When city staff went through and grouped the 13 applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) into four tiers, they identified seven in Tier 1 or Tier 2, including just two – All Good Wellness and Good People Farms – in the downtown area.
According to staff, those in the downtown caused “the most friction with adjacent neighbors and/or presented staff with concern in regards to compatibility with adjacent uses.” But they also asked the commission to give them additional thoughts about locating any dispensaries in the downtown area.
Staff seemed to weigh heavily whether the application drew opposition, but that proved to be somewhat controversial as well, as one applicant pushed back with many letters of support as a means to counterweigh opposition.
The result was a different mix by the planning commission than the ones presented by city staff.
The council by ordinance is set to approve four come May 1, with the planning commission identifying five by majority vote for consideration: California Grown at 1605 2nd Street, All Good Wellness at 325 G Street, and F Street Dispensary at 416 F Street all drew unanimous support, with six votes. Meanwhile, Kinda Farma at 946 Olive Drive drew five, and Good People Farms drew four votes for, but two against.
The rest drew no more than three votes, and that included the proposal at Delta of Venus which seemed to polarize the commission between those who felt the location was a good one versus those who didn’t. A couple of commissioners like Greg Rowe and Darrell Rutherford, for example, were disappointed it didn’t get ranked higher. “I think it’s a really neat location” and “one of the best, most well-written applications. I think the combination of dispensary with a well-established restaurant and entertainment venue could be really interesting operation,” Commissioner Greg Rowe said.
Darryl Rutherford traveled to dispensaries across the region, unannounced, to take a look at the dispensaries. He said, “What impressed me the most was all the traffic at all the locations. What I witnessed was all the different
types of people that came around there.”
He said that some of the locations were off the beaten path, where everyone had to drive to get there. “That was pretty challenging,” he said, noting that it reminded him of some of the locations here. Parking at those locations he found challenging.
He found some of the locations downtown in Sacramento “that I was pretty impressed with.”
Mr. Rutherford said he was impressed with “the professionalism of the staff in general. All the operations were very impressive. I felt very comfortable in regards to the health and safety of our community allowing these uses here.”
He added that the security “alleviated a lot of the fears I had.”
Mr. Rutherford said, “The amount of traffic that this kind of use generates will help make our community a little bit safer.”
Parking, however, he thinks will be a challenge, though he believes that the turnover will help the parking crunch. He does believe that the locations at F and G Streets, with the close proximity of the parking garage, will alleviate some of those concerns in town.
Commissioner Stephen Mikesell pointed out, “It isn’t so much my feelings about what’s advantageous about the downtown locations, so much as it is about what is disadvantageous once you move out of the downtown.”
He said, “It makes sense to me, instinctively, that retail and downtown go together.” At some of the other locations, he argued, retail really doesn’t belong with current uses. “If you’re going to introduce retail into the city, go to the area where all the retail is,” he added. His one exception to the downtown is the one on 2nd Street, right on the edge of where the core area of town is.
But there was no consensus on these points. Greg Rowe saw this 18-month time period as “an opportunity to select four really different locations and operational models.”
At the end of that 18 months, “I think the city could use more than four and the city will have some operation experience to decide where they want to go next.”
Mr. Rowe pointed out that many other cities will not have operations like these. “So, to me, having a location that’s on the outskirts of town, outside of downtown, that’s easily accessible to the freeway so someone can come in (off the freeway), is a real good opportunity.”
“I feel confident that cannabis retails outlets can be a benefit to the city,” Commissioner Cheryl Essex said, noting that in her travels around the region, she found the businesses well run with good security operations.
She argued, “The foot traffic can be real helpful in areas in downtown.” She added, “It would make sense to make a few of the locations downtown.”
Ms. Essex added, “I like the idea of having a real mix of access.” That includes having a drive-through for those interested, while having locations accessible to foot or bike traffic would help others. She said, “I don’t want them all to be ones with walk up access and limited parking. We need to blend. A mix can help us during this pilot period (f0r) what the best type of operation is going to be.”
The votes by the commission are simply advisory. Community Development Director Ashley Feeney told the Vanguard, “We’ll have our final recommendations for City Council. That wasn’t a consensus by the entire commission.”
Instead, he explained that the vote was indicative of which locations warranted further consideration by council.
While the commission as a whole emphasized downtown as a location, staff will look at a variety of locations and considerations.
They believe that some customers will have a single purpose for making trips, and therefore their presence may not enhance the downtown.
The view is that, while downtown is worthy of consideration and there could be some benefit to other merchants, there is also a feeling that it would be a mistake to locate all of them downtown.
The discussion and recommendations of the planning commission will now be presented at the May 1 city council meeting, along with staff’s final recommendations.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“They believe that some customers will have a single purpose for making trips, and therefore their presence may not enhance the downtown.”
I guarantee that after that “single purpose” is fulfilled, ramen shops, bakeries and fast food joints near dispensaries do well. All About Wellness has Ryujin ramen house, Raijin ramen house, Ohana Poke Bar, Peets Coffee, Starbucks, The Safeway Bakery and Panda Express within a block and all are busily thriving.
We encourage ‘single purpose’ trips by allowing private parking lots downtown. Retail centers benefit from foot traffic, so a venue that brings in large numbers of customers every day benefits the other shops in the area as long as those customers are not driving from venue to venue. Consequently, onsite parking for dispensary customers should be limited to ADA access.
“They believe that some customers will have a single purpose for making trips, and therefore their presence may not enhance the downtown.”
Laughable – especially if said of any other business.
It’s like these are unicorns in the eyes of some.
I think we should use comparables of bars and liquor stores. Bars – we have more than four and they are located in the downtown. Liquor stores are more dispersed. Liquor store may be more comparable because of the lack of onsite consumption. But in neither case is there concern about single purposes and given tax generation not sure why it matters.