This is discrimination against minorities seeking equity in the cannabis business. This ordinance segregates us to underdeveloped flood zoned land that is mostly federally zoned.

This ordinance specifically targets new minority on businesses looking to start up and or expand in the Sacramento regional area. This ordinance would redline businesses who have committed to giving back to the communities that they are from and would cost a shortage and available commercial properties, leading towards inflated commercial rent. This proposed ordinance undermines the ability for respectable safe businesses to operate.

I oppose the proposed ordinance in district 2. As a core graduate with a pending CUP in district 2, the ordinance is another slap in the face to those that were severely affected by the war on drugs and seeking equity opportunities in the city of Sacramento. The ordinance does not consider those that have pending CUP applications that would lose a substantial amount of time, energy, effort and money. The proposed area in the district is undeveloped and in a flood zone. The city promised equity in the cannabis industry and this is another attempt to keep those from Black and Brown communities on the outside looking in.

We are urging the commission and planning to oppose this proposed ordinance and provide a clear definition on over concentration that includes transparency & a clear breakdown with data on how that formulation is made in order to define over concentration in D2. We are also requesting that the planning/City council vote on that definition and allow community input on that definition before it is even considered into adopting this into ordinance. The staff report states that the city needs specific criteria to create a concrete policy that determines a clear definition and thresholds for undue concentration. Therefore, this ordinance is premature from a land use perspective. Currently, undue concentration is subjective and should not be used to determine a need for new distance limitations. We are urging the commission to oppose this ordinance and vote on determining a clear definition that’s voted on and then adapted into ordinance before considering this proposal. & provide REAL DATA

I oppose this ordinance. The staff report states that the city needs specific criteria to create a concrete policy that determines a clear definition and thresholds for undue concentration. There were no new findings, evidence, or new criteria in the health and safety plan that supports the proposed ordinance, furthermore the current buffers established have proven to work. The data in the staff report isn'􏰀t accurate and doesn'􏰀t give a realistic number of the amount of businesses that would be impacted by the proposed ordinance change. The staff report doesn't capture businesses like mine who planed to apply for a CUP, but because of the past moratorium and now proposed ordinance change have left me in limbo costing me substantial amounts of money and time. The proposed ordinance doesn􏰀't promote equity, instead it segregates current and future businesses to areas that are not developed into extreme flood 􏰁zones. The ordinance proposal discriminates against cannabis businesses.

I'm commenting to oppose Agenda item 5, Land use Cannabis Study for District 2. Cannabis is now legal (recreationally/medicinally) in 41 States. The VOTERS have spoken. The City of Sacramento, (the State Capital) including D2, should be leading the (multi-billion dollar) Cannabis industry and therefore should not adopt Agenda Item 5. In addition to holding the Cannabis industry back in Sacramento, Agenda Item 5 should not be adopted because District 2's report is frivolous and filled with fake news. This report has no clear goals, assigns distancing limits based on no educational reasoning or case studies. Additionally, this report condemns the Cannabis industry in its entirety when in fact there are at least 6 different entities: Store front, Delivery, Testing, Manufacturing, Cultivation and Distribution. This report treats all cannabis entities equally, when in fact they a completely different. This agenda item is a set back to the City of Sacramento and its Voters.

I oppose the proposed moratorium in District 2. This revised ordinance is functionally identical to the original, a de facto ban on cannabis in D2 due to its overly restrictive setback requirements. 1,000 feet setback from residential zones is understandable, but 1,500 feet from churches which are placed randomly throughout commercial and industrial zoned areas is an absurd restriction that paints the entire cannabis industry into tiny corners of D2 which is simply not tenable. Our project is well outside of the residential setback but would be invalidated due to a church located in an industrial warehouse across the highway. If this church setback provision is retained it needs to align with the reasonable standards of the existing Title 17 code of the City i.e. 300 feet setback instead of 1,500 feet, and projects within the setback are not rejected but merely elevated to PDC review. At very least the 1,500 feet should be by walking distance and not as-the-crow-flies linear radius.

I am concerned about the councilmember's transparency to his constituents. He held one public meeting on 6/16/21 in which the study was presented. He has not posted any of the materials presented on his Facebook page or his official city council page. I question his outreach strategy. The recommendation of a buffer and concentration is not data driven. There is no data that supports the use of the buffer. The buffers create only two areas in the district in which new businesses can operate. This concentration unfairly gives the property owners within those areas the ability to inflate real estate and rental rates for property. Instead, the city council should revise the current cannabis ordinance to allow these businesses to operate in all the districts - rather than impose them on D2 and D6. Furthermore, if these districts are going to absorb the majority of the businesses, revenue should be returned back to the districts as opposed to the general fund.

This proposed ordinance is a partial fix to the over-saturation and undue concentration of cannabis in District 2. This needs to pass, then a CAP must be implemented. There is ZERO cannabis in District 1 and 7. There is plenty of available area outside of District 2 for cannabis uses. District 2 has it's share.