpass, now known as short vista overpass and to identify additional monetary contributions for the construction of the overpass.

The overpass narrows from four lanes to two lanes and crosses highway 99 into north Nitoa, midst to the east, connecting to the east commerce. No changes to the cross section of short vista way or the overpass are requested as a part of this amendment.

The overpass also includes light rail tracks for the green line extension. The applicant and city staff have negotiated and agreed upon the terms.

A separate funding agreement by the finance department will be brought to the city council for action following the development agreement amendment.

Staff recommends the commission pass a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Staff finds the requested amendments ensure the short vista overpass will be constructed by the developer in a timely manner.

And staff is supportive of the overpass construction because it provides a secondary access into the north Nitoa, midst community for the North Lake subdivision.

Staff received one comment, one e-comment expressing support to the project. This includes my presentation.

Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff before we take public comment?

All right. So none clerk, do we have any? Item any speakers for this item?

Thank you, chair. I have no speakers lips for this item. Okay. We're going back to the diocese. Anybody have any questions for staff? The applicant motions discussion?

Commissioner Jean.

Thank you, staff. And the applicant for bringing this item to the diocese. You know, as a North Nitoa resident myself, I can say for I think for the majority of not all of North Nitoa residents.

This is a long awaited bridge to connect North Lake, which is kind of separated from the rest of the community by a major freeway. So we're all very excited about this project moving forward.

I do have some questions for staff or possibly the applicant, whoever is more appropriate to answer.

So I in my call with Nick, I did ask him some of these questions, but I wanted to kind of put it in the public record and kiss anybody else has any have some of the same questions.

But it in the staff report is states that some of the funding sources are coming from redirected fees from impact fees and one of those was the community center fee.

And there are some concerns from the community members that if that's the case, and is there no longer going to be a community center built in that area? Is that completely next from the from the plan?

Or is there going to be allocated land that could be future can be developed in the future through other funding sources?

We have, excuse me Eric Frederick with the finance department here who could better answer that question.

If I may, Madam Chair, Nick Abdus, law office of Abdus, Gucci on behalf of the applicant. Before I answer the question, I just want to acknowledge Commissioner Young's comment on the previous item.

Land use can be fun, although in the course of this, the a negotiation, there were times where I would describe it as not fun, but there is an extraordinary amount of work that obviously went into what you have today.

And I just want to just take a brief moment to acknowledge the staff effort because it was, it was an effort and we're really proud of where we're at and we're excited to obviously take the next step of building this overpass which is needed for connectivity in North Atomas.

So as it relates to your question on the community centers, when the DA for Greenbrire was initially approved, it was agreed at that time that the, that project that is outside the North Atomas finance plan area would contribute certain components.

To the North Atomas finance plan, pay the fees that other folks in North Atomas would pay. And one of them was the community center fee, which was intended at one time to fund multiple community centers in the North Atomas community plan area.

The plan as I understand was amended the North Atomas finance plan a long time ago to eliminate and the construction of further public community centers.

But we do have within Greenbrire obviously a community center facility that is a private recreational facility that is serving folks out in the North Lake community.

Thank you. I just have a couple of other questions.

So in this staff report we saw that the city will be reimbursing approximately $6 million to the land owner for the construction of the bridge.

Is that inclusive of the redirected fees from the impact fees or is that on top or can you explain that a little bit?

It's the redirected, that amount is the total of the quote unquote redirected impact fees.

They are represent fees that are being paid by the developer that are being redirected to help facilitate the construction of that overpass.

Okay. And then earlier when Dacia did her presentation she did explain that the bridge is going to come, it's going to be reduced from four lanes to two lanes.

So the two lane part is that when it connects to East Commerce or where what end of the bridge would that be?

Yes. My understanding is that it's two lanes to East Commerce.

Okay. So there were some concerns regarding when that transition into East Commerce.

I believe at that point you can only turn right. So all lanes would turn right. Is that correct? I think that's how it is.

So the section of whatever the future bridge would be what it hits East Commerce.

I believe that's a fully signalized intersection if I recall correctly.

Okay. And then it's not right turn only.

What's that? It's not right turn only.

Oh, okay. Okay. I must be thinking of a different spot.

Condensing it to two lanes is that to facilitate like the, not sure how to word it but the way that the road turns into East Commerce.

Is that for like safe? Is that the does that provide for the most safe way for the lanes to converge and then turn right or left in this case?

Either right or left.

Because it's really a wide bridge and then comes down to a very narrow portion where, and I'm just, I guess the question is what is the reasoning for the narrowing of the bridge?

Is that so that it can go into East Commerce more fluidly or?

So unfortunately don't have anybody for our design team here and I'm not an engineer but I will say and I don't know staff wants to add anything.

But you know we've always worked obviously have worked very closely with public works and the rest of city staff obviously that the design of this facility and then the roadways that connect to it are obviously in conjunction with established city engineering and design standards.

So I know that doesn't fully answer your question but you know that maybe at a future meeting that the concern is just because we've had several pedestrian fatalities in the area not just in district one but throughout.

Greater Sacramento with even the recent death of the two gals on the scooters in South Sacramento so it's just kind of fresh on the minds of the community members.

So that being said that kind of leads me into my next question regarding the on the actual bridge itself it looks like there is a raised barrier that separates the future transit line from vehicles but the separation between the vehicles and the pedestrians so whether that's a bike lane or sidewalk.

Is there currently a planned raised barrier for for the protection for pedestrians.

So obviously this is a very sensitive topic and certainly the recent tragedies are a reminder that we can do more obviously to prevent pedestrian fatalities and injuries in our city.

And we have been certainly negotiations in our negotiations and discussions with the council member who obviously is taking a very keen interest in what has been happening and what we can do relative to the overpass to try to create separation for pedestrians and bicyclists and automobiles on the structure.

Obviously we're constrained on the design.

We have committed to the council member and we're going to through the design process incorporate the installation of plastic ballards so at least there is some separation.

Besides just a painted line on the structure itself and so that is a commitment that we're making above and beyond what we would otherwise be required to do with regards to the crossing and the overpass structure and the separation between bike pet and automobiles.

Thank you for that. That would be very comforting to know that there's going to be a physical erect or vertical barrier. So thank you for that option.

And let me see if there's anything I missed.

Okay, I think that's it if anything comes if I forget anything I'll come back to it.

Thank you so much. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Jean. Commissioner Lamus.

Thank you, Chair. I think I heard a question that you had about the proposed light rail and a fence or some kind of a barrier that may be constructing the future.

That was an interesting question. I wonder if you can speak to that. You know what what is the plan for that? Is that incorporated into this the financing mechanism to build this out?

Yeah, as it relates, obviously the green line is a very important component not only for the city and north of the Thomas, but this project certainly was designed around the light rail station in the center of the project area.

And part of the project approvals, you know, the developer obviously granted free of charge to RT the right away for the light rail station and the needed right away to obviously for the light rail line itself as well as allowing for right away for an additional structure.

The structure that we're talking about today, the subject of the development agreement is just the structure related to automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists.

The light rail structure is a completely separate structure adjacent to the current one and that's not currently have been designed. So it will be a separate a separate physical structure from the current over crossing.

Thank you for that clarification. So that would be built out by sac RT or who would be the director of that?

So they would propose some kind of a barrier or a wall or the structure itself. I'm trying to picture the designs and that it's there is a separated concrete barrier that separates the two structures.

Okay, thank you for that. Appreciate it. I yield my time.

Thank you Commissioner Lamas. Back to Commissioner Zhang.

Thank you. I remember my last question. So my last question is regarding the timing. So as I mentioned earlier, this is the long awaited bridge. So we're very happy to see this is getting some attention to get pushed forward.

Now in this staff report, it says that the timing is that 95% of improvement plans should be submitted within 12 months of the approval of the ordinance for the amendment.

So once that is received, what is the proposed timeline to actually break ground and how long do you think that the bridge would take to be completely built out?

So we in obviously as part of this process have been trying to wrap around the process for getting first of all the plans approved and then going through the public bidding process and then obviously beginning construction.

We have a fairly conservative time estimate that is attached as a exhibit to the development agreement amendment that allows for

to submit all of the 95% plans, which is a pretty significant point in the design process at that point to allow us to get a bond to secure construction of the overpass.

So if we assume that timeline that's currently in the in the development agreement, it is possible that ground could be broken in potentially 2026.

And it could take, I don't want to misquote there, but it could take 12 months of a better estimate once I talk to our engineering team, but that's sort of what we're anticipating.

So unless staff has more accurate information, I would say that's generally my understanding of the timeline.

That was very promising. Thank you very much. Are you of my time?

See, land use can be fun.

Thank you, Commissioner Zhang. Okay. I think they already asked for public comments and we've had some discussion with the Dias. So now we need either for their discussion or emotion.

Anyone else wish to speak on the side?

You have your commissioner Caden. I'll move the item.

No, from commissioner Caden. Commissioner Zhang.

And I'll second the motion.

That can't be from commissioner Zhang.

Clear. Please take the vote.

Thank you chair. Commissioner please unmute. Commissioner Zhang.

Commissioner Chase.

Commissioner Lamas. I. Commissioner Buckley. I. Commissioner Caden. I. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Maasis Reid. I. Vice Chair Young. I. Commissioner Blunt. I.

Commissioner Risky. I. Commissioner Thompson. I. And chair Wallace. I. Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you. Next item.

Quinta Court. AT&T. Cell site. P23-021. Are there any disclosures or recusals for this item?

Seeing none. We have a presentation from Angel.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Angel Angiano. A socio planner with your community development department.

This item is a request to approve the construction of a new 72 foot tall telecommunications facility with ground equipment on a 3.56 acre parcel within the general commercial zone.

The request in title before you today are conditional use permit to establish the telecommunications facility and site plan and design review to construct a 72 tall foot tall model pine and ground equipment within a 500 square foot lease area with a deviation to exceed the maximum 65 foot high requirement.

The second project was reviewed by city departments and agencies. And their conditions have been included in the staff report.

Staff has also posted and noticed the property owners. Prior to tonight's hearing staff did not receive any additional correspondence.

Staff has reviewed the requested CUP and site plan and design review and associated deviation and staff is in support of the request because the proposed land use is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan.

The project site is suitable for locating a new telecommunications facility given its locations nearby warehouses and commercial uses and it's not surrounded by sensitive land use such as residential.

Furthermore, the proposed model pine will not negatively impact vehicle circulation emergency vehicle service access pedestrian pathways or parking facilities.

The plan is to evaluate the proposed height deviation and does not oppose the increase in height as it allows for an improved design to replicate a pine silhouette.

It's currently designed the tarot wool blend and wool blend in with the skyline and the surrounding pine trees.

That concludes our presentation. The applicant is here today and we'll be able to provide a PowerPoint presentation. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Kevin Gallagher. I am here with complete wireless consulting on behalf of the applicant.

New singular wireless PCS LLC which does business as a team team ability. I don't know if I can be fun but I will try to be brief.

But I am also here to answer any questions if you have them about the project. Oh dear am I responsible for this. Okay.

Yes I am. Okay. So the project is located near Kaiser South Sacramento's location. That is the big red roof on the left there.

It is just east of 99 between 99 and stocked in Avenue.

The location as you can see if you zoom out further there are residences in the surrounding area but the immediate surroundings are commercial warehouse and so on.

The nearest residences are is there a laser pointer on this. No that's fine. Okay. The nearest residences are about 1100 feet to the east on victory Avenue.

Victory Avenue if you look at the project location pin and you see that east west Avenue coming off of stocked and that's victory if you get past those large commercial parcels you eventually get to the smaller houses.

Those are the nearest residences to the project. All righty. The project is being proposed as a 72 foot tall monopine.

We originally proposed this as a 65 foot tall monopole staff requested that we adopt the stealthing design in order to blend it due to the divisibility from 99.

So what we did with that because you need a tapering silhouette for a monopine otherwise it resembles kind of a toilet brush if it doesn't taper the way it treats us.

So that is the additional seven feet from 65 to 72. The facility would also be engineered to be co-locatable so another carrier if they wished would be able to do so.

We are going with a 20 foot by 25 foot compound on the ground for ground equipment that includes an emergency backup generator and fuel tank.

We are going to be on that. No trees are being removed as a part of the project but we are adding a replacement tree to replace a tree on the property that it earlier died.

It the project satisfies the city of Sacramento noise ordinance. We also had a third party RF engineer review the emissions and they find it did indeed comply with the FCC standards by a wide margin coming in at 13.62% of the general public experience.

So we are going to be able to do a wide margin of safety there.

Okay. This is a map of the existing coverage in the area to walk you through what we've got here. The black dot there is an existing facility that's at 7789

and the middle is the location of the proposed facility. That's 99 going down the middle. Green is reliable in building coverage. Yellow is reliable in vehicle coverage and blue is reliable outdoor coverage only.

You'll notice there's a section of 99 there and a lot of local streets that do not have reliable in vehicle coverage and a lot of the businesses and residences to the south and the east do not have reliable in building coverage either.

There is an additional goal here with this facility and that is to offload that existing facility at La Manshaway. Right now it is overloaded to put that in simple terms. There is more people using the facility than the facility has bandwidth.

In practical terms if you've ever had a situation where your phone tells you that you have five bars and you have terrible service your phone is not lying to you it is not effective that that's probably what's going on is that there's not capacity.

So the network is slowed considerably or you may have issues with drop calls and so on. So with the facility we would increase coverage in the businesses in the area the local streets the residences.

And then also the other green areas that already have coverage will have been proof coverage because a lot of the load that is on that facility will be taken off and onto this new one.

And I'll be having to answer any questions about that if you have any in terms of what the facility looks like we've provided a set of photo simulations.

This is a map showing each of the photos one two three and four or where the photographer was standing the arrow is the direction he was facing when he took the photo.

The facility is simulated and placed into the photograph. So here is the view from Bruceville Road this is right across 99 that's about 300 feet away.

This is the view from Stockton Boulevard about 500 feet away you can see it in the center there. This is the view of another view from Stockton Boulevard but for their south.

And then this is the view from the end of the coldest act at Kintakor. This one is actually a little bit it's actually behind that building there's also a little that little reddish rub directly in front of it.

That is that's not part of the facility that's the tree the facility is behind the building. We did also note I will just show you the simulations of what it would look like without all of that still thing just to give you an idea.

We would be willing to do this as an alternative it would have less bulk but you can see quite clearly the antennas it is it is what it is.

So these are all the same views of what it would look as a 60 foot 65 foot tall monopole.

So with that we did attempt to find a co-location that would be viable there were none amongst all the sites that we reviewed hence the need for a new facility in the area we believe this is the least intrusive means of filling a gap and coverage in the area and so I would ask you to approve the facility and I'm more than happy to answer any questions.

Oh I did almost forget the condition of approval item. Do you want to yeah I had a little note of my last flashcard don't forget that.

I haven't seen this before. Oh it's currently down. Yeah the projector screen is currently down. Okay well I'll just read it into the record. Oh it looks like it's.

Okay. Well yeah I'll just read it into the record so condition B5 is going to be retracted and it's going to be combined with condition B6.

What's italicize is what's going to be added to condition B6 and it's largely related to maintenance and after discussing what the applicant is concerned with condition B5 are overly restrictive and kind of difficult to achieve.

We work with them and we combined it to B6. I'll just read it into the record so due to natural element weather conditions and cycles.

Photomonal pine branches weather conditions the grade will occur the gradation will occur. Any inspections based on visual comparison of the photo simulations and operator provided pictures of the initial monopinacillation and status of the tree shall be provided to the planning division every year.

The tree is not in good condition the operator shall replace the degraded form one of pine branches.

I can speak very briefly as to why we requested that. The issue is just that the monopinac branches typically last a lot longer than five years.

Nowadays they're treated with an anti-UV that will keep the plastic from breaking down. So if you've probably seen old monopines very sad from the 90s.

They fixed a lot of those issues but we feel that this we preserve the spirit of the condition which is just this needs to be repaired.

AT&T will repair it as needed and the city will be able to hold AT&T accountable because AT&T will be providing the photo what it looks like and if the city is not satisfied.

They can fix that if there are any questions on the facility here.

Thank you. Are there any questions for your applicant or staff from the commission?

Thank you for the presentation. This is not actually for you it is for staff. Just curious because I was looking at the condition which I thought was reasonable a reasonable request is this staff considering a modification or a change moving forward.

I understand that this is a one-off request for a modification but it seems like a reasonable request. What does your take on that?

We see a few of these a year I would say on average.

This is something going, tonight and going forward how we can maintain the appearance of these.

I agree with that so it would just for the record say that maybe for the next omnibus updates we should certainly consider.

Thank you.

Commissioner Chase.

Between the proposed monopine a monopole and a monopine.

It would be 75 feet is the top of the monopole and then 72 just for the crown would be the monopine.

Thank you.

Seeing the other questions.

Are there any speakers for this item?

Thank you chair.

I have no speakers for this item.

Thank you.

Back to the dius.

Any more discussion or questions or motions?

Commissioner Chase.

I think they are real for sure.

Given the alternatives that are presented I think the monopine is a much better solution than the monopole from the visibility standpoint.

Having lived in an area some years back where there was questionable cell coverage I really applaud trying to maintain and maximize receptivity.

So with that I move approval.

Thank you commissioner Chase.

Commissioner Messier's read.

I'll second the motion.

I can't from Commissioner Messier's read.

Thank you chair.

Commissioner's please unmute.

Commissioner's on.

I.

Commissioner Chase.

Commissioner Lamas.

I.

Commissioner Buckley.

Commissioner Caden.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Commissioner Blond.

I.

Commissioner Rishki.

I.

Commissioner Thompson.

I.

And sure Wallace.

I.

Thank you motion passes.

Thank you.

All right moving on to item number four.

Marine of you drive a name change.

P24-010.

Are there any disclosures or recusals for this item?

I.

Commissioner Zong.

I had a call with the applicant consistent with this staff report.

All right.

Hello again commissioners.

We got a couple more.

Vice chair young.

I met with the applicant.

I had a call with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Thank you.

Commissioner Chase.

I received an email from the applicant but did not have a conversation.

Right.

And then I had a call with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

And I think that's everyone and you can begin angel sorry about that.

All right.

Hello again commissioners.

Angel Langeano with your community development department.

Agenda item four is a request to rename Marine of you drive to low rider lane.

The proposed street name change is located in Miller Regional Park.

The request was submitted by the Sacramento low rider commission who wish to honor the cultural and historical contributions of the low rider community in the city of Sacramento through the street name change.

The Sacramento low rider commission is a local nonprofit organization multi-racial and multi-cultural that advocate for the low rider community and empowers youth through STEM and art,

support mental health well being and sponsored family friendly charitable events.

And 1984 the Sacramento City Council approved the expansion in Miller Regional Park and it provided a space for low rider cruising.

Miller Regional Park also known as low rider park has been an iconic location for those in the low rider community and the Sacramento low rider commission hopes to honor and acknowledge the location.

At this time you might be wondering what is a low rider and what does it look like.

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary a low rider means a customized car with chases that have been lowered so that narrowly clears the ground.

And according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture low riders or cars that express identities, social cultural aesthetic with the extended bodies and low to the road roll.

The cars have been a vehicle of choice for cruising a popular past time in many American communities since the mid-20th century low riding puts both the cars and the riders on display.

As part of the application review process the proposed street name change was reviewed by city departments and agencies including city's traffic services division development engineering.

The new name change would be duplicated hard to pronounce or cost confusion for emergency services.

The reviewing departments did not find that the new name change would do any of those things and they do not oppose the proposed street name change.

The new name change wert is about public hearing notices surrounding property owners and tenants and after publication of the staff report staff received for phone calls from nearby residents who express opposition to the proposed street name change.

Staff is recommending approval of the proposed street name change as it's consisting with the city's street agency standards.

The proposed street name change was the proposed street name change in 2020 general plan policies related to promoting education, cultural and art awareness and the west broadway specific plan goals related to encouraging creating place making encouraging historical historical themes at in Miller regional park and preserving and expanding cultural entertainment facilities in the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I have some handouts I wanted to see do I come to you.

Thank you.

And these are pictures that we're handing out you know from community work that has stem since the early 1980s as far back as 81 we have archives that date back from 1950 the Sacramento Lowrider car culture has participated in Sacramento.

And here up friend I have Sacramento Lowrider commission a couple of our board members and Natalia Natalia Natalia Luna she's a volunteer right now hope to be a board member soon Joe Marino he's founder of Sacramento Lowrider commission.

And so do I just so what I wanted to do is good evening members of the Len and planning commission.

My name is Francine Matta president of the Sacramento Lowrider commission car owner born and raised in the city of Sacramento low writing we were have been born and raised in this culture.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of the proposed straight name change from Marina view drive to low writer lane.

Right now I'd like to give a minute or two to Natalie Luna so she has been involved in the low writer community since the 1980s and has seen the progress even quite before the Miller park became a Marina.

Thank you.

Good evening I think when she said I've been involved since the 80s I kind of aged myself since it's been over 40 years.

But I just like to say as a retired assistant chief deputy district attorney here in Sacramento County for the district attorney's office overseen our community and government relations bureau I know firsthand how essential it is for government to form positive relationships.

And so I want to thank you for the opportunity to work together within our diverse communities and to build public trust and increase community engagement.

This change to low writer lane goes a long way in doing just that letting the members of our low writer community know that they are heard and that they are valued names are an incredibly important part of identity they carry deep personal cultural familial and historical connections.

And that's a sense of who we are and the communities to which we belong.

So changing the name of Marina view drive to low writer lane is significant the name low writer lane connects us to our past our elders the veterans who paved the way who taught us about our rich heritage.

And I expect for art and culture expression it reflects our present of who we are an ethnically diverse group from blue collar workers government government workers business owners to lawyers who are law abiding citizens who embrace the art of low writing its family bonding time and commitment to community.

And to our future to inspire our children to carry this art form and more is forward to teach them about community and leadership to respect our past to learn in the present and to inspire them to become successful adults as a Latina a low writer enthusiast and the proud owner of chula my 58 Chevy who participated in the mayor's Hispanic advisory committee some 40 years ago addressing Miller Park issues before it was even a Marina.

The name change has a personal meaning to me it reflects pride pride in who we are our struggles our successes and our future and we ask and I ask that you approve the name change to low writer lane thank you.

I also wanted to remind anybody that's here to make public comment if you want to sign up where item number four if you come on the left here.

So back to before I start this I just wanted to say the name change holds significant importance to our community low writer lane would not only honor the diverse family oriented culture but also helps preserve a key part of our communities heritage low writer culture for instance has been deeply intertwined with this community and Sacramento for decades.

In fact Miller Park was designated as low writer park back in the 1980s recognizing the positive contributions of the low writer community we are not only cultural supporting a cultural supporting family as we call ourselves but also active community servants consistently participating in charitable events and initiatives that foster unity and pride.

Why this change matters matters is because the street name change would be a meaningful tribute to our low writer family low writers and teeks muscle cars group that has significantly shaped our community it's a form of mental health a positive form of mental health if you research that especially during COVID a lot of people like in took you know into the car they like to ride low and slow with their families after hard days of work.

Or you know in the state capital we have a lot of low writers in the capital as well and it's a form of mental health it will serve as a symbol of pride and respect ensuring future generations understand the contributions of the low writer community.

In closing I believe the street name represents progress acknowledgement and honor for our community I respectfully urge the commission to approve the proposed name change from marine of you drive to low writer lane.

I just wanted to show you a couple things Miller Park history.

Sorry since the 1980s the low writer community participated and form community groups to assist and promote safe community space for all partnering with the city of Sacramento and local businesses.

You can see that there's flyers here far back as 1981 there's cars and back as far as 1980 you see a diverse group of people that love cars.

Examples of community groups that were organized back then the Sacramento low writer alliance and council the parent patrol we had parents coming out Franklin Boulevard Miller Park making sure that you know that we were following rules and and protecting us and supporting it breakfast for Nino's the mayor Hispanic advisory committee.

The Washington Center the MNC youth council central artistas sac State Mecha and RCAF currently there are over 40 plus car clubs in the Sacramento community and hundreds of solo writers the Sacramento low writer commission formed in 2022 is a nonprofit 501 C3.

Now the power of community our low writer youth low writer community takes pride in culture family with inclusion and diversity sponsoring and participating in stem and art activities.

Electric low writer which has partnered with smud clean air that some of our low writer members have started with local businesses and Savva which is charter school nine schools in the Sacramento area in Davis we've done screen printing taught art classes car and bike judging committed to creating more fun educational opportunities and partnerships.

And these pictures reflect our youth at Miller Park sorry I should have and community pride our community has participated in Miller Park surrounding area clean ups joined with community organizations we fed and assisted twice a month with the end house as well as held caravans through covid did water food toy and clothing drives.

Sorry I should have building bridges this is a skip continuing to hold permitted free family fun events for the community with inclusion and diversity and I need to say that all this work we've done for so many years have been out of our own pockets some community now you know our councils businesses they have stepped up they help we've had built so many great partnerships with law enforcement neighborhood organizations local businesses.

As you see up on the left park rocker art museum we did an amazing show last year with them and partnered we just came off of the last month three senior events at senior care homes we've done the Sacramento low writer history museum I mean the Sacramento history museum and we did an honor to low writers in the Sacramento community.

We also did an exhibit with the California museum we have oldies in the park at Caesar Chavez Plaza there's a group coming up with an event their second event the homies and solitals car club with a bunch of sponsors they do a barbecue competition all the many raised goes to a mustard seed school last year was over $3,000 I believe.

Our impact the Sacramento low writer community continues to have a positive impact forming the Sacramento low writer commission in 2022 repealing the city and county no cruising ordinance Sacramento low writers were the first in the state to repeal once again the no cruising ordinance that was brought up in the 80s and then we went on to support ACR 176 would lose revise.

And sponsor that are very own Joey Ella.

And here he as a retired from the legislative council bureau wrote a before 36 it came from Sacramento was picked up and passed last year and that's repealing the no cruising throughout the state.

And with the cruising is not a crime bill our community engagement community events inclusion of all socio economic diverse backgrounds this low writer community we have calendars my low writer community we hold probably over 80 events in the city of Sacramento.

They can roll in at 6 a.m. They can roll out at 6 p.m. We have all nationalities all walks of life that's what 12 hours an event that's community engagement that's over 1500 hours that we give back and we serve our community every year for the past 50 to 60 years.

I wanted to thank you for your time and I urge you to approve this request. Thank you. There's any questions.

Thank you so much. I think we'll take public comment and then it folks out questions after that you can call you back up.

Clerk do we have thank you do we have speakers for the second.

Thank you chair I have a speaker for this item our first speaker is Richard.

How you doing I'm Richard Alcala.

Excuse me a second. So changing the low writer lane low writing has been around since World War two. It says American is apple pie our veterans from World War two invented it with using the hydraulics from the airplanes.

That's for the but you goes in the suit suitors came up with the low writing and jump in the cars and drop in the cars.

So cruising low and slow and showing off their artistic talent and mechanical talents that have been an art form and car shows the detail in their work and is the piece of work in itself.

The money and time spent on each car or ride as we call it is huge and the generations it's passed down to their generations and family.

So I've been involved in it for the 70s and anyway this lifestyle is to be cherished not criminalized by people who don't understand it.

Every year the low writer community joins us veterans we do the veterans parade downtown and there's hundreds and each one is a veteran and it's very important that you know that.

So let me continue with what I wrote here.

I've been part of this and the low writer community has come a long way since and was going forward every every event they do for charity every event they do brings money into the community of Sacramento and Sacramento should be proud of what we've accomplished.

I would like to insist or that you guys think about very about changing the name to low writer lane and then I'd like to invite all of you to come cruise with us.

Veterans day each one of you put you in a car.

Come and enjoy it see how it feels you'll really love it and thank you very much.

All right.

You got to come cruise come cruise down low writer lane it's going to be Sacramento's famous low writer lane.

Thank you for your comment our next speaker is Vanessa.

Hello commissioners I hope you haven't a good evening my name is Vanessa V.

Lys today I asked that you support the change of low writer lane for me personally it's very close to my heart as a child it was a great time for me and my parents to get together in the 1980s going to Miller Park spitting time with my parents being around all of my uncles and their low writers and being able to be a part of the community.

Now it's it's amazing you know I personally it's a time for me where I get to hang out with my with my friends from the low writer commission as myself being a disabled woman I cannot drive due to my vision impairment however it does feel amazing to write in the cars my friends I totally support this and I hope that you do too.

One of the great things it gives it gives you guys a chance if you do support it to help out with moving us forward with cultural sensitivity in this subject and just kind of like you know seen I'm so sorry I just got so nervous it just kind of like seen where like the beauty of it can go I think that this is a great opportunity it'll bring a lot of different festivals or you know a lot of different events to Miller Park which in return.

We'll help out with our economy so I just wanted to come up here and ask for your approval thank you.

Thank you for your comment our next speaker is Jeff.

Good evening my name is Jeff romp's dead and I get introduced to the low writer scene from my lovely wife who owns a chula here and she bought she wanted to buy a new car.

So go ahead and she wanted to buy another one I said go ahead and the second car that she bought she finally said Jeff you just take care of it you do what you want with it so if you're a writer fan I tore this car down I'm rebuilding and now so it's just win baby so I'm in support of name change to low writer lane thank you.

Thank you for your comment our next speaker is Israel.

Good evening commissioners I didn't have nothing fancy written up but there's something I want to touch on besides would all my community is already touched on one of the biggest things that you will notice in our community is.

All the thriving parks are community parks whether you look at lamb park you know you look like in the park they're also rounded by communities.

We have a crown jewel sitting here on the side of the river that is in surrounded by a community it's sitting on its by its own neglected and if any of you have been there you will see the neglect this park has had.

You have a whole community right now stepping up ready to take over this park you know shovels in hand buckets myself personally I've done clean up that that work.

It's not a pretty site and when you have people that are dedicated and all they're asking is for a name change so they can be vested into this park that's not too much to ask.

I asked and I urge you guys you know to support us in this name change moving forward because it's the best thing that will happen to Miller Park you know in history Sacramento thank you.

Your comment our next speaker is Marcelina.

I just got off of work so I look kind of crusty.

My name is Marcelina Trevino I'm 28 years old and I was born here in Sacramento California I have a 1972 Chevy C10 pickup trip.

I think the main point I want to make today is that us low rider enthusiasts are like anyone else with a hobby but for us this is more like a lifestyle and a culture.

I've been low riding at Miller Park for as long as I can remember even when my mom was pregnant with me or when my dad would drag me out to the barbecues and cruises on Sunday afternoons throughout my childhood.

Now as an adult building my own projects I've experienced how much dedication it takes to build these classic vehicles so when I hear rumors that there are low rider that are low rider community is a part of littering side shows illegal activity it blows my mind because I know that does not apply to us.

Considering how much effort we put into building these vehicles and how much we want to pass this lifestyle on to our children one day.

Just as my parents did for me also I think I can speak for a lot of our low rider community when I say we are not raised with messy tendencies such as leaving trash and leaving our belongings after our events or gatherings.

This is a very important part of the promotion car and truck club has donated to the Stanford settlement home countless times this name change is not for one race one religion or one gender but for everyone within an outside of our low rider community to experience the love around this culture.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment our next speaker is Antonio.

I didn't write anything my name is Antonio Cardenas I've been a low rider since the early 70s I have one of the first car clubs in Sacramento 1976 I've been doing this for a long time I started when I was a kid and my thing is the kids I love the kids when they see the cars they enjoy.

I like to put them in the cars take pictures you ought to see the smiles under faces you know and we do a lot of stuff for the community.

I like doing stuff for the kids I like getting them by interest backpacks pencils and stuff like that that they could use when they go to school because some kids don't got stuff like that when I was when I grew up I was poor myself so I know the feeling.

So I like to do that for the kids I like to see their smiles and that's my payback and we do need that part for we could get there and people come see these cars sitting them take pictures enjoy them it's an art and it's something we love to do.

So I'm going for I want the name changed to lower out of part two or Lane I mean sorry thank you.

Thank you for your comment our next speaker is David.

Good evening my name is David and well I'm a community member so I'm representing today also a board member on the Latino Arts and Cultural Center which I would believe were the closest neighbor to Miller Park we as a board fully support this name change.

I as David Ben Wallace have also participated in various community events and part partnerships as well that just spoke was has been part of a group that I initially I called the meeting with the Sacramento commission the low right of commission along with friend after that meeting we came up with an idea of starting a EV low right or program at that time I work for school district.

So I was one of the schools and so here is a great opportunity for our young folks to learn stem to continue to foster their love of their culture and their art but also take it into the next generation.

There's another gentleman in the back I also do a Christmas bike drive that has helped deliver bikes out to the local farm workers and families to me this name change is a sense of pride.

It's a sense of culture and art that is the really it goes beyond ethnic groups if you're aware of low writers they're around the world and I believe this name change would really amplify and support not just the idea of low writers and who they are in that positive culture which again is family community but to really realize that there is opportunity for work force.

Development for our young folks and to again just to make sure that we are ensuring that our young folks have an opportunity to continue the generational wealth of knowledge that is being sent.

Lastly just wanted to add low writing is more than just the cars themselves it's deeply rooted in community pride involvement and volunteerism many enthusiasts join clubs and social groups that are built around and shared passion for custom cars these cars the car clubs become very much like extended families fostering generational relationships that span beyond immediate family ties.

Low writing has evolved into a significant and recognized part of the American car culture it's not just about the cars themselves it's about the craftsmanship creativity and community that surrounds them.

In terms of the of professions these these folks are involved in not just the automotive engineering customization and art but also part of the potential future of stem into creating eb low writers for the future I hope this commission will go ahead and approve this as I believe much of our community would thank you.

Thank you.

Our last speaker is Erica.

It's really nervous about coming up here but I'm going to go ahead and bite my fear.

I just wanted to express my strong support for the proposal of the rename from marine of you drive to low writer Lane this changes not only attribute to the rich cultural heritage of the low writer community but it also is a recognition of their significant contributions to our city's cultural and social fabric.

The low writer community has been a vibrant and an integral part of our city since the 1980s showcasing creativity craftsmanship and a deep sense of community low writers are more than just a customized car they are a symbol of cultural pride and artistic expression re naming marine of you drive to low writer Lane would serve as a permanent acknowledgement of our community's impact and legacy.

The low writer community is a diverse and proud embracing heritage culture and unity they have consistently given back to the community through various initiatives and events fostering a sense of togetherness and mutual respect this initiative has garnered widespread support from various community members local businesses and cultural organizations it aligns with our city's commitment to celebrating diversity and promoting inclusivity.

By honoring the low writer community in this way we are also educating our future generation about the importance of cultural preservation and appreciation.

I urge the city council to consider this proposal favorably to take the necessary steps to make this change it is a meaningful gesture that will resonate deeply with with many res with many residents and contribute a cultural enrichment to our city.

Thank you for your attention in this matter and I am confident that this change will be positive and last an elasting tribute to our low writer community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment chair I have no more speakers.

I think this is a lot of people on the commission have things to say.

So opening it up to commissioners for comments questions for staff and applicant and other discussion commissioner C s.

Thank you everyone who spoke this evening.

I just want to say I think we did a disservice to the low writer community a long time ago by criminalizing this art and obviously with the advocacy that you all have provided at the state level,

at the local level over the last years, even decade has brought us to this point where we now no longer have this no cruising ordinance right and it's getting to a point where it's no longer seen as criminal activity.

And I think that honoring this name change is the least we can do.

I saw Israel speak it's really good to see you I work for the Franklin Boulevard business association and we have partnered many many many many countless times with the low writer community.

And we have hosted countless community events and I want to commend you for being ready and willing to be there for our communities all communities throughout this city.

And we're in the rain.

Where we've got rained and washed out when it's hotter than you know what and we have you know events on you know we're giving away backpacks and and supplies to our community members, you know, on 150 degree, you know black black tops right on Franklin Boulevard so so I mean again I just don't see why this should be controversial.

And I think that this is the least that we can do. Thank you so much for everything that you all do for for our communities and thank you for being willing to give back without ever being asked right to do it because you want to see smiles on the children's faces and to do it because you know the need is there.

I feel like we we are indebted to the work that you do with with all of our nonprofits with all of our community you know organizations and I can't wait to continue to partner with you all and continue to do this this this great work that we do to serve our community but also just to see the amazing beautiful cars with that I want to make a motion to to support the name change.

And look forward to seeing more advocacy at the level.

Thank you.

Thank you commissioner.

Thank you chair.

I just want to thank staff the law writer commission all the community members who came out tonight in support of this name change as a fresh generation Mexican American I'm looking at all these pictures and hearing you all and you know I see my family you know participating here too.

I grew up in Fresno County and Fresno everybody knew and my family participated me my friends that cruising down blackstone was the fun thing to do and that we would always look forward to doing as I mentioned unfortunately that has been banned for several decades but I am really glad to see that this cultural practices becoming decriminalized I know we've seen legislation passed in this area cities including Fresno has now lifted that ban and I'm really proud to see that the city of Sacramento is a very important thing to do.

I'm really proud to see that the city of Sacramento is also continuing to support the community and embracing the the law writer community so I just want to also extend my support to you all and thank you for the good work that you're doing and what that would like to make a second.

Thank you.

Thank you commissioner Hernandez commissioner Thompson.

I have personally been impacted by the law writer community and also witnessed the impact that the writer community has had on our city I grew up in Orangeville.

I think that my first car got to be a nice 68 Mustang and in high school there was no other course that I was interested in and did spend four years in auto shop learning with other fellow writers how to build a car and how much devotion attention and love goes into what comes out of that and I am honored to be a part of this discussion and fully support.

I think that having something like commissioner read was saying having just a lane named after and recognizing this culture is the least back and be done.

Thank you commissioner Thompson commissioner zone.

Thank you chair so I spoke with I'm sorry.

I'm not your fancy and I loved everything that you told me about the law writer commission.

I actually did a quick Google search to see if there was another street out there in the US called low writer lane. I couldn't find one so I I would love for Sacramento to have the first low writer lane that also brought me to a bunch of other articles regarding the law writer community or culture and a lot of the stories that are read from Phoenix to Texas to Southern California.

It repeats a lot of things that you shared with us today so I think that the culture is is very family oriented very giving back to the communities wherever they are so I'm in full support as well and we are hope that you guys get the favor from the commission and council.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lamis.

Thank you chair. I just want to start off by commending the low writer Sacramento low writer commission for all the work you've done and all the work you continue to do.

I myself had a Mustang 5.0 GT was an low writer but I live I grew up in San Jose we would go downtown cruising and seeing all the nice cars.

And so you're right it's it's a culture it's it's a passion and I was interested to learn more about the Sacramento.

The writers commission and all the work you guys do I noticed that you guys included the Royal Chicano Air Force. I had learned about them from professor at UC Davis professor Malakias Montoya.

And this group was a prominent art collective and the fact that those two things are kind of intertwined is very important for us to recognize especially when we're talking about culture and preserving that culture.

But also the idea that it's family focus I was on the board of the Garland Northgate neighborhood association and we worked with you guys to do that massive single the mile parade there was like 200 cars there we blocked off like all of Northgate and it was amazing.

And so I think it's just kids the whole the whole families were there right and people lined up on the streets just to watch the cars and had a really great time.

So so thank you for that and I think what somebody said that it's an international kind of movement and it is if you guys look to Japan it's a really big community out there.

But nonetheless glad to see that Sacramento is kind of putting this community on the map and I'm glad to be a part and support the approval of this initiative.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you commissioner Lamis commissioner Chase.

Everyone that knows me pretty closely knows I'm very much a car person have been since being a kid grown back up grown back up in New England.

I moved to Los Angeles in the mid 70s and lived there for a while and I attended events in East LA and Boyle Heights cruising events it's just wonderful absolutely wonderful.

The interesting situation to the book ends I think of our starting out our first item that we heard about art in you know in the community here is art in the community these folks have been bringing to us and it's just it's really wonderful.

So what a great location it's just ideal right up on the on the top of the park there so I think I commend you for what you've been doing and I'm so disappointed as I think someone else noted to to hear when cruising and it was you know this was just allowed and it's just being unbelievable and so fortunate that it has come back and glad to see the Sacramento was the first one that has brought back congratulations on that one.

So I'm going to be getting back down to LA and oil heights and East LA to see what's going to be going on down there but with that I again I just urge everyone to go to the next event that you can and get up close talk to the people you know eat the food but look at the cars it really closely I mean they are amazing so again thank you for all of your work.

I yield.

Thank you Commissioner Chase.

I'm going to be on the next session next to me.

First I want to echo what everyone said about your amazing work and this is really exciting for me to see some folks now I mentioned it a lot

and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me and I'm going to be on the next session next to me

and I think this is really great emblematic example of exactly what it means to do equity across the community and so I am very excited to support this and I have one question for staff.

There was a concern about wayfinding and signage and whether or not folks would know that this was where the marina was and so I just wanted to clarify that we already have adequate signage that folks can navigate to where they need to go and that they know we made the park still and all that stuff.

There is new signage out there that directs folks to the boat launch areas, the marina as well as the marina headquarters per se and actually Joe just told me that he installed some of the signage that was out there so it's really good signage if we can probably share it with the group but yeah it's a good way finding available out there.

Thank you.

Okay and I will pass it to my passing to Commissioner Buckley.

Thank you chair.

Thank you Angel for the presentation.

Thank you for the folks who have come to present and testify on behalf of this.

It's really exciting. I have lived in Sacramento for a long time and cruised Broadway myself as a young man and you know as much as those of you who are in the community.

I think that's the kind of thing that people who have those types of activities can have their challenges. It had nothing to do with the lower adder community right.

People who can spend that kind of effort and that kind of time digging into a hobby and a craft aren't people who start trouble right and so I'm really excited to have the city acknowledge on the role that the community has had in Sacramento for a long time right and the ups and downs right.

I guess there's still signs on Franklin Boulevard said no cruising you know one thing I wanted to lift up I grew everything my the rest of commissions of setup here but one thing I want to lift up too is something the one of the speakers mentioned which is creating spaces right and investing in spaces.

when I lived very close to Broadway and 16th

and before it was at Chipotle and I know as Bego

it was an empty parking lot and it had its challenges.

But every Sunday, the lower editors would come

and do like a little mini car show

and it was a very nice Sunday out in this parking lot.

And I feel like there's something,

we've lost around Miller Park over the years

as a place of community and I'm excited to see

see you all go out there and make it a place again,

protect it and invest in it

and make it a place so we can all enjoy.

So I think that's a really important aspect

of this effort too.

So I'm really encouraged by it.

Thanks for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Chair.

Hey Commissioner, Commissioner Zong.

Okay, I'm always forgetting one thing.

So I'm back with my last item.

So I wanted to give you an opportunity

because some of the e-commerce had shown concern

about the cost of the city,

but you guys have actually already fund raised

to support any cost that this is going to incur.

So if you can speak to that just to kind of like

quell any of those concerns, that would be wonderful.

So I wanted to actually thank you for mentioning that.

Several car clubs, solar writers community,

we fund raised well over 10,400 to submit the application.

Take care of all the fees.

If there's any signage, we will incur those fees as well.

And it was beautiful.

I mean, it brought us all together.

Something fun.

Joe is the event guy.

He gets the youth involved.

He does contests out there and kind of just engage

the community again.

So yes.

For that thing I yield.

Commissioner Zong.

Vice Chair Young.

Yeah.

My question for Francine.

If you could maybe share a little bit about historically,

what is it about Miller Park that made the commission

want to like claim this space?

I really appreciated Commissioner Buckley's question

about just being able to claim the space.

So if you can maybe share a little bit more

about the history of why that space in particular.

Yes.

So thank you.

So back, I mean, as far as like I said,

50s we have archives where low-rider culture,

car culture has been in the Sacramento city.

Thank you to John and the whole family because they

collected everything.

I mean, they have everything.

And low-riders, you know, moved from Talho Park,

Franklin Boulevard, and back in the 80s,

we were moved to Miller Park.

We also frequent William Landon.

I must mention that Majestic President's car club

had broke barriers with Land Park.

They did a news article together.

A lot of the low-rider community also went out there

to do clean-ups, and that was huge.

But for Miller Park, how it started as claiming,

I mean, it was deemed back in the 80s

that would be Miller Park.

And as you see with our handouts,

the city sponsored events.

We had partnerships.

A lot of promises.

There's a 59 page document that I provided.

That states, you know, Miller Park is deemed low-rider Park.

The commission, and along with Israel,

played a huge part in this, our board,

the SLC commission and community,

got together and thought that, you know, that's our home.

Three years ago, we were locked out,

and didn't have any answers as to why.

And so, you know, that's kind of where we started

getting together, organizing, seeing,

and showing the importance, telling our story.

I've always said, and I've talked to some of you that,

I'm not into the irate, fighting, yelling.

I want you to learn something,

because not everyone has grown up in the car culture,

low-rider community.

So for us to tell our story out rather,

so when make a decision on learning something, you know,

and that's the beauty of it.

And so, like I said, since I was probably three, four years old,

you know, a lot of us grew up at that park.

At the Veterans Day Parade,

there was the Tuskegee women that go out there.

And a lady came up to me and she said,

I've your low-rider commission, I said yes.

And she said, I always tell my parents,

I'm an elder, black lady, and group in Folsom.

And I was at a party, and there was low-riders there,

and a fight broke out, and I was left by myself.

She said, I'm from Land Park, and she said,

back in the 80s, when mom came outside,

because 15 low-riders escorted me home and protected me.

And she said, and everyone came out and was like,

oh my gosh, she said, I will always love you guys,

and we always have your support.

So things like that, they come, you know,

like I said, it's we hold events, that's our home.

Joe coordinates and Vic use STEM projects out there.

We do clean-ups, you know, we meet, if you see,

in the pictures, there's, he did a water drive,

and I think they needed like a big U-Haul,

all the donations that came in.

So that's why, you know, Miller Park was deemed our home

back in the 80s, and we took pride in it

when we were active, you know, there.

And like I said, there's people that we clean up our trash,

if we know it's gonna be a huge event,

we make sure we work with the city.

Another thing, this wouldn't never been possible

if our law enforcement, our city leaders and businesses

never said, you know what, let's do this.

Let's partner, let's, and this is why this has all happened.

It's because it's a great show of what,

when working together, what it does.

And so I hope that answers, I'm sorry.

Yeah, it does.

I think that part of what I'm sort of getting at is,

you know, I appreciate the stories.

Not everyone knows about the low-rider community,

and it sounds like you spent quite a few years, right?

Trying to reclaim a positive narrative

for the low-rider community,

even though in spite of the fact that there has been

some negative narratives out there,

and so you guys have been faithful

to continue to be a positive presence,

and I'm speaking out for your community,

and I think that that's resulted in fruit, right?

And trust, right, amongst the community.

And so I did want to just ask the staff,

because I think this is part of the healing process,

I guess, if you will, which is,

you know, I would like to just maybe hear from the city staff,

you know, just what has been the city's experience

in working with the low-rider community,

has there been fights or kind of negative elements

to any of the gatherings?

Everything I've heard is positive,

but I think it's important just for the record,

you know, from the city staff,

just for them to be able to just say,

speak to the partnership, you know.

Maybe I'll direct it to Mark as a general,

or anyone can speak up.

Yeah, well, I guess for planning staff,

this is definitely our most intimate working together

with the low-rider community,

but they've been very responsive to,

not only just for the street name change,

but some of the concerns that were raised,

you saw that in the e-commerce,

and then some from the phone calls,

so we've reached out to them, we've reached out to Joe.

Like I said, they were able to give us just their take on things

and how they want to address some of those concerns.

They could have just said, well,

this is just a street name change,

that's not really related, but they have said,

hey, whatever we need to do,

we're willing to make those connections.

So there's that part, just in general,

for myself working in the South area,

with the Franklin Boulevard Association,

and some of those who are related to that,

I've had nothing but positive experiences as well.

Thank you.

I think it was just important for us as the city

and staff and as a community to also reciprocate that acknowledgement.

Like thank you very much for all the work that you put in,

and you know, you're doing a great job.

Thank you.

Hey, Commissioner Rishki.

Yeah, I wanna echo what many other

comments you can make sure to have said,

which is just to really thank you for all the work

that you put into this proposal.

It's really, really wonderful to have so many people come out

and speaking favor of this,

and to see the investment in the park,

I really appreciated as or as comments about how invested

your community has been in Miller Park,

and that's just such a great thing for all of us to benefit

from having community field ownership and investment in the park.

So I'm just saying a really great following.

Can I second it?

It's a...

Oh, wait a minute.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Rishki.

Commissioner Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

There were some interesting comments made earlier

about placemaking or creating a sense of place

by some of my colleagues here.

To me, you know, Miller Park is an incredible sense of place.

Like years ago, we had a boat that we kept in Miller Park.

So it was at the Sacramento Mariner's down there quite a bit

and did catch a lot of the cruising out on the road.

When you get down there, you've got to be sure not to turn left.

You want to keep going straight so you can get up

onto the road where the cruising takes.

By the way, you'll be in the Marine and you kind of get stuck

in there, not to the Marine.

It's a terrible place to be.

But it's interesting.

A lot of people, I think, aren't aware

have not been to Miller Park as one of the parks in the city

and it's really worth.

It's a real gem.

I've got to out, you know, it's not on the way to anywhere.

It is a destination to get to, which makes it,

I think, a great place for events.

That leads me to my last question.

Is there a website or anything that we can access

to find out events and where you might be doing things?

Yes, it's sacraminallowriders.com.

Please excuse me doing some transition

and getting a social media expert and updating it a lot more.

We're also going to be doing recommendations

for the community there as well.

So if I may, before we have a vote,

can I call on the rest of my community to stand with us?

And I'm just asking because you know it's been so many years

that we've did this as a community

and we do things as a family.

So if I can ask them to come up,

if anybody would like to come up before we vote,

Rich, Israel, everybody, please.

About the area of the island.

Even if you're not.

It's called intimidation.

No.

I'm sorry, I just, you know, you got to,

we're all here because of all of us.

So we did this together.

And I didn't mean it in the reps.

And can I just say one more thing?

This past month, we lost a lot of important people

in our low-rider community.

One was poor boy, John Leros,

Ro Leto Luzano, George Guido,

third, Markos, and several others,

but they made a lot to our community.

They were out there paving the way,

probably since 50s and 60s.

And so I just wanted to acknowledge them.

Thank you.

I'm sorry for your loss.

And thank you all for coming tonight.

Last speaker, and then we'll take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Messias Reed.

I was gonna call the question.

So I guess that takes care of that.

But yeah, just really quick,

I've had the honor and privilege this year

to visit Chicano Park in San Diego.

And that is obviously a testament

to the advocacy of the low-rider community out there

and what they can achieve

and what they have achieved

and getting the support from the city and the community.

It is an amazing park with the most beautiful energy

and the most beautiful artwork

and of course, beautiful nods to the low-rider community.

So I would just say, you know,

urge you to keep doing what you're doing.

Keep up the advocacy.

I think again, this is just a start to take back

that space that, you know, I think belongs to you.

So with that, let's call the question.

All right, clerk, please call the vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, please unmute.

Commissioner Zon.

Aye.

Commissioner Chase.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Buckley.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Aye.

Commissioner Mossesrean.

Aye.

Vice Chair Young.

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt.

Aye.

Commissioner Rishki.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson.

Aye.

And Chair Wallace.

Aye.

Thank you, motion passes.

Woohoo!

Woohoo!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thanks, folks.

Thank you, Rachel.

Staff and Marcus, thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

We're here to help.

Call on us.

Anytime.

Do.

Thank you so much.

We have one more item, but I'd like to take a 10-minute break

if the commissioner will indulge me.

We'll return.

Can we return at 7.30?

Is that OK?

7.21 now.

All right.

We'll take a 9-minute recess and we'll return at 7.30.

Chair, staff, or subitone, when you are?

Thank you.

All right.

I'll link back to order at 7.30.

Next item is item number seven.

Workshop on City Code Title 17, planning

and development code amendments related

to the Comprehensive Cannabis Study.

And we'll have a presentation from Kirk Skursky.

Excellent.

Thank you.

My name is Kirk Skursky.

I'm a senior planner in the Community Development Department.

And I will be leading today's presentation

for the Title 17 Cannabis Amendments Project Workshop.

And so before I get in, one thing I do want to identify

that will not be discussed or included

as part of today's presentation is related

to cannabis consumption lounges.

So that is a separate project on a separate track.

It will have its own community engagement events

like this, so stay tuned.

So with the Title 17 Cannabis Amendment Project,

we are currently in the Community Engagement phase.

And the purpose of today's workshop

is to learn about the project, to present the preliminary

recommendations, and to gather feedback.

And this project had a long history.

It actually was discussed at a previous planning

and design commission meeting quite some time ago.

But the key takeaway of how we got here

is essentially that the City Council commissioned

a comprehensive cannabis study to look at our cannabis

regulations and the cannabis industry here in Sacramento.

Following that study, there were a series of meetings

to discuss it, to gather feedback and input.

And this ultimately led to the City Council providing

seven points of policy direction.

So on the screen is a summary of the seven points

of policy direction.

And these points are essentially the starting point

of staff's evaluation.

It is the foundation of our project.

So with the policy direction, we

tried to look at all the issues surrounding these topics.

We considered the findings of the comprehensive cannabis

study and we formulated preliminary recommendations.

Now, policy direction points 1, 2, and 4 all regulate where

cannabis land uses can go.

Because of this, I will be presenting on the policy direction

points out of order, starting with those,

to help paint a better picture of how the preliminary

recommendations will come together.

All right.

So the first policy direction point we are going to discuss

was to review cannabis business zoning.

So what does that mean specifically?

And with this direction point, staff analysis

is staff analyzed the permitting process for cannabis

land uses.

So that's cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing,

and dispensaries.

And when we look at our current permitting process

for cannabis land uses, most cannabis land uses

require a conditional use permit.

Our code identifies at the purpose of a conditional use

permit is for land uses that are known to have or create

impacts or problems capable of creating special issues.

Conditional use permits are our highest level of discretionary

review.

And because of that, it has the highest permit application fee

and at the longest permitting processing time.

And when we look at past conditional use permit hearings

for cannabis land uses, what we've seen in regards

to the public discourse is that comments have been focused

on topics unrelated to land use or zoning,

essentially what the conditional use permit process is intended

for or what it can regulate or what it has authority over.

So if we're considering different permitting

process for cannabis land uses, let's take a look at our options.

So typically, land uses are permitted in one of three ways,

depending on location or zoning district.

By right uses do not require a planning permit.

Typically, those uses are beneficial to the character

and nature of the zoning district therein.

And while they don't need a planning permit,

those businesses still need a business operating permit

from the city.

Administrative permits are for uses that are in line

with the zoning district, but may have special or additional

requirements or standards that the administrative permit

process is in place to verify.

Though administrative permits are ministerial,

so there is no opinion.

You either meet the standards and get your permit

or you don't.

And they're reviewed and approved at the staff level.

So this means that there is not a public hearing associated

with an administrative permit.

They are not appealable, but they are subject to reconsideration.

And you just heard about conditional use permits.

It's our highest level of discretionary review intended

for uses that are known to create impacts

or capable of creating special problems.

So on this slide, it shows the existing land use permitting

and requirements for cannabis businesses.

And this slide is intended to help frame

the preliminary recommendation.

As I previously mentioned, most cannabis land uses require

a conditional use permit in order to operate.

There are some limited exceptions for distribution,

non-ballotile manufacturing, and testing.

Our recommendation is to require an administrative permit

for all cannabis land uses in all instances.

So the reasoning for that is the administrative permit

aligns with what we know about cannabis land uses

would have been documented through the comprehensive

cannabis study.

The administrative permit process still enables us

to verify compliance with adopted standards.

And as a result, it would be the permitting costs

and time cannabis business owners have to go through

are significantly reduced.

It provides certainty for those businesses

that comply with our standards.

All right, moving right along.

It was our next point of policy direction

was to consider additional zones for dispensaries.

So that includes storefront dispensaries

and delivery only dispensaries.

And a second piece of that direction was to consider

allowing storefront dispensaries in the RMX and C3 zones.

To start, I am going to focus on storefront dispensaries.

So let's take a look at a map of the current zoning districts

that allow storefront dispensaries.

Might be a little bit difficult to see.

Do apologize that about that.

But essentially storefront dispensaries

are allowed in commercial and industrial zoning districts.

The industrial zones are shown in purple hues

while the commercial zones are shown in red hues.

Maybe hard to tell from the map and the coloring.

But when we actually look at these zoning districts,

what we see is that industrial zones

make up more than double the amount of land

available than commercial zones.

Storefront dispensaries have a greater opportunity

of locating in industrial areas.

And when we look at where are the city's industrial areas?

Council districts two and council districts six

have by far the most industrial land

in throughout the city.

Coincidentally, they also have the highest number

of storefront dispensaries.

So as part of the direction to consider additional zones,

something helpful to keep in mind was that

the comprehensive cannabis study classified storefront

dispensaries essentially as retail brick and mortar

uses.

And that helps us look at available zones

by narrowing our focus to uses or to zoning districts

that support the retail uses.

And of our available zoning districts,

it narrows the focus to residential mixed-use zones

and commercial zones that we can consider.

So let's take a look at those available zones.

All right, there are six available zones,

either residential mixed-use or commercial

that currently do not allow storefront dispensaries

that could be considered.

Of the three zones, three of them are primarily targeted

for residential and office uses.

Those three, if anyone's having difficulty

deciphering those are the RO zone, the OB zone,

and the EC zone.

So those zones primarily focused on office and residential,

they actually have restrictions or limitations

or limiting retail uses.

The other three zones, the RMX C1 and the C3,

well, they allow for a variety of commercial uses

including a variety of intensity.

And generally, these uses are compatible

with residential neighborhoods.

Okay, so where is RMX C1 and C3 located in the city?

They are primarily located within the central city.

So C4, there are some areas dispersed throughout the city,

but for the most part, those three

are primarily focused in the central city.

In addition, when we look even further

into the characteristics of these zoning districts,

we noticed that they're located in commercial

and tourism hubs there in walkable areas close

to a mixture of uses.

They're integrated into residential neighborhoods

and close to public transportation.

These are all ideal characteristics for retail land uses.

And when we consider that the comprehensive cannabis study

found that dispensaries don't create problems

that they're typically good neighbors,

we believe staff believe and is recommending

to add the RMX C1 and C3 zones

to allow for storefront dispensaries.

All right, so this next map shows the current zones

that allow storefront dispensaries plus the RMX C1 and C3 zones.

The primary change or difference, as I mentioned,

is the central city.

And the reasoning for our recommendation is essentially

it is a small but targeted or focused recommendation.

It would add zoning districts within the central city

in walkable areas, areas near existing public transportation.

And there wouldn't necessarily be increases

or changes to areas of high concentration

or industrial areas, areas like CD6 and CD2.

Okay, so the second half or second component

of the policy direction was to consider

additional zones for delivery only dispensaries.

And at this time, we are not recommending

any new or additional zones for delivery only dispensaries.

The reasoning for that is that their business characteristics

and operations tend to be more suited

for our industrial areas.

This is where they're commonly located.

And for the most part, delivery only dispensaries

are already permitted in almost all of our industrial zones.

These businesses will benefit from the other recommendations

that are going to be presented here tonight.

Okay, moving right along.

The next policy direction point was to consider limiting

cannabis sensitive uses to schools, youth oriented facilities,

drug and treatment centers, faith-based institutions

and neighborhood and community parks.

So I guess a good way place to start is

what is a sensitive use?

There hasn't been any studies or data to use.

So I do suggest what use may be considered

a sensitive use for cannabis land uses.

The state of California has pre-described

sensitive uses in regards to schools, youth centers,

and daycares, however, they provide flexibility

to local governments, the cities,

to choose their own sensitive uses and standards.

When we look at other cities across the state,

the sensitive uses and the standards vary widely.

Everyone appears, everyone has a slightly different approach.

So let's take a look at our current sensitive uses.

So this table shows the current sensitive uses

separated out by the cannabis land use.

Right now, we're gonna focus on dispensaries.

Currently cannabis dispensaries have 10 sensitive uses.

So what does that mean for dispensaries?

How does this affect potential dispensaries?

We require that storefront dispensaries

maintain a 600 foot buffer from each of these sensitive uses.

However, a dispensary may locate within a sensitive

use buffer, essentially deviating or waving these standards

with planning and design commission approval.

So that means currently dispensaries can locate near parks,

near youth oriented facilities,

near childcare facilities with planning

and design commission approval.

And let's take a look at a map of our current sensitive

uses.

So I'll start by saying the areas in white

are located outside of a sensitive use.

I should also identify that we did our best

to try to capture all of our sensitive uses.

We think this map captures about 70% of them.

So what you're looking at essentially equates to

92% of the land available for dispensaries

being within at least one sensitive use buffer.

And how does that translate to the business sector

and what we actually see in the real world?

Well, 82 of our existing dispensaries are currently operating

within at least one sensitive use buffer.

Okay, so

giving the policy direction, we tried to evaluate

our current sensitive uses.

And so as part of that, we looked for themes

of our current sensitive uses to try to give us direction

in considering potential amendments or changes.

We noticed a three general themes of our existing sensitive uses.

So first and foremost, uses that included vulnerable

or impressing populations.

Public uses with community amenities and programs.

And uses that likely have a mixture of all ages

of the general public.

So we tried to refine our sensitive uses

using this over this high level theme

while considering the findings of the comprehensive

cannabis study.

And with that, we have some changes.

And on our screen right here shows our recommendations.

And I'm going to start by saying that our recommendations

is to maintain first is to maintain the 600 foot buffer

requirement.

However, our recommendation is to remove the ability

to deviate or to locate within a sensitive use buffer.

So these buffers would be mandatory.

Hardline buffers, you cannot locate within 600 feet

of any of these uses period.

So when we looked at our current sensitive uses,

we noticed that schools, parks, use centers

and substance abuse rehabilitation centers aligned

with the theme that we noticed.

And before I discuss those a little bit further,

I do want to kind of bring up, because I'm sure some of you

are wondering, hey, why are childcare facilities

or faith-based institutions not included

as a recommended sensitive use?

And so when we look at childcare facilities,

those facilities cater to childrens between the ages

of five weeks and five years old.

Children are dropped off and picked up

under supervision within secured facilities.

Some of these facilities do have outdoor areas,

or outdoor play areas, where children

may be able to see the adjacent uses and buildings.

But when we look at our business operating requirements

for dispensaries, all kind of this activity

has to be completely screened from public view.

From looking from the outside of the building,

other than maybe the business sign,

it could be hard to differentiate

between a dispensary and other uses.

Faith-based institutions, about 50% or close to 50%

of our existing storefront dispensaries

are currently operating within 600 feet

of a faith-based institution.

We have not necessarily seen or aware of any conflicts

between those two land uses.

And considering the comprehensive cannabis study

found that cannabis land uses dispensaries

are good neighbors didn't create impacts.

Those are some of the reasons why.

Those two were not included as a recommended sensitive use.

So I would next like to discuss youth-oriented facilities.

So our recommendation is to redefine and specify

which youth-oriented facilities are considered

a sensitive use.

Our approach was to try to capture public facilities

with community programs and amenities

supported by public investment

and places where we're likely to see

a mixture of the community, all ages.

Based on that, we thought that community centers

and libraries best captured what we were trying

to include as a sensitive use.

Currently youth-oriented facilities are defined

as any business that caters to the youth.

So it is fairly ambiguous and could lead

to different interpretations or different

inconsistent application with staff.

So our recommendations in regards to sensitive uses

were to try to clean them up, redefine them,

make them clear and concise.

And identify uses that potential applicants and staff

can easily identify.

Okay, so this map shows the result

of what would happen if based on the recommended

sensitive uses.

So fairly clear to see that there is about a 50% reduction

of properties that were inundated by a sensitive use.

While we have reduced the sensitive uses,

we feel that making these sensitive use buffers mandatory,

no longer being able to locate within them,

provides the goal of what we are trying to accomplish

protection of specific uses and provide clear separation

requirements for those.

The last component of the sensitive use recommendation

relates to cannabis production uses.

So that is cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution.

Currently, cannabis production has two sensitive uses,

schools and neighborhood and community parks.

Our recommendation is to remove neighborhood

and community parks as a sensitive use.

Reasoning for that is it's not very common.

We don't really see it.

Cannabis production uses predominantly locate

in industrial areas.

Typically our industrial areas aren't in close proximity

to neighborhood or community parks.

And again, all cannabis activities have to be fully screened

from the right of way and these facilities

are not open to the public.

Can't walk in there, no retail sales, things like that.

All right, the next policy direction point

we are going to discuss was to consider the suitability

of mixed light cannabis uses.

So mixed light cannabis uses are essentially cultivation sites

that have a translucent roof.

It allows cultivators to supplement costs and energy needs

by utilizing the sun during the day

and they can switch on the lights at night.

And the reasoning this was included as part of the project

is that cultivation is our biggest cannabis business sector.

We heard issues in the past that were raised

about mixed light facilities relating to odor,

security and reuse of the building.

So mixed light facilities in Sacramento,

what does it look like?

We in the last eight years,

we have seen two applications for mixed light facilities.

Of those two applications,

one of those facilities was constructed

and is currently in operation.

The other, the second facility was never constructed

and its conditional use permit has since expired.

So not very common here in Sacramento.

Our recommendation is to make no changes at this time.

So this would maintain the status quo.

That means mixed light facilities may be allowed

subject to site plan and design review approval.

And the reasoning for that is we have very minimal instances

of these types of facilities.

In the last year, we have actually seen

a significant slowdown in cultivation applications.

I believe we have only processed one cultivation application

for an existing facility to increase by 7,000 square feet.

In regard, also some of the concerns for these facilities

were its reuse.

These buildings can be reused specifically

for traditional agricultural uses.

And there also wasn't necessarily evidence staff could find

to suggest there were, would be issues

with light pollution, odor, or other security problems.

Policy direction point number seven was to consider

removing cannabis distribution from the current uses

subject to a district-based square footage cap.

And so the history behind this came about in 2018

and essentially the southeast industrial area was inundated

with conditional use permits for cultivation.

I believe they had approximately 160 out of 220 applications.

And it resulted in 2.8 million square feet

of entitled floor area.

Now, in 2018, there wasn't necessarily concerns

or a lot of applications related to manufacturing

or distribution.

And cultivation was the primary driver.

So our recommendation is to exclude distribution

from the floor area cap.

Again, cultivation was the primary driver.

Just spoke about how we have seen a significant slowdown

and cultivation applications.

On top of that, staff has begun a very labor-intensive

audit process of the entitled floor area

of the southeast industrial area.

And as of August 2024, we were able to verify

that there is approximately 1.9 million square feet

of entitled floor area.

This means that approximately 580,000 square feet

are available for cultivation and distribution.

All right, let's see here.

In the home stretch, the next policy direction point

was to consider additional zones

for non-volatile manufacturing.

This largely came from the comprehensive cannabis study.

Cannabis manufacturing is integrated

in all other cannabis business sectors

and it has some of the highest growth potential.

So essentially, the comprehensive cannabis study

sees the potential for expanded growth

in this business sector and put the question on the city

is do we have sufficient zoning

to accommodate for future growth?

Our recommendation is no additional zones at this time.

The reasoning for that is very similar

to the delivery only reasoning in that manufacturing

is best suited for industrial zones.

They predominantly locate in those areas

and they are currently allowed in all of our industrial zones.

So if we were to consider new zones

for non-volatile manufacturing,

we would creep into commercial or residential zones.

So that is why we are not recommending any additional zones.

These businesses would benefit from going

from an administrative permit to or changing

from a conditional use permit to an administrative permit,

especially for non-volatile extraction.

We currently require a conditional use permit

if a cannabis manufacturer wants to do

non-volatile extraction.

All right.

And I believe this is the final policy direction point.

It was to consider a zoning and permit type

for cannabis research and development.

Again, this is another direction

that is largely derived from the comprehensive cannabis study.

Huge growth potential in manufacturing.

We're seeing different types of products

being marketed to consumers

and those processes are continually to be refined

and new products are being created.

So to start, I would like to clarify,

when we say cannabis research and development,

you're probably wondering what that is.

That is specifically businesses

that primarily engage in research and development.

So think of laboratory settings.

The work, the products that's cannabis research

and development essentially deal with

are not for retail sale.

And they won't go to the retail market.

It is simply for research development scientific purposes.

So that is what we're talking about.

There's a lot of cannabis businesses,

like manufacturers or cultivators

that have their own research and development type activities,

whether it's experimental plot, things like that.

We're not talking about those activities,

those occur today and can continue occurring.

So focusing on the primary land use of research and development.

Our recommendation is to amend the cannabis testing definition

to include cannabis research and development.

And the reasoning for that is currently

there is no state cannabis license

for research and development.

So no state license as a result local governments,

we don't really see any local governments

that have a land use category designated

for cannabis research and development.

Could not really find any private businesses solely engaged

in cannabis research and development.

So our recommendation was to allow cannabis testing facilities,

the ability to also have research and development.

Reasoning for that is they're likely best suited

to expand into that sector if the private market

or if the market will bear it.

There's a pretty low regulatory barrier

for those types of uses.

And currently the state of California is leveraging

our public college system offering them exclusive grant opportunities

for cannabis research and development studies.

So that could kind of deter or impact the private market

for cannabis research and development.

All right.

So upcoming timeline, as I mentioned,

we are currently in the community engagement phase.

We have a virtual webinar that will be next Thursday at 10.30 AM.

If you visit the project website,

the webinar link and additional information

is all included on there.

So following the community engagement,

we're gonna be working on a draft ordinance

with the goal of to bring something forward

for consideration in come November.

And with that, it concludes my presentation

to assist the commission during your discussion.

I can leave up a slide that outlines

the council's policy direction.

So with that, thank you.

Thank you so much, I know this has been a lot of work

and thank you, Kevin.

I think we'll take public comments

and then we'll engage in a, when I'm sure it will be

an exhaustive and rousing discussion.

So clerk, do we have any speaker slips for this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have four speaker slips.

Our first speaker is Trevor.

Good evening.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Trevor.

I was born and raised in Sacramento.

I too grew up in Orangevale.

Took those same auto shop classes, had a blast.

I now reside in the city of Sacramento, family, and friends.

I absolutely love it.

After high school, I went to college to become a youth pastor

and wanted to reach out and be an advocate for our youth.

I wanted to let them know that having faith

in something doesn't mean that you're not cool

but you can't grow a cool beard or something like that.

You can show yourself in a lot of ways.

So the biggest thing I wanted to come to you guys with

is my concern for our kids.

Always the community, but the biggest one for our kids

because it's our job to advocate for them

to make sure that they're okay.

And while I believe that there are probably some things in here

that are really smart from a business decision,

which you guys have the hardest job of doing

is ensuring that this beautiful city continues

to run its business but also keep its people safe.

So I know that that's gotta be the hardest job.

I do not envy you at all for that.

I do disagree and strongly oppose changes

to the conditional use process.

Our community, our families, our children

are not better off with some of these changes

to these processes, especially when it comes

to allowing cannabis institutions closer to schools,

churches, youth facilities, and parks

that is concerning to me.

Places like churches, schools should be a haven

for our community.

Not a place where families are forced to interact

with people who may be intoxicated or unconcerned

with the well-being of the community

as well as our children.

Allowing controlled substance to be closer

and more readily available to our kids

shows me that the city is prioritizing the dollar

over the safety and the sanctity of our kids

and our community.

So I would, like I said, what you guys have to do

for this job has got to be very difficult.

But I, only thing that I can ask you

is to think about the impact that this has for the kids

that can't make the decisions for themselves.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Carla.

I'm sorry, I wish you better.

Okay, I'm going to be your only one.

Hi.

Good evening, you guys.

I took notes throughout, so they're going to be jumbled up,

but just bear with me.

So I don't support this policy change.

Taking away conditional use process takes away

from the community and its ability to address the issues.

I don't support placing dispensaries next to any parks,

churches, or youth facilities.

These areas and institutions are saturated with children.

I support keeping the sensitive uses

and conditional uses the way that they are.

I think we can all agree that sensitive users

should always include where children are present.

Please protect our children over drug use and drug exposure.

I don't think it's fair that I need to walk

by a dispensary with people smoking or ordering out front.

Doing drugs in the car and possibly in the park

where I take my son to play.

This policy makes a 50% reduction in the sensitive land use.

That's a significant amount to start with

and we'll shock the community.

I urge you all to please take the comments submitted

for the agenda item.

So online you can submit for public commentation.

When I was reviewing those,

those were overwhelmingly opposing this policy

change.

Not everyone could come here tonight and spend four hours.

I home school my son and tonight we missed out

on home school lessons to be here.

Missed out on cooking dinner also.

Just because this issue is really important to me

and I want to be here and that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Erin.

I'm your guy's.

My name is Erin Credosa.

I'm a president of an organization called Brother to Brother

in District 2, Dale Pasal Heights.

I work with our youth 12 to 18 years old

and our mission is disrupt gang gun and drug violence

in the city of Sacramento.

And I work really hard with them.

You guys know that fitna was big right now.

With our youth in any drug at this point

and to bring cannabis closer into our neighborhoods

and our schools and our parks.

Just give the kids are too young to learn about weed

and to see a dispensary sit now side

as we plan on it or something like that.

That just makes the kids want to go ahead

and start to do a drug early off in life.

And that's what we're trying to prevent

and keep from happening.

And I just think it's a bad idea.

I oppose it.

I'm against it.

I don't think it should be by a school, a park, a church

or anything of that sort.

So I just wanted to come out and say that today.

I do have a youth program.

You guys spoke about youth programs.

And I don't think, especially in D2, you mentioned D2.

That's my district born and raised in all my life.

And I try to help our youth from doing drugs

and also gang and gun violence.

So I don't think it's a good idea

to bring a closer to our neighborhood.

I believe that industrial part is out the way.

That's cool.

That's okay and everything.

But into the neighborhood, it's not a good idea

and it ain't going to make our kids get on drugs earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our last speaker is Jacob.

Good evening.

My name is Jacob Schmidt.

I'm a dispensary owner in the city of Sacramento.

Also a homeowner grew up in Sacramento.

I strongly oppose allowing dispensaries

to be the next to each other and pulling back

the 1,000 foot buffer that's currently created.

Even bigger of a problem which would create is,

it would really take away from our current staff

or employment, creating just more competition,

but not healthy competition.

The only way this really makes sense

is if it's in a zone like K-Stree

and you're really pushing this for dispensary lounges.

But that topic's not really here, I guess.

So it's a little confusing.

But that's basically it.

Thank you guys.

Thank you for your comment, Chair.

I have no more speakers.

Thank you, Clerk.

All right.

Bring back to the dies.

Questions and comments for staff

starting with Commissioner Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting after many, many, many years

that appears our society has reached

essentially alcohol and cannabis parity,

I think in terms of what's allowed, what can be done.

In that respect, and I'm sensitive to some of the coming,

being the representative for district two,

we have been kind of dumped on with a lot of stuff.

That said though, I want to look at the policy

and try to understand better how it will work.

How would, if you can briefly kind of compare,

how cannabis policy as you're proposing,

would compare to sort of the existing alcohol-related policy

citywide?

Yes, that is a very good question.

So currently, drinking establishments

in alcohol use is required a conditional use permit.

So right now, cannabis land use is also

required a conditional use permit.

So that's pretty much where they are similar.

Cannabis land uses and dispensaries

have additional standards or special use regulations.

So they have sensitive use buffers

that they have to be outside of or go through a process

to deviate from that standard.

We could also, I think it's also fair to point out

some of our business operating requirements.

As I mentioned during my presentation,

we currently require all cannabis activities

to be completely screened from view and the public right

of way.

So you can walk down the street in Old Town

and look into a business establishment

and maybe see patrons drinking.

But you wouldn't be able to do that with cannabis dispensaries.

So the recommendations would change the permitting process

for cannabis land uses from a conditional use permit

to an administrative permit.

And when we compare that with alcohol uses,

it would be slightly more permissive.

So we would be a little bit easier on cannabis land uses.

With that being said, there would still

be special use regulations that would be applicable to cannabis

land uses.

So the sensitive use buffers still would have

to comply with those standards.

Can I just add a little bit?

Please.

To that.

Thank you, Kurt.

If you go to a restaurant, you can get an alcoholic beverage.

So there is a very distinct difference geographically

in terms of where you can consume alcohol in public

compared to cannabis.

When we're thinking about what is alcohol regulated

in the conditional use permit sense,

I would suggest that think of a bar nightclub

or think of a liquor store.

So that is their business type.

There is a whole variation of other types

of alcohol serving businesses that have other ingredients,

usually food.

That's so that's state regulated through an ABC license.

But I wanted to add that.

And you're probably aware of that.

But there's a very distinct difference.

Thank you.

And I know a lot of the various stages

or steps in cannabis don't apply.

We don't have a really manufacturing

and cultivation of alcohol in the city.

So it's primarily, I think, dispensaries

versus bars or alcohol sales, if you will.

So I just wanted to kind of get aside by side comparison

as best as possible, as we would still

thank you for that.

I yield.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chase.

Mr. Musius, we...

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize in advance.

I've been on the commission since 2019.

And we've been talking about discussing these changes

and addressing these issues for many, many years.

So bear with me in commissioners.

I think the first thing I want to start off with

is sort of addressing a lot of concerns on comments

on e-comment and obviously comments

from some of the individuals here currently

and correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's 1,000 foot buffer on the sensitive uses

that we have existing.

Am I...

What is...

Can you confirm?

So it is 600 feet.

OK, I'm sorry, 600 feet.

And there is one slight exception.

The distance requirement from residential zoning districts

is 300 feet.

OK.

So there's a lot of comments that I'm

seeing even on e-comment that are saying,

we strongly oppose allowing for cannabis near parks

to centers or churches.

And I think they're just right now.

We just need to really clarify what exactly is that we're

talking about because tonight we are not talking

about allowing cannabis or any of those uses, right?

And that 600 foot buffer that is currently in place,

we are disgusting the possibility of keeping it in place.

What is under consideration this evening

is changes to the type of sensitive reasons.

So I just really want to clarify that

because obviously there's a lot of people here thinking

and even online that I really think

as the City of Justice Commissioners really need

to clarify that to our community, that we are not proposing

that tonight.

And in addition to not proposing that we are going to be moving

those sensitive uses near those sensitive uses,

we are also removing the...

Well, if it gets approved this evening,

the recommendation is to remove the option to call up

or to...

If you don't know what call up means,

another process is to appeal it, right?

It is just what you're saying in this presentation

and in the recommendations is that you are not allowed

to operate or locate within 600 feet of those sensitive uses.

So I think I really want to start off

by making that clarification before we enter

into this robust discussion just to address the community

comments and the concerns.

So with that, I have a few questions.

And briefly, I'll just give a little backstory

to the commissioners that have not been here in the past.

I think a lot of the reasons why this...

The study was commissioned by the city

is because here at commission, before we had,

you know, again, new industry, right?

The city is trying to figure it all out.

We're over here trying to figure it all out.

We didn't fill out commission that we had

enough clear direction from a policy perspective

and we felt like we were seeing these issues

on a case-by-case basis and we were getting

droves of community members coming out and opposition

and they didn't really understand the process.

And we were unclear about the process.

And we had, again, a lot of concentration

or what you may consider over-concentration,

even from a visual perspective in district two and district six

because of the industrial zoning that we have.

It's heavily concentrated in those districts.

We saw... We were seeing an over-concentration visually.

We were feeling it personally

because the community was coming out and droves

and saying no more, right?

And we were listening and we heard it loud and clear.

But we still did not have the direction that we needed

from, you know, from...

To nobody's fault, but just the direction

that we needed to do our job as a commissioner.

I felt, that's how I felt personally.

And so I really appreciate the city commissioning this

and moving forward with these recommendations

because I think it's... We're long overdue to address them.

And I do want to say a part of that feeling of over-concentration.

Oh, my gosh, this is happening to us.

What do we do? It needs to stop, right?

And even district six moving forward

with their own individual district plan

on what over-concentration

and what square footage caps will look like there.

And that was all because we were seeing an influx

of applications, right, for cannabis cultivation

and for manufacturing and for dispensaries

because everyone wanted to get their foot in the door.

And then that has substantially,

as the numbers have shown, slowed down, almost stopped.

And we have hardly seen any of this in the last couple of years,

whereas, you know, the first four years of commission

for myself were really heavy on cannabis.

So anyways, just a little context.

I want to ask about the recommendation.

And if you wouldn't mind, Clark, going back to...

And I apologize, I don't remember what slide it was,

but early on, you were talking about going from discretionary

review to ministerial review.

Can you bump us up to that slide, please?

Right, right.

I think you passed a couple.

And the next one over.

Yep.

Okay.

So my question would be...

So right now, again, clarification at any point in time,

please, is that we see cannabis CUPs for these uses.

And there's a call-up provision or an appeal process

where they can appeal or call up to city council.

So my question is just clarification on...

And I think you said it, but I just can't recall

what is the call-up provision if we decided to move

into ministerial review.

Got it.

So ministerial permit, or an administrative permit,

is not subject to appeal, but it is subject

to reconsideration.

Reconciteration at the administrative level,

staff level, or re...

That's for any clarification.

All right, good.

Thanks, great.

So maybe a way to think about the differences.

There is not a public hearing.

We can provide information on notice and advance.

We do that digitally online for every development activity

in this city.

So no hearing.

You meet the standards.

Your application is assigned and verified

to meet the standards or not.

You meet them, you're issued, you're permit.

If an applicant were to feel that we aired in our judgment,

they can file a reconsideration application

where we sort of reassessed, did we get the facts right?

Or not?

So this is from an appeal process,

had a hearing where you go up the chain of command

essentially to higher level civil legislative body.

So for this commission, that would be the council.

If it were myself, a director hearing,

it would be a zoning administrator appeal to the commission.

So we're trying to get the standards right

and not rehash, I think, the policy over and over again,

because it feels like there's an objective baseline of data

that we know.

And so this is our attempt to capitalize

on what we've understood and focus the debate today

and through the remainder of the engagement

and the public hearing process.

We maybe didn't get it right,

but we wanna do as best we can,

especially in sensitive uses,

are culturally derived standards.

And please help us.

Yeah, and that's what we're here to do.

Thank you for that.

So I have a comment on that.

I feel very supportive of that.

I think that's the right direction.

And I particularly in my mind,

I think about our core participants,

the whole process as a city of us of like,

we're trying to write the wrongs

of the minority population who have been impacted by

the policies that we've created in the past.

And so we created this core program

to have a low entry barrier,

low barrier, barriers, entry process, right?

And I think that's a good way to move forward.

I do think we need to rethink this process

of we can reconsider the application

because for me, if I'm thinking about this,

because I submit, personally,

I'm submitted stuff to entitlements.

And so I know that process, right?

I can see, I'm familiar with both sides of the process.

And so for me, I'm sitting here thinking,

okay, well if staff, it's ministerial villain staff,

is let's just say they made the determination

that this is not going to be accepted and it's denied.

How would my resubmital of that change in any way, right?

If it's the same determining body,

how is that going to change the outcome?

Oh, well, I can tell you a certainty

that staff has made a mistake in history.

So an example of that would be an accessory dwelling unit

that was a grain of approval

when it didn't meet a standard for the balcony

and it being too close in the setback.

So we reconsidered our evaluation

and had to retract our approval in that instance

and say, we did error.

That's an example.

A reconsideration process, there is a factual basis.

And if the facts were misunderstood or not complete,

then that would be an opportunity to evaluate that.

Sure, understood.

I understand the intent of moving to ministerial review

and I don't disagree with it.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping around my head around that

but I'm going to move on for now.

And I guess my other question along these same lines

is with core applicants, have we approved all 10 of those?

Okay, where are we at with it?

So I appreciate you mentioning the e-commerce.

Please come to our webinar next week.

There's I think we could do a lot of education there

and specifically I asked your question about concerns

about proliferation or concentration,

number of storefront dispensaries in the city.

There is a maximum number of 40.

Correct.

30 are regular businesses, 10 are for core.

Not all 10 core businesses are operating.

So 40 total within the incorporated limits of the city.

I don't remember the exact number that are operating

but we have not today approved all 10 core.

Okay.

That's different from what we, that'll seven.

Yeah, I know, I know, yeah, I know it was the business

upside of things but I know the 30 were already approved

in terms of CUP and then the 10.

And the reason why I think that's a relevant question is

because I want to know if the intent of the core program

is to have low barriers to entry,

discretionary review certainly is not that, right?

So how is that going to impact the applicants

that are not already going through that process, right?

Is something to consider.

And then again, just again, back to,

okay, so I'm going to switch, switch over

to discussing the sensitive uses and buffers

because in my personal opinion, I think that has what

has been the challenge for, for even myself as a commissioner.

It is what has been the most controversial issue

to date with, with the commission and our challenge around,

you know, how do we work that through?

Because currently, you know, we have, as you can see,

and I don't know if you wouldn't mind again,

I'm going to go back to that list of what's currently

under sensitive uses.

Okay, so under cannabis dispensary, right?

So that's currently what's allowed.

And when you look at that map, right,

you scroll over the map,

and there is, you know, this is indicative of why

we had the over-concentration in district two

and district six, right?

Because we've created, you know, so many sensitive uses

that really there's nowhere for them to go,

except for in those industrial spaces,

which then creates a sense of over-concentration, right?

And, you know, from an equity perspective,

like that's just really unfair, and it's frustrating

because, you know, the district two residents

are over here wondering, why is it all in our district, right?

Well, zoning is the primary reason why.

And so what we can do to address that is really to,

I wouldn't say that it is limiting and taking away

from the concept of sensitive uses,

I think it's actually addressing what the community

really wants, which is an over-concentration

of these uses in specific places.

So, you know, I understand, and I appreciate the comments,

I have small kids myself.

You know, we live very close to a dispensary,

it's never, I don't ever think my kids

for a second have thought or noticed that it's even there.

I'm not saying that that doesn't have an impact

on our communities, but what I'm saying is that,

you know, I think if we address our sensitive uses

to what, for instance, tobacco facilities,

it's like, you know, for me, as a commissioner,

I look at, you know, I've questioned,

well, why is it tobacco use a sensitive use?

You know, why is that?

And so then we create this map where, again,

we're creating an issue because we're allowing

for this to happen.

So, gosh, so, if you can go back to the list

of sensitive uses, I appreciate that we,

so, and then just to be clear on the state level,

what you're proposing is essentially what the state

has proposed.

Can I just know like what would that,

because I know that they have, right,

they propose the standard and they always come back

and say, well, you know, if you guys want to go above

and be on that, you're more than welcome to do so.

And we clearly have, which has been created

a lot of over concentration in some of our districts.

So, can you?

Yes, so the state's template or just standard

are K through 12 schools, so we are maintaining that.

So, we are maintaining that.

The next one are what they identify as youth centers.

So, very, very similar definition, essentially,

a business that caters towards you.

That could be suggested.

So, our approach with that was to specify

which youth centers we want to consider sensitive use.

And then the final one for the state are daycare centers.

And the reasoning we didn't recommend

to include daycare centers.

Again, when you look at the facility type,

what goes on there, the kids it serves,

constant supervision, interaction with adjacent land uses,

and business operating requirements for dispensaries.

We didn't feel that it was,

needed to be included.

And then obviously I can recall a situation

a very controversial item that came to planning commission,

maybe a couple of years ago, where there was a substance use

that was located next to a proposed CUP cannabis dispensary CUP.

It went under the radar because they didn't have

a business license filed, but they were operating.

And so it was a challenge for us, again,

from here at the Dias to make a decision in termination.

Can you go back to what you're proposing

we keep under sensitive uses again, please?

Okay, understood.

And what you're saying, just to be clear,

is we are maintaining our 600 foot buffer.

So that is not changing from what it has been.

Correct.

Not changing, but the difference here is we're removing

some of those to open up space so that we're not creating

over concentration, but also not allowing for a call up

or appeal process.

So this is final say.

Correct.

The dispensaries would no longer have the option

to go through a process to deviate from our standards.

Okay.

The CUP modification process, it currently goes through

back test, correct?

Not always.

Okay.

Is this the CUP modification because you did mention

that there was an application where they wanted to add

7,000 square feet to their cultivation?

Okay, so is that being addressed in here at all

or any changes?

Not with regard to the level of detail we're at today.

Okay.

We have some early ideas that we've started to develop

an anticipation of writing the ordinance

and getting it through legal review, et cetera.

So we are aware of the need if there is a fundamental change

in the permit type of a need to have a bridge between the two.

Okay.

So we can have continued operations and clarity

about how to change our business.

Yeah, obviously, it just makes sense that we're addressing

that during this process.

I'm almost done, you guys.

The square footage cap and obviously D6 has their own,

you know, process, right?

Is there going to be any changes or impacts

to what's currently proposed?

Is this going to supersede what's going on in District 6?

So what I would say is, maybe let's start with the permitting process.

So currently in regards to D6 and the cap area,

we get a conditional use permit.

And the applicant has to list out the cannabis production floor area

for them.

So that process will be the same,

but instead of submitting through conditional use permit application,

they would do it in regards to an administrative permit.

So that's going to be the case.

So that's going to be the case.

So that's going to be the case.

In regards to an administrative permit.

I forgot to say that's OK.

If you're asking, are we recommending the cap to be removed?

Or just any changes to what's currently in place.

It's not what the council directed.

What I would observe as the cannabis study

did question whether that was necessary,

given statewide and regional trends in cultivation occurring elsewhere,

which we have seen, you know, presumably,

there's some evidence of that in the permit activity

or the lack thereof locally.

So we looked at mixed-light facilities,

which are primarily in the power-in district six area.

And I'll leave it to you all to draw a conclusion

about the cap and whether it should stay.

OK.

And then I think that was it.

That's it.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Councillor Schell.

Welcome.

Commissioner Lamis.

Thank you, Chair.

I am still trying to get my bearings around a lot of this stuff.

It's a lot.

A lot of information, a lot of different considerations.

Thank you for the presentation.

So please bear with me.

I might ask some basic questions here.

But you mentioned there was 82 dispensaries,

but the cap's at 40.

You call it apologies.

So dispensaries include storefront and delivery only.

OK.

Yes.

So we have the only limitation in regards to cannabis business

license are for storefront dispensaries,

which are cap to 40.

I believe we have approximately 38 operating storefront dispensaries

and approximately 60 delivery only dispensaries.

So if you are looking for the exact number of dispensaries

that are currently operating, I can look into that and get back to you.

Are counter parts at the Office of cannabis management

maintains that data?

OK.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

And I think this was the question that was made,

may have been asked just before I started asking my questions,

but I think that's the question that is that 40 cap,

that's not, is that part of the consideration to be removed?

No.

So our project is focusing on Title 17, so zoning.

The dispensary business license cap is essentially regulated

in Title 5.

And I, the Office of cannabis management is working

on a project in regards to increasing the number of storefront dispensaries.

I believe they went to the August 20th law and legislation meeting

to get direction on potentially increasing storefront dispensary licenses.

OK.

That's helpful because I was, yeah, we have 40 as the cap

and they've already been approved or in process

and what would be the difference in changing, you know,

from a CUP to administrative procedure.

But if we're looking at potentially going beyond that,

I can see us trying to figure this out here.

And so can you tell me there was this comment about over concentration,

but I know from the presentation, it sound like most of the license

that got approved had a deviation from, you know,

the sensitive use areas.

So do we know where most of those are located?

Most of the license are and are they in, I guess, District 6 and 2

that was mentioned?

So if we're looking at businesses that are currently operating

that are within a sensitive use,

and if those businesses are likely in Council District 6 or 2,

so they actually would, so Council District 6 and 2

have the least amount of land that is encumbered by sensitive use buffers.

So if you're going to those areas, you're more like,

you have more opportunity to be outside of a sensitive use.

And you're aware, because this body reviews dispensary,

dispensaries within a sensitive use,

that's a longer process, a higher application fee.

So if you locate in those industrial areas that are more likely

to be outside of sensitive use, you have a cheaper, quicker,

approval process currently.

Correct. And so I'm asking about those that got the deviation approval,

where are those located at?

Not in District 2 and 6 in the industrial areas.

And so then, and it's going to this question about over-concentration.

So where, when we take that into consideration, what is,

what are we looking at, right, in terms of the location?

And I guess my biggest question is, like, what are we trying to solve

here?

Because if they are located throughout the city,

because I'm hearing most of them did get a deviation

from this sensitive use requirements, you know,

I guess I'm still a little bit confused about what the ultimate

objective is here, with minimizing

or expanding the amount of area that they can be approved in.

I guess can you speak a little bit to that?

I guess I'm still a little lost.

Yeah, so there's a few layers to it.

I would say, first and foremost, that the study provides a factual basis

for us to determine, are the issues we're revisiting in public hearings

actually grounded in fact?

Is there more crime?

Does my property value go down?

So those are very common themes that we've observed in public hearings,

and it tended to be a zero-sum game.

Can it be should not be legal at all, or we need to repair the

discriminatory practices of the past as a generalization of the themes

that I've heard personally?

So what we're attempting to do is to rethink, what is the process

we're bringing businesses through for regulatory compliance?

And why do we, what are we trying to achieve compliance with?

And what we have found is there is a process by which the

the question, the core question that's not going to be

re-legislated, should you have cannabis comes up through the CUP

process repeatedly, and that there's an opportunity to shift to

having sensitive U-rate radius buffers that are firm,

rather than renegotiated for every application on a case by case basis.

So that is what the evidence is showing us is that there is not a

net community benefit from having that tension and that debate over

and over.

If we can get the firm boundary, then you won't have a concern that

it's income to the hearing because there is a dispensary that's within

six hundred and one feet away that that issue will have been set

by policy of the council.

That helps.

And certainly in the regulatory process for business operators is a big

theme as you've heard earlier from your peers.

So it sounds like part of it is helping kind of the staff time

administratively getting the applications process.

And I guess I wonder, I'm still thinking about this cap, right?

I think there was a mention about it being a big part of the economy,

right, in Sacramento.

And so at least produces a lot of revenue.

So I guess I'm just wondering what that cap is being considered at.

And I know we're not talking about that here, but I feel like this ties

into it if we're easing up on some of the requirements to get in a

license that there is going to be more licenses if we raise that cap.

And so, okay, so that's helpful for me.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

You'll be fine.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I do have one.

And bear with me here, but I don't know how much this is based in fact,

but I've heard of cannabis churches.

Have you guys heard of those?

Okay.

Well, it's churches that can sell, well, I guess not sell technically,

but they give out cannabis and you can donate and get, you know,

they accept donations.

And so I just, and I'm looking up online and there's like articles about them.

But with removing religious institutions as a sensitive use,

I'm a little concerned about that.

Well, we start to get more cannabis churches.

I don't know.

I don't know if I haven't done any research on it, but I know it's something I've

become aware of and there's articles about it.

And so there's something happening in that space.

And so I'm a little bit concerned about removing religious institutions

as a sensitive use.

So just want to make that point in the record.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Nandos.

Thank you, Chair.

I really appreciate the comments from my fellow commissioners.

I want to thank the community members for being here and sticking out with us tonight

after I think it's not been over three hours.

Kevin and Kirk, great presentation.

Thank you for everything you guys are doing here.

I think there are a lot of good ideas and recommendations that have been presented today.

And I really like this phase that we're in because I feel like we're taking lessons that we're learning.

And it's been, it was kind of a rough start.

And so I do live in District 6.

The history that has been discussed here is very important for context, especially for at number 7,

which I wanted to get into.

During my first years on the planning commission, as was mentioned,

we had so such a high volume of cannabis projects coming before us.

They were very controversial.

We were still figuring things out, including what the impact of our decisions,

we kind of didn't really know.

And it was a really difficult time for this body.

But there is a lot of context to the applications that came through in District 6,

in particular, the pay bid at Power Inn.

And I also want to say first that I do support the city's cannabis policies

and cannabis businesses.

Our core applicants, I think we have a very robust program in Sacramento,

who was really a leader in this space.

We've done a really good job of attracting the market, especially when we helped some businesses

who were operating illegitimately to come into the new regulatory scheme.

So, questions about number 7.

It's to remove the distribution use from the District-based cap.

So, the proposal is not to remove the cap, correct?

Correct.

And so, the cap would remain for cultivation, and that's it.

Correct.

Okay, great, thank you.

So, I also want to go into some of the point about shifting from a PC to the

administrative process on this piece.

I think from my economic perspective, cultivation has the largest square feet,

and the comparatively as a ratio, the lowest number of employees by like a ratio.

So, I do have concerns about that because of moving it cultivation to administrative

because the impacts are much different for cultivation.

We still do get some complaints about odor.

That is still an issue that we see compared to other uses.

Cultivation has, that's one of the larger problems that we are seeing.

I think it's important to keep cultivation in that area for over-commentantration purposes.

In particular, because I think that business, I want them to be able to work with the neighbors,

work with the community, be held accountable, and be brought up to us for consideration.

I'm a little concerned, mostly with the cultivation use, that we wouldn't have that appeals process.

So, again, I feel strongly about this.

I'm really glad that we have the EPS study to help measure the impacts,

and there's a lot of great information in there about the market that I've enjoyed learning about as well.

I do want to go back and remind folks that the definition of over-concentration,

there is only one definition, and it is only in District 6.

District 2 has been hit very hard on this issue, but unfortunately,

it's apples and oranges compared to how that was developed.

And so, I think that kind of sums up where I'm feeling right now on these issues.

And I've heard a lot of comments on the sensitive uses, so I just want to focus my comments right now on the distribution cap.

So, if there's anything there that you want to respond to, I'm happy to.

Thank you for your ear, Ian.

I have thoughts about how odor is regulated.

In Title 17, in Title 5, so we look forward to looking into that.

I yield my time. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Buckley?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the presentation.

You set up a really good public policy discussion tonight.

So, I really appreciate it.

I feel like there are, this is the culmination of a lot of discussions we've had.

I mean, at least, in part, I think I don't ever culminate, but as much as we're going to get there.

So, I appreciate that.

And thank you to both, Commissioner Zunorananda and Mrs. Reed,

for kind of giving that background and that history to it,

because out of context, it sounds like a very strange conversation.

And so, I think that was really helpful.

And I think there's a logic to what you presented tonight.

And it's really the foundation of it as a report.

And I really liked Kevin's expression of the purpose of that report.

And I think that's really important.

I think this, and alcohol I've said it before,

but it feels like, actually, I'll steal something from a Commissioner Kate.

And it feels like vibes, right?

Like, how do we feel about it that particular time?

And that distance from the use or whatever agreement was made.

And I'd like to get out of that place, too, to some degree.

And so, I appreciate this, this effort.

I guess I'd like to, I would like to talk about the sense of Unises,

even though we beat them pretty good, will you put them back up there,

particularly the...

I have to clicker, I'm kidding.

Let's see.

Keep going, please.

This one, yeah.

So, I have...

I see how you're trying to refine them in order to get to that hard denial, right?

For the 600 foot buffer.

And I think, particularly for the ones there at the bottom,

faith-based institutions, childcare, and home centers, cinema,

those are resonant, I think, with what we learned in the report.

The one that I'm a little concerned about is the change from youth-oriented facility

to community center or library.

I kind of like how all-inclusive youth-oriented facility is.

I know it sounds like it was difficult to implement from a planning team perspective,

but I can imagine a few things that don't get caught anymore

with the new community center library piece.

So, I grew up going to the CalScape.

That's a youth-oriented place, like the places where kids skate,

miniature golf, things like that.

That might fall into the category of a youth-oriented facility.

And so, I just wondered if you gave that any consideration or...

Or, yeah, I guess if you gave that any consideration.

Yes, so, it was a very difficult topic to tackle.

And you know, it kind of started looking at youth-oriented facility,

public or private business that kidders to youth.

So, does that include Chuck E. Cheese?

What about McDonald's?

If it has a playground?

And so, you know, we're kind of going back and forth of, you know,

this philosophical debate of what is a youth-oriented facility.

And is there a better way we could try to capture the intent behind it?

Right? I don't think we're necessarily saying that dispensary

should be separated from restaurant facilities, even if they are catered to children.

You know, they're restaurants.

So, when we were looking at that, things that came up were zoos,

amusement parks, sports fields.

And we noticed that those were captured with our parks recommendation.

And we tried to consider other businesses or uses where youth would congregate,

or where they would locate.

And the easiest way to have a clear definition, concise use,

was to more target public uses, rather than private businesses.

But, yes, the sensitive use direction point has probably been the most complex

and most time consuming direction that we have got in regards to this project.

And tonight, we're just giving you feedback on this, right?

There's no action for us to take as a body.

These are preliminary recommendations. What do you think?

What do we think? Okay, good. I'm not concerned.

I'll say about the over-a youth-oriented facility being too wide of a net to cast.

I feel like that's a mistake worth making.

I think we could keep thinking about it and see what gets captured in that net.

But it feels like to me that that is a safe place to maybe be a little indulgent about what we're capturing.

And I would do think of skating rinks, and I think of...

I think of Chuck E. Cheese.

And, you know, miniature golf, things like that.

They're fair enough. They're fair enough.

You're right. And this whole alcohol... That's fair.

That's it. Like, yeah, I've seen the videos.

But... And I think that's right, right?

And I think you actually said...

It's culturally specific how we're making these decisions.

And that's true. And it's also this weird balance of values that we're trying to do around the legalization of cannabis,

and where we want to see it, and then how we've been treating alcohol, and all those pieces.

So it is very challenging.

I do think we need to socialize the report more.

I'm not sure people know the genesis entirely, and I know you're going to be doing a lot of outreach,

and you said you're going to be talking about that in the upcoming meetings.

I think that's really important, but to really keep that as the foundation of the discussion as much as possible,

so that people are grounded in the same values discussion.

Because what we try to do with the report is go, okay, is it really hard to live right next to a cannabis facility?

Do kids rush in all the time? Is there crime associated with it?

And either we're going to use the report or not, right?

And so I think we did the report. Let's try to use it.

It won't change everyone's mind. It won't assuage everyone's fears.

And it shouldn't probably, right? We need more analysis. We need to keep thinking about it.

We do need to have it as an underpinning of our discussions.

And then you gave a percentage of the ones that had at least one sensitive use within, close to them. What was that?

So, sorry.

Go to the note. No, sorry.

So, 82% of our existing dispensaries, that means,

storefront and delivery only, are operating within at least one sensitive use.

So that means that they've come before us, and we've made an analysis that was really just about the decision we were making that night,

and wasn't terribly, you know, really locked into these sensitive uses about how much of a problem that was.

And I like that we're trying to get away from that to some degree, so we can have some way to not just have it be at the

women's body and have it be more reflective of the values you think you need.

So I would keep interrogating whether or not these values are reflective of what the community wants.

But I agree with the path of going forward and trying to lock those in a little bit and having a real decision making framework.

So I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Vice-Sharia.

Sorry.

I had a text from my kid.

I wanted to just confirm so that the nature of the sensitive uses in terms of how it would be applied as its proposed, right?

They would basically form the criteria from which planning staff would administerially be able to reject or accept.

Okay. So I do want to drill down a little bit on the sensitive uses just to kind of explore a little bit on the values.

And I appreciate the topic on kind of youth because I think part of the discussion has been, I think, for at least for K-12, but not, but it's just access, allowing youth the ability to access.

And we know that there are hard fast rules and there are plenty of safety features that prevent youth from actually purchasing product.

However, I am still hearing from my high schooler that no, they're still able to gain access.

However, they are doing it. It's still happens, right?

And so I think kind of the optic of what I see for the K-12 school is that we're trying to mitigate or diminish kind of access of a high volume of youth from accessing the dispensary.

And what's behind YK-12 is considered a sensitive use versus the youth oriented facility?

Yes. So I would start by saying that the K-12 school is included as the state's default or template of sensitive uses.

So K-12 schools are one of three sensitive uses identified by the state. Also, when you look at the children that attend those schools, they're between the ages of five and 13.

So definitely more impressionable youth ages. And so the thinking is to have a physical separation of where a dispensary could locate in compared to a K-12 school.

So the state is communicating in that value as well. Let's keep some physical distance between you said five to 13, but K-12 goes all the way up to 18, right?

Yes.

I'm at the earlier end of that spectrum.

I know it's getting late.

So I think given that value, right? I think if that's what's underpinning the justification for K-12 school as a sensitive use, I would advocate that that same justification be applied in whatever other type of uses there are within our community.

So I think, you know, I appreciated the Chuck E. Cheese argument. That actually kind of gave me pause. But in my mind, I think the justification is really youth development.

At least it seems like just reading the comments from the community and the youth pastor who came and mom, I think that any type of use that is promoting youth development, I think seems like people can kind of agree that

this is not something that we want to keep some sort of distance, some mitigate as best as we can.

As far as the faith-based institution, I go to church myself. So this is something that I've asked. And what's interesting is that time and time again, we've had multiple applications come in.

And I'm just kind of in its next to a church. And time and time again, the churches have said, no, it's either fine or they've declined to comment.

And so I think that I think we have to also, I guess for the staff, I think we have to be careful not to apply this monolithic definition of what faith-based institution is.

Because there could be some faith communities that are just primarily seniors in the congregation. But I think Commissioner Wallace has mentioned, you know, there are some other churches that are heavily involved in youth development work.

They've got programs after school programs throughout the week. And something like this could be something that they would probably advocate, no, I don't want any of that there.

So I think that the faith-based use to me, I think, should be re-evaluated and giving the faith community a chance to respond.

I think that my guess is that those faith institutions that are heavily involved in investing in youth and have an active robust community are probably going to be like, yeah, that would be great to have some sort of buffer.

Other than that, I, yeah, I'm still putting my mind on Chuck E. Cheese. It's also probably because I haven't eaten dinner yet. There are snacks in the back. I think I want pizza, not snacks. So, anyways, but with that I yield my time because it's good to dinner.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioner Blunt.

Thank you. Thank you for all the staff for all of this work that you've done. It's very impressive. And I also want to thank everyone who came here to speak tonight.

I, I'm very new to this despite my last name Blunt. I don't have much knowledge of this. So I'm, I'm trying to learn here.

I am, I'm really kind of confused about the cinema. I, I mean, I assume that on the, you know, buffer zone things, I assume what happened was that a wide net was cast, right? And that there was this sort of, let's try to think of all the different possible situations and try to mitigate those potential disasters.

But specifically, like when you go through all the reasons for getting rid of the things, you don't address the cinema. And I'm just dying to know what is, what, what happened there?

I don't think we could tell you why it was a sensitive use. I could tell you that other jurisdictions decided it might be a good idea, but they didn't say exactly why.

I could interpret that children go to the movies with adults, but that would be the extent of it. And so I don't know that.

Okay, answers your question. But again, like Kirk's been framing. We're trying to think about places that are intentionally and deliberately invested in physically and through personal labor for youth.

Okay, yeah, I just been thinking about all the different movie theaters around Sacramento. And I'm like, well, maybe it was because of that movie theater.

But one of the things that I'm actually really stuck with, for them, the speaker who actually owns a dispensary and is concerned about eliminating the 600 foot buffer requirement.

I mean, I look at this report and the thing that really stands out to me in addition to all the issues with the community and, you know, making sure that we're not causing harm to children in the youth.

But it's more like that sort of that question, the central tenant of if we didn't do policies, are we going to be trying to bring in more big business, or we're going to try to encourage small business within Sacramento.

And going through the presentations, like, for instance, with the conditional use permit switched to administer ministerial.

Like I can totally see that not just because the conditional use permit is $7,000 to $14,000.

But also the length of time in all the energy and effort that goes into that process, it's very, very costly.

So that clearly benefits small business or local businesses.

But I'm just curious is there are other things within your policy recommendations that actually specifically benefits small businesses.

I mean, time and money, that's the main calculus here.

That's the trade in is regulating.

And so we have a process that runs folks through and that's what I've heard throughout my career.

How much risk am I taking on?

That's going to inform whether I try to fulfill my dream.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any other like sneaky little things that we should be aware of.

Not sneaky, that's just like hidden.

I want to give you credit, you know, because you did such a great job.

And so we should recognize all the great work that you've done.

Okay, so specifically along those lines on the other dispensary, what I see in the report is that the reasoning for removing the barrier is essentially that

within around 25% of existing dispensaries within 600 feet of another dispensary, it's not a common sense.

All these things seem to be focused on community, potential community problems, right?

Like they're being like some sort of criminal element or just decreasing property value.

And I think that what you found is that that hasn't happened.

And that's not an issue.

But from our speaker tonight, the dispensary owner, he's saying that if you wind up having, if you get rid of this buffer, then potentially you can drive small businesses out of business.

And I could totally foresee a situation like that where if I don't know the subway sandwiches of cannabis, like all of a sudden parks up right next to, you know, a small business.

It's going to, it's going to drive, it's going to be a problem.

So I, that is a concern to me.

Not that subway sandwich is getting into the cannabis business. I don't know anything about that.

But my last question is about the research and development.

Are there other places in the state of California that are doing research and development?

Would this, would Sacramento be the first of its kind?

And what are we sort of like looking at potentially along those lines?

Got it. So in regards to the private sector.

So private businesses that solely engage in cannabis research and development, we aren't really seeing any activities anywhere throughout the state.

In regards to cannabis research and development, where we are seeing activity projects, investment is the public college system.

So as I mentioned during my presentation, the state of California has exclusive grant funding for public colleges that engage in cannabis research and development.

I believe you see Davis right across the way has a cannabis research and development project currently underway.

So that is primarily where we are seeing those activities.

Okay. Yeah, I was just curious because there's like a lot of life science buildings happening all over the place.

And I'm just wondering if this was a barrier to that, but it sounds like that's not the case.

Okay. Thank you. I yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I think, well, I know from being on the commission for these many years that the sensitive uses as we can attest to the discussion tonight and the years of issues we've had and, you know,

the UPs we've approved are not approved.

Sensitive uses is the real big kicker in this whole process.

And I appreciate the comments from the other commissioners.

I think, you know, I can attest to this has been the issue for us, right?

This has been the issue where, you know, we have this ability.

I say, okay, here's sensitive uses, but if it's within the 600 foot buffer, you can go to the planning commission and have a discretionary process, right?

And that has been the biggest issue for us.

And so I really want us to focus on where we go with these sensitive uses.

And I know that's been a challenge. I know that's what you're asking for tonight.

I think, Commissioner Buckley, I think you brought up a really good point, which is, you know, when you were talking about the youth facilities, right?

And you stated that you felt really comfortable with us keeping that term, right, instead of listing out, okay, these specific things.

I think where I, again, just from PTSD, right, have an issue with that is I've been asking for concrete directions, so I don't have to have these issues where I'm, you know, every time a permit comes to me or a request comes to me.

I'm dealing with subjective, you know, I'm dealing with subjectivity.

And even with youth oriented facility, right, that could be subjective because there are so many different variations and uses.

And again, I bring up the checky cheese issue because that would clearly be something that we would say, yeah, we need to add that to the list, but they sell alcohol.

So I want to bring that discussion back to this is a cultural issue that we're discussing here when we're talking about sensitive uses.

This is a culture shift for us, right? This is a culture shift where we're talking about, do we consider marijuana and cannabis less dangerous than alcohol because we can have alcohol sales at a checky cheese, right?

But I can walk into the Curse Park liquor store with my kids and they are surrounded by liquor and tobacco products.

And there is no issue with that. So I think as we go through this and I want the community to come out, right, and you guys to speak your mind.

We want to hear your feedback, we want to hear experiences, but I think the bigger picture here that we're talking about is cultural.

So, what do we see, right? I had a conversation as I started on the commission because these issues around sensitive uses were becoming such a challenge.

I met with the mayor about it. I met with some of our city council persons. I met with then police chief, Hawn, right, and had discussions around what are your opinions around this, right?