City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, I'd like to call this meeting to order at 2 or 3 PM. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Kaplan. Here. Council Member Dickinson. Here. Council Member Plunkettbaum is expected momentarily. Council Member Maple. Here. Mayor Potemgara is expected momentarily. Council Member Jennings.

I'm here, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Vang. Here. Mayor McCarty is expected momentarily, and Vice Mayor Talamantes. Here. Thank you, you have a quorum. All right, I'll make an acknowledgment.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgements in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nisenan people, Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwimintu 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 act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives. Thank you. Salute, pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And City Attorney, is there a closed session report out?

In closed session regarding public employee discipline dismissal release the city council voted to terminate the employment of the interim director of the office of public safety and accountability effective immediately the action was approved by unanimous vote. That's all.

Thank you so much. All right, and now we will have special presentations by Council Member Jennings, 50th anniversary of Green Haven Soccer. Vice Mayor, we're going to move that to 5 p.m. this evening. Oh, for request of the Council Member. Got it. Okay, I do not see any soccer players in the crowd, so that makes sense. All right, so consent calendar. Do we have members that would like to speak on any items? Council Member Maple?

Comment on item four, please.

Council Member Kaplan.

Yes, comment on item 4 and 13.

Seeing no other members signed up to speak, we will start with Council Member Maple on item 4.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to say that I'm very excited about the CalVIP grant. This is something that we're glad to see. It's over $5 million coming into the city, going towards violence prevention programs. We know it's really necessary. And I'm really glad that myself, Council Member Jennings, Council Member Vang, worked with the police department and other stakeholders on helping to develop this idea and move it along and really excited that that's where we landed. I do want to say just a note on this that as also as a part of those meetings that we held, one of the things that came out of them is that we really think that there needs to be a comprehensive violence prevention strategy as a city. We do obviously have the Office of Violence Prevention that does a lot of really great work. We have a lot of organizations that are doing that work every day on the ground. But I do think that it's time for us to also have a more comprehensive discussion. So I just want to say that on this item and hope that we can agendize something in the future on that. Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan on item four.

Thank you. Councilmember Maple, I will absolutely agree. I've brought up before, I think even to break it down, where I think we need a comprehensive youth violence prevention report. If you look at what Baltimore did in their programming and saw the big change, I think And that's something I've talked with with OVP and had in my round tables of meeting with individuals talking about youth violence prevention. I think having something tangible written down, I would be incredibly supportive of. And on this CalVIP item, not right now, Chief, but I'm really interested because this kind of changes the process and does referrals through school districts. School districts are a little hazy on how that will work. So I would love to hear always the devils in the details on the implementation. And I think school districts need a little bit more guidance. What exactly does this mean since this is an added extra step that they need to take, then I'm not sure they understand they actually need to take it. So while these implementing CalVIP is good, I don't see success right now because there's a gap between how do school districts let the CBOs know and how does that work? Because right now it's directly It's a different process. So I think we need to maybe take our time on what does that look like and city manager maybe meeting with the superintendents or their security student safety team might be in order. before this fully gets implemented because I don't want to see gaps in the implementation for this. And as of course, I will always continue in this when we talk about youth violence, Natomas Unified still wants a school resource officer and I think this is incredibly timing as we've seen a spike in youth violence occur in our city that we see how we can implement things because we really do need to address youth violence that appears to be on the rise and the number of guns in youth hands under 24 How do we address that? So I am very supportive of this. I will move consent and hope that we can get a report back, whether from you, Madam City Manager or Chief, on how the implementation is with schools.

I also want to echo Council Member Kaplan's comments just on the SRO for Natomas Unified, especially with these dollars, working directly with each other to make sure we have better outcomes for our kids. Over the weekend, I did have a 16-year-old young person that passed away in my district, and I always think, well, what are we doing and what can we do better? Because at the rate that we're going, it's just extremely unacceptable, and we have to work together to help our community. I'm happy to second it and appreciate the direction from my council colleagues. And then item number 13, Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just I really want to appreciate staff and everything that they're doing as this is implementation as part of the river arc and getting more capacity. And one of the things I just want to clearly say that I had asked staff and gotten clarification on, because when we talk about water, and increasing our capacity. Some look at it, oh, that means there's more capacity for growth outside the city. I just want to make sure it's stated on the record that the county is not participating in this. This is only the city, and it's not for purposes for any other development that is outside the city boundaries, but really just helping manage water, flood control. But I just wanted to state that for the record.

Good.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

And are there, sorry, is there a public comment on? I have no speakers on the consent calendar.

Okay. All right. Thank you. So all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Noes. Abstentions. Two abstentions.

And two absent. Yeah, two absence. Gara and McCarty are absent.

Okay. Sounds good. All right. So we will move along to public hearings and we have item number 16, 2025 urban management plan update. I'd like to open the public hearing. Welcome.

Well, good afternoon, Madam Vice Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Brett Ewart with your Department of Utilities, water supply supervising engineer. And today we'll be conducting what I would say is a somewhat regular hearing. We do this every five years. It's procedural. We are going to be considering our urban water management plan and then our water shortage contingency plan. We last updated this in 2020, and this council heard it in 2021, June, right around this, about five years ago. So high level, just for the audience and for city council, what is an urban water management plan? It really is, it's one of our long range water supply planning documents, probably the most public facing. It's really, while we may slice and dice all the water information and projections on demand and water supply into all sorts of categories, in its essence, we are simply comparing what is our water supply portfolio versus What are the demands for water over a significant period of time? We're looking to 2050 in this particular one. We'll identify, I mean, we do get into the granularity, identifying some of the water supply practices, you know, where is water predominantly used in the city, for what purposes, but in essence, it is to the state and to our, you know, entities of our public to ensure that we can say we have an adequate supply of water for our drinking water resources. Into some of the details, it is also where publicly we will identify our water efficiency practices. We will report specifically in this document. Five years ago, we hit an important milestone, which is what we called 20 by 2020, where we needed to show that we had met a 20% reduction by 2020, and we hit that with sailing through it. And you'll see that we've continued that practice through this presentation. It is required to be updated every five years by the Water Code. It also requires this public hearing and adoption by City Council before we can deliver it to DWR for their consideration. It is a key component, a foundational document of our water supply assessments and is mated very tightly with our general plan. So developments of any material size here in the city will be required to prepare a water supply assessment. That water supply assessment relies upon this urban water management plan before you can move forward. So important document. If we look back to 2020, I would offer to this council not many changes in the statute, frankly not at all. Minor tweaks in the guidance, the team that helped us put it together actually worked with the state of California to develop the guidebook on how to prepare and submit these urban water management plans. There are details within here, I mentioned our water supply demand and demand and supply. We include a water shortage contingency plan that also needs to be updated. It needs to be aligned with the groundwater sustainability plans and SGMA, which it is. And again, we provide updates on our water conservation targets. Just some high level takeaways for this council and for the public. We are seeing a minor increase in our water supply portfolio. This rests on agreements that the city entered into in the 1950s. It's a slight ramp up of our portfolio, which is good news. We continue to be below our targets and meeting the state's not only past water efficiency targets, but its current ones as well. Right now, we're about 29% below our 2020 targets. So the community continues to respond to calls for water efficiency and wise practices. We are well positioned within our water supply portfolio, our water rights, to meet all the demands identified within our general plan through 2050. So that's another good takeaway. I will acknowledge though, and the nuances within this plan, is that we recognize openly you know, climate pressure on water supplies throughout the state of California, absolutely. I'll discuss it near the end a little bit, some of the things we're thinking about as we adapt to climate change, warming temperatures, and impacts on our snow reservoir. I thought this whole presentation could probably just look at this particular illustration. So you see on the bottom, it's unitless, frankly, on the vertical axis. You've got a couple different things going on here. You've got your rainfall over a significant period of time, back to the early 1900s, identifying some of the significant droughts, the pandemic, economic downturn. You see for a significant period, the vast period of time for the city of Sacramento, the rise in the demand for water was roughly paired with the rising population, not a surprise. Though I will say, in the early 2000s, things have changed progressively since 2000. We've been increasing our water meters. That is universally deployed throughout the city. Public awareness has risen. Some of the statutes have been passed looking at water conservation. So you see in around, say, 2008, really sort of a divergence of the demand for water. That coincided with the economic downturn in those period of years. You see a mild increase. This would be the green line. Of course, population stabilizing a bit in 2009 and then starting to rise again. Then we hit the 2014-2015 drought period. But ever since then, you have seen the public continue to hold on its water efficiency practices, and that's where you see that disconnect. So the community has responded to that call to be careful with our supplies. The other item that Council, we ask, consider today is the adoption of our water shortage contingency plan, also required by statute. It's six different stages. That is something the state of California insists upon. This plan is aligned with the requirements of the state. City Council has actually enacted this water shortage plan a couple of times in our prior droughts. Examples, stage one might be city-owned parcels would restrict its water use, increasing our public outreach campaign. The previous couple of droughts, city council has enacted a stage two water shortage plan. That would be increased patrols, the aforementioned increase in public information. We might also, we would fine folks for water misuse. When you get out to say, you know, the stage five, stage six, that's where something dramatic probably occurred. You know, an earthquake, for instance, may have demolished a water treatment plant and you'd be looking at health and safety water.

That's not something we've ever done here.

Overall, I would say this water shortage contingency plan is really just an extension of the past. Our past one was also aligned with the state requirements, this one is as well. Public outreach is a key component of this Urban Water Management Plan. As I mentioned, this is one of our most public-facing documents. This just gives you a sense of the requirements that the state laid out for us. We followed that. What you don't see on here is some of our outreach within the Water Forum community. This council may recall we passed, we adopted the Water Forum Agreement, as did all of the other agencies and stakeholders of the Water Forum. One of the areas of interest in the Water Forum and the stakeholders was an earlier look at this document, more time to think about it, consider it, evaluate the contents, so we provided a 30-day draft to the entire Water Forum membership for their consideration. At this point, though, we've received no comments at present. So moving forward, this is really about our last slide before we move to the hearing. I can look with a degree of confidence, all I like, at a broad water portfolio from a water rights perspective. We have entitlements on the Sacramento River. We have entitlements on the American River. We have groundwater resources. But we can't make it rain. We can't make it snow. And so your staff continues to lean into evaluations and considerations moving forward. I'd mentioned the water efficiency measures. Those are tightening over time. That will take continued outreach and effort, rebate programs, engagement with our community to meet those targets. We... The jury is out, I would say, and you may have recalled this from the Water Forum discussion, on whether it will be wetter or drier in the future. This plan looks out to 2050, but we have climate models looking out to the end of the century. The one area they agree on, though, is that our snowpack is in peril. That is our largest reservoir in this region. By mid-century, probably a 60% decline in snowpack water equivalent. By the end of the century, perhaps 70%. You know, one of my colleagues, and this gets to this point of groundwater banking, one of my colleagues likes to say, if you can't store it white, you need to store it wet and underground to that point. So we look to diversifying our resources and the timing of how we operate our system to maximize the banking and storage of groundwater for those days ahead when surface water is scarce. You've heard about the Riverwalk project as well, as well as our own Water Plus project. Both of those projects not only enhance the supply and the infrastructure to deliver water, but they also consider how you're treating water. With rising temperatures, treating water only gets harder, right? So we're looking at more advanced techniques to treat our water supply. All of those would be embedded within the Water Plus and the River Arc project, as well as a more focus, a greater focus on the Sacramento River as opposed to the American. We know the American River and Folsom is a pretty small reservoir for a pretty large drainage system, so it's flashy. The other term we've often used amongst my colleagues is weather whiplash. You've got flood and then you've got drought. And so that is the nature of the American River. So both River Arc and the Water Plus program renew our focus on the Sacramento River. We are thinking about just our role in the region. The one thing that water does is it transects every boundary we have, whether it's groundwater, whether it's a surface water or a reservoir, Sacramento River or the American River. It moves past our boundaries. So partnerships are vital. We have partnerships with our local water agencies. We also do that through some of our groundwater sustainability agencies, the Regional Water Authority. We see benefits of that continuing moving forward That last bullet point, again, this council had heard about our water farm agreement previously. I mean, that's something we're leaning into. That's something implied within all of this. Greater resiliency with a focus on harmony with our river. So this would be my last real slide. The recommendation from staff is that council conduct a public hearing for this urban water management plan, and then consider adoption of the urban water management plan as well as our water shortage contingency plan. And with that, that concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you, and there are no members of the public signed up to speak on this item, so we will move to Council Member Kaplan. Thank you, Mayor.

Just a couple quick questions. As we look at this water plan and the contingencies, is Did this also look at, I know it looked at growth within the city, but did it also look at growth outside of the city because we are the major supplier of water? And so if there is growth along our city boundaries and they request our water, was that part of the analysis that comes into of whether we have enough water?

To a degree, yes. So within our water rights portfolio, we have something called the American River Place of Use. So that's an area where the city of Sacramento can serve water under the rules of the State Water Resources Control Board. That is how we partner with, say, Saxburg Water District or Sacramento County, over in the Power Inn area, some of the other water districts, so we can wholesale water under the basis of that expanded boundary that goes beyond So this plan not only includes the contemplation of growth within the city in alignment with our general plan, but it also considers the need to move that water into those wholesale areas within the existing place of use, not an expanded place of use, within an existing. The request to move our place of use and grow that would be an entirely different matter for city council to consider.

which thank you because that was like, is it aligned? How is it aligned when that comes in? Also, you know, and I've asked you this question because it is a bit of a conundrum that projects come to us and we approve it. But part of it is, well, do we have enough sustainable resources? So, you know, we plan 10,000 housing units. Where does the water come from? How did those two tie together if they even tie together?

So, if I'm understanding the question is, you know, how are we considering the growth in housing units and that relates to our water supply? We, you know, when we look at the general plan, we're extrapolating along with that general plan a demand for water that also considers the water efficiency targets that we're thinking about. Right, so if you told me 10,000 units 20 years ago and how much water they would need, I'd give you a different answer. Today, that would be a smaller volume of water. We've got requirements for landscape now, so there would be a reduction. Those projections are included in this plan. At present, if you were to look at our portfolio, again, setting aside the availability of water, right? When we think about climate change and droughts, recognizing that is different than your legal portfolio. Our portfolio right now is about three times the amount of water that the city of Sacramento is using on an annual basis.

That is good to know. So now switching over to the water shortage contingency plan. You brought up something that then I think we're also somewhat missing here is what happens with the catastrophic? What happens if there is a break and we can no longer filter the water quality and we have a Flint, Michigan? What happens if there is a flood and it shuts down? Or there's an attack on some of our infrastructure, which then makes it so that we don't know about where's our water and the water quality. Do we have, because that's not something I would want public, but do we and have we prepared for what that would look like if something catastrophic was to occur?

Yeah, I can sense my operations teams somewhere behind me just eager to jump up and answer those questions. We certainly have an array of emergency response plans, certainly. One of the benefits of being in the city of Sacramento is that we are at the convergence of two rivers. So we have two different water treatment plants, right? If one goes down, we have another. That's not a common benefit for a lot of water agencies to have those multiple sources. Each of those facilities can operate. There is no public feed into the telemetry to operate these things. So things like cybersecurity are of vital interest to members of our team. In fact, that's their sole focus in working for the department. The diversification including groundwater, that is also something not only as we move forward to constructing wells, we're also thinking about where they go. So when the water treatment plant maybe is turned off, it's still distributed in such a way that we can serve our community that kind of emergency supply. That is one of the additional benefits of a river arc type of project. It is now a third point of diversion for surface water. And so if for some reason you had some catastrophic failure on the American River or a Folsom Dam failure, you've now got a facility that is north of the confluence of those rivers, and so that adds to the robustness. Robustness in my mind, you know, you can either build a really nice widget or you can build a couple of them, right, to get the kind of redundancy. So RiverArk provides redundancy.

Perfect, thank you. I know I have a couple more colleagues, but I'll also close the public hearing.

Wonderful. All right, and I think those are really good questions just because, I mean, water rights, it will continue to be one of the most controversial political issues of our lifetime. I recently read the Sacramento Bee and they talked about Sacramento area districts clashing over water supply with the Citrus Water District and San Juan Unified. And then I saw Cap Radio, I forgot what, New York Times, and I was reading about Arizona and Nevada having their own water issues and water fights. And so it's good to see that the city of Sacramento is proactively planning our direction and our future here in the city of Sacramento limits to protect our residents and be able to provide safe drinking clean water. So thank you and your team for your good work.

Vice Mayor, if I could add, I'll just go back one, oops, I'm not gonna go any farther here. Okay, maybe the clerk can help me with going backwards here. You know, the finishing slide where we talked about maybe testing some of our vulnerabilities and moving forward, we do anticipate, so our water rights are up for review within the next handful of years. By the time we come back for our next urban water management plan, the city will have come to this council with some thoughts on how to engage with the Water Board on the nature of our water rights moving forward. I mentioned the climate concerns that we have. It has been easy historically to take this for granted that we are now testing the vulnerability tributary by tributary. We have water that not only is coming in through the river, but it's stored in some of those reservoirs up in the SMUD facilities up in the Upper American River project. So are you vulnerable from this tributary or that tributary or that tributary? That's an element that we are thinking about within our water rights and also to be ensuring the reliability supply for our customers.

And I do have a question on that with climate change and the rise of AI data centers, database centers. I mean, these database centers require so much water to keep it cool and to keep it going. And what you're seeing across the country is cities facing water supply shortages. And the amount of water it takes to, anytime you put a question into your chat to be tea, it takes like a water bottle, I believe I read. What is, do we have a plan as a city of Sacramento on, what that looks like for us if a project of that magnitude were to come into our area?

Well, certainly, you know, a project of, I mentioned material size, would have to go through its own water supply assessment. You know, the Department of Utilities doesn't necessarily pick the balls and strikes on, you know, what the business is, right? I mean, we're here to serve water subject to the policy direction of this city council. We are certainly aware of the controversy around water and the data centers. And I think it's, I will just offer from my own personal perspective, it brings up some interesting social questions. Do we have a robust supply? Yes. Any customer that comes in, though, if they need a fair degree of water, the amount of impact fees they need to support that infrastructure is commensurate with that need. So they would need, there would be no subsidy of that water to provide to a large user. So, you know, our portfolio is good, but I'm not sure that's always the best use, and that's what this council will eventually have to decide if such a center were to come in. I will offer, I think, the community that is developing these sorts of projects is also, I am of the understanding that they are looking at different technologies to cool these centers, maybe just not through the use of water, maybe more of a recirculation loop, things like that. So, you know, things ebb and flow with the technology, right?

Yeah, yeah. And that's for me, it's like AI is a climate change issue and something that the federal government, there isn't a lot of regulation, if any, at all. And that's where I think at the local government, we have to keep our eyes, like, peeled on that and focus on how we will respond at local government, so. Yes.

Agreed, Vice Mayor.

Okay, thank you. And next up, we have Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Since I have something of a proprietary interest in SGMA, I just wanted to confirm that I think it's articulated the plan that the management plan is consistent with the groundwater sustainability plans both north of the American River and south of the American River.

Yes, so the City of Sacramento is a signatory, a founding member of both the Sacramento Groundwater Authority, which Council Member Kaplan sits upon, as well as the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority. We engage in both. Our water demands or our extractions, we embedded in those plans what our vision was for groundwater resources for the city of Sacramento. Some years back, we went through a groundwater master planning process. We went through a CEQA process. This council saw to approve an EIR articulating that interest in groundwater for reliability for the city. those demands were embedded within the groundwater sustainability plans of both agencies. So they are included as well.

Okay, thank you for that. And then with respect to the water shortage contingency plan, can you expand a bit about how that stepping up or stepping down process of reducing Water consumption, if there's a shortage, also aligns with the GSPs, if it does?

So whenever we enact these water shortage contingency plans, in my experience the two times, in my personal experience, both of those have included the decision of this body. In some cases, there was the state of California, I'll say, insisted. upon it, at least some level, maybe a stage two. And this council agreed with that and saw fit to press that forward. We have enacted water shortage plans or at times when it wasn't insisted upon though as well. Again, a decision of this body. Without having to think specifically about, let me back up, we have enough operational flexibility within our system that during the middle of summer, we have enough capacity in our surface water treatment plants to turn off almost every groundwater well in the city if we needed to. We need to make sure there's enough pressure, right, so you continue to have levels of service for your community. But nearly every well could be turned off operationally. And so we are keenly aware of the thresholds for how much water we can extract to maintain groundwater sustainability. If I had another hour here in front of you, I would probably bring in some of the state's mapping on the groundwater resources in this area. I think the council member, Kaplan, is probably aware sitting on SGA that we are one of the few areas in the state of California where groundwater levels are rising. We are banking water as quickly as we can, and I see more of that in the future.

Okay, thank you, that's good to hear. to know that we're actually banking water. Sigma is actually inspired significantly by SGA when it was originally created. I appreciate that. And obviously we need to maintain, meet flow standards on the American water temperature requirement. There's a lot of factors to balance. I can imagine that those can be challenging in a water shortage or a drought period. And so my question really was just whether I was focusing on the groundwater side, but on the surface water side too, since you said you could almost stop drawing groundwater if you needed to, that those are all elements of the calculation of what water you would use, as well as implementing reductions in demand.

This was a rich conversation in the Water Forum negotiations. I would say all stakeholders within the Water Forum appreciated that the core mandate for the Department of Utilities, if you will, and frankly any water agency, is making sure that residents have clean, safe drinking water. Nobody had issue with that. If one were to pull up the city's water form specific plan, our particular agreement, there's acknowledgement by all parties that we need to meet a level of service for our customers. But what we also openly offer to all the stakeholders is to the degree that we have the flexibility, probably not well known by everyone in the community, but the 100 square miles of the city of Sacramento is essentially one big pressure zone. A drop of water can move from north to south, east to west. And so to a degree, operationally, we can shift from one river to the other river, and we have done so in the past. When conditions on the American River are stressed, even if we are below some of our regulatory diversion guidelines, we have the ability to shift some over to the Sacramento River preferentially. Sometimes we work in collaboration with our federal partners, to align with some of their statewide requirements for their drought plans, if we can shift from one facility to the other. So not only different sources, but different facilities as well.

Right, well, you have to have that flexibility, obviously. So I appreciate that. Did you move the item?

I did. I'm gonna close the public hearing.

And I'll second.

All right. Well, we will have to continue this item in a second. We do need eight. No. Oh, not this one. Oh, OK. Never mind. Just kidding. I thought we needed eight votes on this one. It's the next item. OK. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Nos. Abstentions. And three absent.

Yes, you have Maple, Guerra, and McCarty absent.

OK. Thank you, Vice Mayor, City Council.

Thank you so much for your presentation. All right. Next item is number 17. I'd like to open the public hearing on the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor Telemantis and city council members. I'm Mary Jean Rodriguez from the Finance Department. The item before you is a public hearing for the Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District annual proceedings. Annual assessments are levied in this district to finance the maintenance of city parks and other public landscape areas, street tree maintenance, graffiti abatement, as well as the energy and maintenance costs of street lights throughout the city. Stapp's recommendation is for Council to conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt a resolution confirming the budget and levying the assessment for the upcoming fiscal year 2026-27. Thank you, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Are there any public comments on this item?

I have no speakers on this agenda item.

Council Member Kaplan.

I will open and close this public hearing and appreciate the due diligence staff does for making sure and being aware that many of the areas our lighting districts and maintenance districts in are in disadvantaged areas that can generally least afford increases. So thank you for maximizing the output and minimizing the amount of the increase.

Council Member Dickinson.

I just have a question. You've got a fund balance of a little under $6 million. You're proposing, if I understand what you're presenting, to use about $416,000 of that. Is there a longer-term strategy? Obviously, we're very constrained in funding versus desire or demand with the lighting and landscaping districts, and this one in particular. Is there something that you see over the years in terms of using the fund balance, or are you just trying to maintain year to year? Tell me what is the plan.

Technically, it's a combination because the fund balance can be used to future funding of those unfunded funds. you know, maintenance that's, you know, that's, it's not a priority. So that could be used, but the initial decision making is actually the department actually managing this budget. So we established a budget for them and they're the one who actually control the spending for the year.

Okay, so you're just looking at from the budget standpoint, not the operating standpoint? Yes. Okay, I got it. Is there anyone here who can answer the question I've raised?

Anybody from public works or parks that can assist, please?

Okay, let's see. Yeah, got the mats. All right, we're going to the mats.

Matt, welcome. You have until November.

September.

September. Retirement's near.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor Matt Arman, Director of Public Works. So it really depends on the pricing and the level of service, right? So we are taking a huge initiative to reduce our medians at this point in time to take out the grass areas and refocus our funding towards actual giving the level of service that we want, right? Because during some years we went from monthly service to back down to biweekly service. So we're in an operating situation. We only have the limited amount of funds that we have, and we need to put all that work into that money.

I appreciate that, Matt, absolutely.

But here comes Pete. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. So one of the other things I just want to point out is we have been drawing down this balance every year. So part of it is trying to maintain that level of service like Matt had been talking about.

Is that really the plan is do what you have to do while you have the money to maintain level of service? Is that?

Well, we're, like I said, we're taking high maintenance areas out and we're putting low maintenance areas in, so we're taking some of that money and buying into that as an investment.

Okay, so, because it looked like, if I recall, last year you used a lot more of the fund balance than you are proposing for this year. Is that right, Pete?

So I just don't have the number from last year in front of me, but a couple million last year.

And it's like, yeah, as I said, 416 for this budget that we're looking at. Yes. But you're you're you're trying to make operational improvements. I get that. And efficiencies.

Correct. Because otherwise we'll run out of out of money. Right. At our current pace.

I mean, and eventually you're going to run out. Right. I mean, you're using up the fund balance.

We are, but I think what Matt's saying is they're looking at ways to... Reduce our ongoing costs.

Correct, yeah. So one thing that interests me is, and I think we've talked a little bit about this, is look at solar lighting as opposed to hooking up to SMUD. It's much less expensive. It may have other considerations, but I'm thinking on the lighting side. That was one. But the other is whether or not we're thinking about approaching, I mean, it's a tax measure. It's got to go to the voters, I believe, to get a bigger contribution. But whether at some point we're looking at that.

Yes. Yeah, I mean, that would definitely help. but it would be on the policy side of it, really, rather than the operational side of it.

Well, yes, you're right about that decision. I just know that, I mean, one of the things that is clearly very deficient in North Sacramento is street lighting. And, you know, looking at this, They're not going to expand street lighting unless we do some different things, which is either get a lot more efficient with the money we've got or get some more money or both.

Currently, we have 40,000 street lights that we maintain, and there is no plan to add more outside of development, right? So it does become an issue. And we're very restricted on the lighting and landscaping funding that we can use. towards new infrastructure. So we're always in the market to work with our partners and our districts to try to help increase the lighting, whether it's working with SMUD or it's trying to figure out how we can get this level of service to our constituents.

Yeah, maybe it's a longer conversation about both those things, about the operational and the policy side. So thank you, Matt. You're welcome. And Pete, thank you.

Council Member Pluckybaum.

I'll be supporting the item and also supporting Council Member Dickinson's request for a longer conversation. I think it's time that we look at some of the areas of the city. In addition to North Sacramento, there are whole spots in the city that are underlit. And in that conversation, I would also request that we do a discussion about the lumens and the Kelvin, the color and the brightness of the lights that we're using and how that aligns to national transportation safety standards and and also aesthetic goals for the city, thank you.

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Noes, abstains, two absent, McCarty and Guerra. Okay, moving along to item 18, an ordinance amending various provisions of title 17 for cannabis land uses. I like to open the public hearing.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council Members. My name is Kevin Collin. I'm the Zoning Administrator for the City of Sacramento. I'm joined today with Kurt Skierski and Matt Hertel, our Director. I'll be giving our presentation. By way of overview, I'll first touch on the background for this work, summarize, secondly, the ordinance for consideration this afternoon, and then conclude the staff recommendation. For just over four years and over more than two dozen meetings, the city staff, including the finance department and community development department, have been working on various policy questions directed by council related to the regulation of cannabis from a business perspective and a zoning perspective. I'm today presenting an ordinance that pertains to the zoning aspects of cannabis And more recently, back in September, we were before you seeking direction on what should an ordinance contain for the zoning aspects. We received your feedback at that meeting and then subsequently returned with an ordinance in November. And at that meeting, we received further direction from the council, which I will summarize and which we have strived to incorporate into an ordinance for your consideration this afternoon. I could distill the conversation, the discussion and direction at that November meeting into two topics, first being sensitive uses and the buffers, and secondly being the permit type. And I'll address each of those in sequence. At our last meeting, we received direction to include certain sensitive uses, which are on the slide before you. Those are included within the ordinance today, and there's a few changes in terms of additions that are also in the ordinance. These are buffers from which cannabis businesses are 600 feet, which I'll address the distance in a moment, provided different permit levels of review. So we have K through 12 schools, parks, community centers, libraries, museums, rehabilitation centers, youth-oriented facilities, and with the additions of other dispensary facilities, and church and faith congregations being added to the ordinance. You may recall at the November meeting we did have a significant number of speakers on those last two topics. Staff subsequently met with groups from both of those topic areas and received additional input which we have addressed in the staff report to explain the rationale while we felt including those was appropriate within the recommendation today. To summarize what this means for business types, the zoning aspects of cannabis apply to different business types. All of the sensitive uses that I just described would be applicable to dispensaries. So these are storefront dispensaries. We have many other business types. Production is an umbrella for the manufacturing aspects of cannabis, as well as testing is applicable to a K through 12 school. Schools are a mandatory prohibited buffer across the board. Additionally, at our November meeting, there was discussion on a motion that pertained to a proposal to differentiate between the sensitive use buffers for schools to add a subcategory of high school and increase that distance from 600 to 1,000 feet. We've addressed this in the staff report. Should there be a motion to include this in the ordinance? At the time, however, we didn't sense that there was a majority opinion for this council. We did not include it in the ordinance, but it is teed up and prepared should it be included in a motion today. The second topic we heard from the council was a desire to retain the status quo conditional use permit. This is code today. In the ordinance, it would remain. This is a discretionary permit which requires public notice and a hearing before a decision is rendered, either approval or denial. And how it works today is how it would work under the proposed ordinance. If you are a dispensary, you are either more than 600 feet and subject to a zoning administrator conditional use permit hearing. If you are closer than 600 feet, you require the planning and design commission's review. All businesses, including production and testing, would need that conditional use permit. We presented a graphic like this previously to help the community and our decision makers understand geographically what that means. The map on display here shows properties that we have identified that are located either within the 600 foot buffer or outside of that. So being either subject to the zoning administrator level of review or the commissions. With that, I'll keep it short. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. We are recommending that you pass a motion adopting the ordinance, including the secret determination.

Okay. And how many members of the public do we have signed up to speak?

Vice Mayor, I have 27 speakers. I believe you've already opened the public hearing, correct? I did. I did. Thank you. Okay. We will do public comment first, and then we'll take it back to the council members. Thank you. As I mentioned, I have 27 speakers. Feel free to line up in the aisle in the middle. Nick Karras, Dale A. Burney, Tillman Whale Jr., Natalie Price, Pastor Ronnie Walton. You have two minutes to address the council, and the timer is on the display behind me. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Council. I'd like to say that I represent the Karis Family Trust. I've watched our tenant, Crystal Nuggs, be the template of what the core program has determined that is necessary for the success of cannabis. We all know that the cannabis market is supplying 8,000 jobs here locally in Sacramento. That's something that we can't deny. We also have to keep in mind what is fair, what's just. The Sacramento City Council was the ones that had the guts to go with the core program. to put aside the stigma. We just really don't want anything further to slow down the process, slow down the permitting. We're definitely in support of the city council and the guts they've had in order to bring this matter. To the front and I hope to see a positive vote.

Thank you Dale Dale Bernie and Tillman whale Good afternoon vice mayor and councilmembers As I stated a few weeks ago, faith-based organizations of all persuasions, meaning Protestants and Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, among many, many other faith traditions of every ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status would be adversely, detrimentally, and negatively impacted if we are not allowed to remain on the sensitive youth zone list. Faith-based organizations provide ministry and service to the same demographic or the same people groups. And in some cases, we provide more services than other protected service providers that are on and that will remain on the sensitive use zone list. As faith-based organizations, we are not asking for special treatment. We are simply asking for equal and fair treatment. Our value and worth cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents. However, our value and worth are incalculable to our respective communities in particular, as well as to the city of Sacramento in general. The fact that we are currently on the sensitive use zone list strongly suggests that previous city councils appreciated, respected, and understood that value and that worth. The real question before us this afternoon is, does the current city council likewise appreciate, respect, and understand the value and worth of faith-based organizations? If so, then please vote to allow faith-based organizations to remain on the sensitive zone useless. Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Tillman. Following Tillman is Natalie Price, Pastor Ronnie Wolton.

To the distinguished members of the City Council, Mr. Jennings, Ms. Maples, Mr. Dickerson, who knew my father. My name is Tillman Wade. I'm the senior pastor of the Unity Baptist Church of Sacramento, Oak Park. I'm here today in support of the proposed cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provision that recognizes church and faith-based congregations are a sensitive issue. The ordinance protects schools, parks, libraries, community centers, museums, youth-oriented facilities, and substance abuse rehabilitation centers because they serve families, children, and vulnerable populations. Faith-based organizations serve these same people every day. Thank you.

Natalie Price.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council Members. The cannabis ordinance amendments before you create a false safety net. They ignore the realities of after-hours crime, and they contradict the very spirit of Measure L. When you took office, you accepted the responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of every neighborhood represented in this chamber. Today, you are not simply regulating an industry. You are exercising the public trust placed in you by the residents of Sacramento and serving as guardians to the next generation. First, that false safety net. To planners, this may look like lines on a zoning map. But to parents, they are the invisible boundaries that separate places of childhood from places of adult commerce. In 2026, children do not only learn in traditional school campuses. They learn in our churches, our libraries, community centers, museums, homeschool cooperatives, and parks. Yet under this ordinance, those children lose protection simply because their classroom does not fit a narrow government definition of a school. No parent should be forced to choose between uprooting their family, sacrificing their values, or accepting a dispensary next to their child's learning environment. Proponents argue that neighborhood buffers must be reduced to create more opportunities, but I'm sure we all agree that safety cannot become the variable we sacrifice when convenience is difficult. The 4.30 a.m. raid last month, ending in a death, shows us that conditional use permits don't come with a crystal ball. And when you move dispensaries closer to homes, daycares, churches, and youth-serving facilities, those risks come closer as well. Measure L dedicates nearly $10 million annually to childhood education and youth drug prevention, yet today you are considering allowing dispensaries next to the very centers receiving those funds. On one hand, this council invests in children, but with the other, you may reduce their protections. I ask you today to vote no. It is the responsibility of the council.

Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Pastor Ronnie Walton. Then Deanna Garcia.

City Council, City Manager. My name is Pastor Ronnie Walton, pastor of Jubilary Evangelistic Ministry, and I'm here today to support the proposed cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provisions that recognize churches and faith-based congregations as sensitive uses. I want to thank the city staff. Council for listening to the concerns raised by faith-based organizations throughout this process. The ordinance protects schools, parks, libraries, etc. Faith-based organizations serve those same purposes. We provide youth programs, mentoring, counseling, food distribution, recovery support, and community outreach. In many neighborhoods, faith-based organizations are among the most trusted and impactful community institutions. The question is simple. if we protect other communities serving code organizations because the people they serve, we would treat faith based organizations definitely the same. Point is, I feel like I'm preaching now for a minute. We are not requesting special treatment. We're not requesting special treatment. We are requesting equal treatment. We are calling, on the council to adopt the ordinance as drafted and retain these protections. Thank you.

Deanna Garcia? Deanna? Following Deanna is Mahesha Bahati, then Kaylee Olgerson, then Erin Cardoza.

Good afternoon. Mayor's missing, but all city councils. I wanna thank you and the city staff for putting together this new ordinance and moving some good regulations forward, like the 600 feet buffer between dispensaries. That's really great. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the grandfather clause for pre-existing cannabis operators. So if we're already operating and a sensitive use moves in near us, then that's their decision, so I appreciate that. And I appreciate the fairness of the CUP application. The CUP application is very rigorous and it is a city's way of doing business with multiple businesses across the city landscape and I believe in the process and I believe the city believes in the process and I thank you for leaving it in.

Good afternoon, City Manager Smith and Council. My name is Maisha Behati and I'm the owner of Crystal Nugs. We are a cannabis delivery and dispensary and we're located here in District 4. First off, I would like to thank staff for including protections for existing dispensaries when a nuisance of abuse moves in. I also appreciate Councilmember Guerra for helping to elevate that issue during council conversations because businesses should not lose out on future opportunities based on circumstances that have changed after we were lawfully established. I also want to recognize that protecting youth is a priority for the council and I agree that not every community is appropriate for a cannabis business. I also feel like Councilman Kaplan's buffer increase to 1,000 is fair and reasonable. I believe there is room to strengthen protections around youth while still preserving a meaningful CUP pathway. Four years ago, I went through the CUP process. It took us six months, cost us nearly $40,000, required extensive public notice, community outreach, and we also had a planning and design hearing. It also involved multiple layers of city departments. I've heard that the CUP process described as a loophole, but as someone went through it, I respectfully disagree. CUP is not something that we actually look forward to doing. It's long, it's expensive, it's heavily scrutinized, it involves multiple layers of review. But it works. Today, my business stands as factual evidence that a highly visible cannabis dispensary can reside and coexist next to a sensitive use. During our public hearing, we had 33 letters of support and seven opposition. Opposition included we were going to bring crime, homelessness, a nuisance to the area. Guess what? Three years later, none of that has materialized. So I'm just here to ask.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Kaylee Olgerson. Aaron Cardoza. Following Aaron is Daryl Collins.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor, City Manager Smith, and members of the City Council. My name is Kaylee Ilgersen, and I'm here on behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber and our coalition of licensed cannabis operators throughout the City of Sacramento to offer our comments on the proposed Title 17 amendments. We want to begin by thanking staff and the Council for working collaboratively with our coalition during this process. We support several key elements of this proposal, including the restoration of dispensary to dispensary buffers, the streamlined permitting process, and the first-time protections for existing operators. Our primary concern, however, is the proposed addition of churches and faith-based congregations as a sensitive use. This staff report acknowledges that this change would have the greatest impacts on districts four and five, significantly reducing the number of viable C3 zoned locations available to licensed cannabis businesses. The stated goal of these amendments is to create a more streamlined and predictable permitting process. This addition, however, would work against that outcome. Operators who would otherwise qualify for more efficient zoning administrator review would instead be directed into a lengthy and costly CUP process requiring planning and design commission review. That means longer timelines, higher costs, and greater uncertainty for businesses. Sacramento's licensed cannabis operators are already navigating a highly regulated marketplace while competing with an illicit market that does not follow the same rules. The city should focus on strengthening the regulated industry by supporting businesses that create jobs, pay local taxes, and invest in our communities, while ensuring the permitting framework remains workable and predictable. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the council to preserve the 600-foot dispensary buffer, maintain first-time provisions, support the streamlined permitting framework, and reconsider the addition of churches and faith-based congregations as a sensitive use group. Thank you for your time and consideration today.

Next speaker is Aaron Cardoza, then Darrell Collins.

Good day, Assistant Mayor, City Councilman, Councilwoman, my name is Aaron Cardoza. You guys see me every time we have the meeting, I'm here showing up with some kids. I've worked with three different sets of kids, three different groups. One, I'm a youth minister, that means I'm at a church, okay? Two, community center, I'm with the youth, right? Three, I'm at a school, also with youth. The kids you see behind me, gang and gun violence. We have a problem with gang and gun violence in the city of Sacramento. How do we stop that? Not by putting drugs in our neighborhood, not by putting cannabis right by our schools, parks, and churches. You can't do that. There's no way. There's no way. We think about, I heard a lady say, oh, we don't have any crime. Well, where are you at? Where's your cannabis club at? Well, then that's why you don't have no crime. But if we talk about a few months ago, a kid got killed trying to break into cannabis. It's going to bring this to our neighborhoods. I live in Del Paso Heights district. District 2, Dickinson, you know, because you are our councilman, right? I want to appreciate those that help the youth and always looking out for the youth. If you want to look out for the youth, you guys want to be there for the youth, it's not putting cannabis in Del Paso Heights around schools, churches, parks, or even community centers, resource centers that I work from. And that's going to happen. If that happens, what is our kids going to do? They're going to smell it. They're going to go find it. And that's what we're trying to stop. We can't put drugs around schools. We can't put drugs around parks and community centers. What are we thinking here? We got to make it make sense. We want to stop violence. We don't stop gun violence. Drugs cause gun violence. That's the problem with our city right now. Kids are on drugs. So put that around Del Paso Heights, Oak Park, Meadowview, Fruit Ridge, and them areas, and guess what? Them kids is going to get more crime, more violence is going to happen, and it's just going to be more that we have to work on. I'm already working on stopping them from gang and gun violence. Please.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Daryl Collins. Following Daryl is Tyson. Can't see.

Well, thank you for this opportunity. Mr. Aaron has said quite a bit. But I'd like to ask, I know all y'all got kids, grandkids, family members, babies. How many of y'all want drug selling and activity around your babies at your schools? I doubt it. You know, we look at DARE, Drug Abuse Resistant Education, DARE. And that was established in 1983 by Los Angeles Police Department. to keep drugs away from my babies. Now, it'll be quite interesting to see how this goes, but I'm not going to be long. We think about the root of all evil, the love of money. So this is about money. We're not thinking about our babies. We're thinking about money. Nah, don't work. We need to think about our babies. If that was your baby, cannabis store down the street, you ain't gonna allow that. So don't bring it to us. Please don't bring it to us. How dare you? Thank you.

Next speaker is Tai Zen, then Eric. Next speaker is Tai Zen, then Eric, then Pastor Terry McClain. Is Tai Zen here? Is Tai Zen here?

Good afternoon. I'm going to just keep this real short and simple. I recently got baptized. You know, I gave my life to the Lord. And it just breaks my heart that you could just go to the park with your kids, down the street, go to a church, and just have to worry about marijuana. having to worry about having to smell that toxins in the air and shouldn't no family or no parent have to worry about walking outside with their kids and having to smell that outside. It not only affects the little ones, everybody that's around it, it affects and it, Sorry, I'm kind of nervous.

You're doing great.

Like Mr. Aaron said, it brings more gun violence because people be out here trying to rob people just because of the simple fact that, oh, you got this amount of weed or you got this or that. I want that. Now somebody's life is took just over marijuana. And... Yeah, that's all I have to say. No loopholes!

Next speaker is Eric Dostey, then Pastor Terry McLean.

Close enough. It's actually Dostey, but it'll work. No, I was just going to be brief, because like I said, they really said what I was going to say. I was just going to put it a different way. I just think that We talked about earlier about how we can do things to help the youth in the violence in Sacramento. Well, this is one way. But I want to also make it clear we're not asking that you close down cannabis shops, which really would be my purpose. But I'm just going to say that we understand that there's a business and there's employees. We're not asking that you close them down. We're just saying, man, consider that those same people that you're protecting at the schools and the parks and things, they're the same people that come to church. And faith-based organizations. And let me just say this lastly. I don't know if any of you attend faith-based organizations, but would you like to come out there and you just counsel a child about being careful about the things that they do and walk right out and see a cannabis shop right there looking at you? When I ask you to move it out to the city, just stay away from where it is. That's all. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terry McClain, then John Johnson. And if I can ask members of the audience, I do need you to take your seats. Per fire code, we can't have you standing in the aisles. Thank you.

Good evening to everyone on the councilman. My name is Terry McClain. I'm the pastor of Pearly Gate Baptist Church, District 3. I'm just up here just asking you to look. You opened up your talk when you was talking about the violence has been risen. Think about why the violence has been risen. When you have drugs in your body, it alters your mind. Weed alters the mind. That's the first step to removing to what you guys was talking about when you opened up your talk. The only way that's going to happen is to allow us to do our job, you do your job, allow them to do their job. You said this, you opened up and you talked about, you said the Pledge of Allegiance. We are all one nation under God. And as we stand here today, we stand here today as one nation under God. And we are standing here because God allows us to stand here. We're not asking, as everyone said, we're not asking for no special treatment. We're just asking for a fair treatment, not to take nothing away from nobody, not to add nothing to nobody, just to be treated fair. That's all we ask. Thank you.

Next speaker is John Johnson, then John Windham, then Annalisha Sanchez, and Helica Sanchez.

Good afternoon, council and vice mayor, and good to see you all again. I'm Pastor John Johnson of the New Life Christian Fellowship Church of God in Christ here in Sacramento in District 2, and Roger is my councilman. We stand here today, as you have heard, many have come before you, just to let you know, to reiterate that in District 2, in our area, we're not going back. We're not going back. What has been done to progress ourselves away from the drugs and the robberies and the the mistreatment of people within the neighborhood and the communities, we have moved away from that and have come together more as a core of neighborhood working together and living together. And especially when it comes down to supporting you as the council and supporting you as the city of Sacramento. Our areas have been cleaned up. The drugs and selling of drugs have dropped over 75% in the last 13 years that I've been pastoring this particular church in this area. Again, we need the buffer zone for over 50 plus churches, and we need it now. And now's the time for you to act upon it, and now's the time for you not to stand back and say we can do it later, but now's the time for you to be responsible. Thank you very much.

Next speaker is John Windham, then Angelica Sanchez.

Greetings, council. My name is John Windham, formerly incarcerated of 28 years, 11 months. I am what it is to have drugs in your community. I am what it is to have drugs and commit violence because of your mind state being altered in your community. I am now a community activist and community leader and no child should have to decide whether they're gonna use drugs or not because it's in their community. If it's not in Elk Grove, If it's not in Carmichael, if it's not in El Dorado Hills, it shouldn't be in our communities either. So I asked, did y'all think about that? Think about these babies. I don't want none of them to do their day because they wasn't thinking because they was high on drugs. Exposure is everything. We must be careful about what we're exposing our children to. They should not have to be exposed to drugs at churches, in schools, and at parks. I chose to get those drugs illegally, and now they can get them legally up the street? It won't be just one John. It'll be hundreds and thousands of Johns, and we don't need that. I say want for our community what you want for yours. Thank you.

Speaker is Angelica Sanchez and Mindy Galloway.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor, City Council members and staff. My name is Angelica Sanchez and I am here representing Perfect Union. We are a cannabis retailer that has operated in the city of Sacramento for the last 15 years. First, I'd like to thank Council and staff for all the work that has gone into these Title 17 amendments. I know that cannabis can be a very divisive topic. As staff noted, this process started over four years ago as an effort to review, update, and modernize Sacramento's cannabis regulations based on the findings of the EPS study. The EPS study that found that cannabis businesses did not have a negative impact on the community. In fact, they were stated just to have the same impacts as other regular businesses. The study was commissioned to evaluate Sacramento's cannabis regulatory framework and guide future policy development. The Title 17 amendments before you today are intended to modernize the code and streamline opportunities for licensed cannabis businesses while maintaining appropriate safeguards. For that reason, we support moving these amendments forward. However, we strongly oppose adding faith-based congregations as a sensitive use. Throughout this process, discussions have been guided by data, and we are not aware of any documented evidence demonstrating that licensed cannabis businesses negatively impact places of worship. Adding this new buffer is inconsistent with the goals that initiated this process and would significantly reduce the already limited areas available for cannabis businesses, potentially eliminating approximately 25% of the available relocation area in the city of Sacramento. We respectfully ask the council to approve the amendments while removing faith-based congregations from the sensitive use requirements. Thank you for your time.

Next speaker is Mindy Galloway. Daryl Heath, Richard Willoughby.

Hi, good afternoon, Council. My name is Mindy Galloway. I am the CEO and owner of the Pocket Dispensary. I appreciate the Council and City staff's efforts to help streamline processes for licensing. Having a cannabis business can face many challenges and difficulties. We have very strict regulations, elaborate compliance, high tax rates, and a stigma that hurts our businesses and reduces our profits. Any streamline of policies would be helpful to us, and I do ask that you keep the dispensary to dispensary buffer in the ordinance. Having dispensaries too close to each other will create saturation, further reduce profits, and potentially ruin our good standing relationships with our communities. It is very important to create sustainability in our current businesses so that we can survive in an already drowning industry. I do what I do because of purpose. Medical cannabis has recently been rescheduled to schedule three, proving medical benefits and the ability to improve daily lives for patients. Although this is true, cannabis is still viewed as an illegal drug and community members are still afraid. We work to be outstanding members of our community and educate where we can on the uses of cannabis and how it can improve your life. As a small independent business, this is very important to me. Please keep the dispensary to dispensary buffer. Thank you for your time.

Next speaker is Darrell Heath, then Richard Willoughby. I have 10 more speakers.

Good afternoon, Council. To Roger Dickinson, who I know, and Ms. Vang, my council member. I stand to ask to support keeping churches in a protected area, in a protected situation. I heard someone say that there is no evidence. We just had a young man say he went to jail because of use of cannabis. I don't know how there could be no evidence. Doesn't make sense. And I have a personal, my church is right down the street on 4th, and we have a buffer wall between our church and a house that was a dispensary. Every Sunday morning, I park my car against that wall. I would have to get out of the car and hold my breath to get into the building. And we have a good time in church, high in church. And I'd leave high because of what I smelled outside. So it does affect. It has an effect. We have a food pantry at our church. Every Friday, we feed up to 300 people. And we have people, children there. Now, thank God the dispensary's gone. But when it was there, we had to harden our church to make sure that things didn't happen, because certain things would happen. So again, we're not asking that you put them away. We're just asking, be fair. And my question is, why would you want it next to the church? Why would that be something you even question? A place where we're trying to help people overcome, they walk out, and they're met with what they're trying to overcome. Doesn't make sense. You are sensible people. It doesn't make sense.

Next speaker is Richard Willoughby, then Donnell Riggins.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Councilman. My name is Richard Willoughby. I am the pastor of More Life Worship Center and More Life Academy. My church is located in Del Paso Heights. I'm here today to support the proposal cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provision to recognize churches and faith organizations as sensitive use. It is important. that we understand the work that we do in our community to protect our children from these elements. I know there's a lot of studies out there about cannabis, but it affects our community. And as the gentleman just said, Pastor just said, we're helping people that are dealing with issues and drugs and for them to walk out of our church to smell the thing that they're running from. would be a travesty. And so we need to be conscious of what we're doing. Again, it's not always about money. It is about the people. I know the council here is trying to balance things and trying to make sure that you have funds and revenues. But at the end of the day, it's about the people. It's all about the people. If we don't do right by the people, then we have problems. And so I would appreciate that you would consider the cannabis issue and make sure the churches are on that. Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Donnell Riggins. And I think it's Etsy Simmons.

Good morning, Mayor. Good morning, council members. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Dickinson, our council person for District 2. My name is Donnell Riggins. I am the proud pastor of Del Paso Union Baptist Church. We celebrate 80 years as an institution in that community. And we've worked diligently to assist individuals who are struggling with drug addiction. And so we are here standing and in solidarity with these pastors and faith community leaders who are present today and a growing list of pastors across the city who are concerned that churches might be eliminated from the sensitive use list. I'll be brief in saying this. if we protect other community organizations and entities that are serving the same constituency, the same populations that churches serves, why, what reasonable logical reason would there be to remove them from the sensitive use list? And so we're calling on you to adopt the ordinance as it is currently drafted, which is to include the provisions for churches and faith congregations to continue to be on the sensitive use list. Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Mr. Simmons and Carla Black.

Thank you. Good afternoon to the mayor, vice mayor, and to the rest of the council. My name is Esley Simmons. I'm the founder and senior leader at South Sacramento Christian Center over on the 5th District. So I've worked with many councils, many mayors over the years, and just want to ask that you Allow this ordinance I'm here to propose that I am here today to support the proposed cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provision that recognizes churches and faith congregations as sensitive use. So many of our relatives and our friends have grown into what's in their view. And when you place a cannabis dispensary in the view of a child or in the view of an adult, I'm concerned about the children as well. But I ran a drug center for over 23 years in the Bay Area and then here in Sacramento out of our church. And we feed about 1,400 to 2,500 people every weekend. We own the cow skate with the former cow skate company. And it's used for kings and queens. We are interested in our young people. And so I'm just asking you to consider seriously this proposal that's before you to include churches and faith-based organizations in this ordinance. The current ordinance gets right by including churches and faith based congregations on the sensitive.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Carla Black, then Zeus, then Horatio. Carla Black. Carla Black, please proceed.

Sorry, I just want to set this up for you guys.

Of course.

I'm asking you to protect all sensitive uses equally. If children deserve protection at elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, then they deserve protection at daycares, preschools, parks, youth centers, after school programs, community centers, churches, rehabilitation facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Children are still children no matter where they are. The new proposal, this proposal creates three classes of sensitive uses. Schools keep hardline protections while second class places serving children, families, and vulnerable populations are pushed into conditional use process. That is a loophole, and the third, preschool, daycares, and in-home child in-home child centers and residentials are 100% eliminated. We have already seen why relying on the CUP process is not enough. The Diamond Head House rehabilitation facility became one of the most visible examples in this debate. If the process did not work to protect the rehabilitation center, then why should residents believe that it will protect parks, churches, youth programs, daycare centers, and neighborhoods elsewhere? We can't ignore public safety. Sacramento recently experienced an armed robbery at a marijuana business that turned deadly. My final question is simple. Why are we here?

And that's what this is.

It looks like the city wants to propose option one, two, and three of 10 more additional storefronts, 20 more, and then a free market. The city has not clearly explained that these zoning changes will make it easier to accommodate additional cannabis dispensaries, the smoke lounges in the future. If more dispensaries are anticipated, the public deserves an honest conversation.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Our next speaker is Zeus, then Horatio, then Stig E. I have five more speakers. Zeus?

There's another mic down there in case you want to talk into that one. Okay.

Hi, City Council. My name is Zeus. I'm nine years old. I like swimming and playing baseball and baseball and playing with my friends at the park. I know that cannabis is a drug and drugs make people brain sick. I'm asking City Council to please allow drugs to locate Please do not allow drugs to locate next to where me and my friends play. This council is supposed to protect kids like me, so I don't understand why the city wants to move cannabis business closer to places where me and my friends play baseball and where other kids play. Please don't allow drugs next to us. Drugs are harmful for everyone, especially young people because their brains are not fully developed. And these drug stores have even been involved in robberies and violence. Please think about my safety and kids first. I ask you to please protect Sacramento's children and neighborhoods. Thank you.

Next speaker is Horatio, then Stig E., then Stephan Walton.

Hello, my name is Frasier Arden. Hello, Vice Mayor and City Council members. I had this long thing to read, but after hearing everybody's testimony and whatever, I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory. You know, drugs, violence, and guns around youth, horrible decision. And right now, you guys have all the power to change that. So why wouldn't you? I mean, it's asinine that we're even here, standing here doing this. I just can't even think of any person in the world that would have the power to make an impact as you do and then don't do it, right? I mean, it just doesn't make sense. So why? Why not? Why are we talking about putting drugs near these places? It just blows my mind. And the lengths that people will go to to commit crimes just to have something or to take from someone else is crazy. I mean, the stuff that I have in here that I gathered from the internet was people are going putting drones on people's cars, following home, tying them up. I mean, what? Are you serious? all because they want something someone else has. And then we're going to go and put those, put these establishments next to these churches and these youth centers and these schools. I mean, that's a no-brainer. I hope that you guys see what, you know, the repetitive cycle that this will create. And I hope you guys go against this. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Steve, and Stephan Walton, and Bishop Weldon.

Dig E. All right. First off, I want to start off with this saying, let's go Sacramento A's, right? Let's get that going. Sounds awesome. Get on these parks and all these other regulations, do some Sac A stuff. But that being said, I'm a representative of the homeless. I'm a homeless influencer. So I inform you guys that drugs are already in their parks. They're there. And at the end of the day, what's the difference? Fentanyl, drinking, weed smoking, it all smells. It's all there. So, I mean, you might as well just go ahead and put a club right next to it. I'm all for it. I mean, me and my wife, we love on Sundays because I'm homeless. She's homeless. We sleep in a tent every night. And we go out on Sundays and that's our thing because we'll never have kids. You know what I'm saying? So we go out and watch kids play in the park and they're doing their thing and while they're drinking and have a great time. It's awesome. You know, all I'm trying to say really is I love my wife. She's amazing. You guys really shouldn't be a dummy. Just go ahead and let the loophole go. I'm all for it. Let's go Sacramento A's. And she brought you a little gift, Mayor. Here you go, Bubba. Y'all have a good day.

Our next speaker is Stefan Walton, then Bishop Katie Weldon.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Stephen Walton, and I'm here today with the Coalition of Faith-Based Organizations from Sacramento. At its core for us, the discussion about proposed cannabis ordinance is about how we treat community-serving institutions under city policy. Our position is grounded in fairness, consistency, and equal treatment. The ordinance protects schools, parks, libraries, community centers, museums, youth-oriented facilities, substance abuse rehabilitation centers because they serve families, children, and vulnerable populations. Faith-based organizations serve those same populations every single day. Across Sacramento, faith-based organizations provide youth mentoring, counseling, food assistance, recovery support, and community outreach. In many neighborhoods, they are among the most trusted community institutions. The question is simple. If we protect other community-serving organizations because of the people they serve, why would we treat faith-based organizations any differently? We are not requesting, as many have said, special treatment. We're requesting equal treatment. So the ordinance before you today gets it right. It includes churches and faith congregations on the sensitive use list and applying the 600-foot buffer afforded to other community serving uses. We urge you to adopt this ordinance as drafted and retain these protections. Thank you.

Bishop Katie Weldon. Bishop Weldon is our final speaker.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and the distinguished council and city manager. I also have a prepared speech, but before I get into my prepared speech, I would like to rebut what was said about the lack of statistics. Give you a little not so known history fact about me. I'm 59 years old. I've been black for 59 years. That's long enough to know that statistics follow events. We don't want any statistics. That's why we're here. The churches are in, we want them in the buffer zone. We want them to remain in the buffer zone. The populations that many of us serve, They have come out of prison. They are low income. They are struggling to make ends meet. But not only that, they are trying to protect their children. They're trying to protect their families and keep them away from things that would bring harm. We don't want those added things in our community. We want to make sure that at least there is 600 feet or whatever the buffer zone is. There's enough space around our churches that we can feel safe. Listen, I do enough funerals and enough memorial services. I think you ought to include funeral homes as well because I get high going to funerals now. It's everywhere. I understand that. But we believe that the churches need to be a safe place. The buildings that we have, the centers that we worship in, are called sanctuaries. And we would like our churches to remain sanctuaries. Thank you.

Public comment on item number 18. We'll move to council comments.

Yes, Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor. I also want to take the time of everybody coming to have this discussion. It is always. a difficult one because it brings up a lot of emotion and you know it's our job of of looking at everything and balancing and knowing the conversations we've had with those who are not here today um and those who have shown up over the years as this is not our our first time having this discussion and we we know it's a difficult one that you know wherever the council may end up MAY LEAVE SOME UPSET, BUT IT'S ALWAYS THAT STRIVING FOR THE MORE PERFECT UNION, THE MORE PERFECT GOOD FOR THE CITY OF WHEN INFORMATION COMES UP, HOW CAN WE CHANGE IT AND MAKE THINGS BETTER, BUT ALSO HOW CAN WE BALANCE AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO HAVE 8,000 INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK IN THIS CITY AND WORK IN THE INDUSTRY. THAT IT DOES DO A LOT OF GOOD WHEN WE USE THOSE TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR STUDENT INTERVENTION AND ADDRESSING STUDENT VIOLENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH. SO I WANT TO THANK STAFF. THIS HAS NOT BEEN AN EASY PROCESS. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER MAPLE FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON LAW AND LEDGE AND SHEPHERDING THROUGH THIS AND HAVING A LOT OF THE TOUGH CONVERSATIONS. percent there in front of council members. This is something that I brought up. It's really important to District 1. It is keeping everything the same, but just as you see subject to the form being approved by our city attorney, expanding the buffer for high schools. I I'm uniquely situated in my district. We have a fair amount of high schools as well as charter schools and some of these are in the commercial areas and We know and having been as you all know a school board member for two decades There's statistics and then there's the kids that I follow around in the morning late start Wednesday is a perfect example of watching them wander around our community and And sometimes it is what's in front of them. How easy is it to get access? And in my district, that 1,000-foot buffer would really help with some of those commercial areas where we have our charter high schools because there is space that they can be located in them. But the 1,000-foot buffer does make it a little bit more difficult specifically there. I appreciate the addition of adding in our faith-based institutions back in as for sensitive use and the balance of what staff did. I would like to make a motion to move this forward with the amendment of adding the 1,000-foot buffer for high schools as part of what we consider. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Mayor Pro Tem Guerra.

Thank you very much, and I'm glad we're at a better spot. I think when this came before us, the proposal had a number of concerns. One, eliminating the council call-up. I think every council member should have the opportunity to work with their community. And if things are not working the way that they should, if communication hasn't worked out between the community and an applicant, that a council member should be able to have a de novo hearing at the council and be able to exercise that ability. And because of it, you know, I think the tool itself has never had to be used. In fact, when people have threatened to not communicate with each other, you know, and I would say, hey, look, well, then we're going to have this at the council hearing, and then immediately people start talking to each other and get to finding a good resolution. So... I think bringing back the council call-up provision, it's a safeguard for every district, is important. The second, I do want to thank Pastor Walton for convening a number of our faith-based leaders. And I think we had about 17 or so that showed up to represent their congregations. and discuss the concerns that they had and i think the right you know about making sure that we have you know parity equality treating the same and and i think about uh... most recently you know uh... of faith-based uh... uh... facility uh... that decided on on friday nights to be able to host uh... you know beginner beginner skate park nights in their in their area now You know, Trips and Falls, that's on their issue, whether they want to take on that liability. But it was to bring kids in. And so there were a number of kids from four and five-year-olds to teens all together and using a facility that didn't have a lot of use on Friday nights. And so it was a place to create safety. So I do think that's important. I was particularly moved by some of the pastors who talked about how they've used faith as a way to address the challenges of addiction and to be able to bring community to help those who are suffering through that. And those places become a way for the community to help immense challenges that individuals have facing with addiction. I think that it's completely appropriate. I do want to thank, you know, Ms. Sanchez for her consistent years of work in helping us craft policy here and having direct understanding of what the challenges that the industry is going through. I still think the issue right now that is occurring on the tax policy where you have vertical integration is problematic for a lot of those organizations. So I think that's a conversation for later day. But this is one where I disagree with Ms. Sanchez, but I do want to thank you for consistently providing insight on how How how we can move forward? also, you know the the And then getting to the point about how how we move forward here There are folks here who have been involved in this for the last ten years and it has been difficult it has been a challenge but Making sure that we're proceeding with caution again I was one of those early folks who was not supportive of moving with with the cannabis industry and The voters spoke differently, but the fact that we've been able to move with the industry, the city, and the community to figure out what's a responsible way to move forward has benefited the city in that sense and provided protection. I appreciate the opportunity to make those changes to making sure that every council district has the ability to use the council call-up provision if there is a facility that is problematic. Also, there's a fairness question again. both for faith-based organizations and for the operators. I think the operators also, you know, they invest a lot of time, energy. They take the precautions about where they decide to locate. And so if a sensitive use chooses to locate next to an operator, well, then that's on that use's concern. I think the operators have done a lot to to understand where the boundaries are. And then finally, I agree, I think the distance, proximity between dispensaries is critical. That proliferation, we saw that with smoke shops, where in my district you had smoke shop after smoke shop locating next to each other. And I would not like to repeat that mistake with dispensaries as well. So I want to thank my colleague. I'll support the motion expanding. I think high schools is an important factor as well. I think that 1,000 feet, particularly with teens, is not too much to ask. I know that it creates a limited space, but those are spaces that I think need to be particularly after school where kids are hanging out. They usually hang out around the campus. I remember being a high school kid hanging around in the parking lot after school. 1,000 feet is two blocks. It's not asking a lot. I think that's appropriate for the high school provision. So appreciate those comments, and I just want to thank staff for, I know it was a rocky last hearing, but these are essential that we go back to the council call-up provision, even in the industrial sector. They have to go through the COP process. Do we need a deeper conversation about how we make the COP process more efficient, more cost-effective, whether you're a coffee roaster or a restaurant or other type of business? Yes, I think the COP process needs a better way of executing. But thank you again for staff for responding to those concerns.

Thank you. Councillor Maple.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to echo my colleague here and say thank you to staff for all the work. I know this has been years in the making now and has had many different iterations. I know that people have strong feelings on all sides of this issue. And so I just want to appreciate everyone who showed up today, everyone who's written in. I appreciate you being here and hearing from you. I also want to thank the staff for listening. So it's very clear, based on the staff report that's here today, that we do listen, that they are taking into account the feedback from different organizations, from people, from our faith community. And so I think that's very clearly reflected here. Even though it may not be what everyone agrees on, I think it's clear that we listen. I think there's one thing that I didn't hear today as much, but I think it's important to note in this whole context. And that is the elephant in the room, which is the illicit market. So when you say you go to the park and you smell someone smoking, guess what? Probably from an illegal dealer. When you see someone who's gone and especially a young person who's accessed it, definitely from an illegal dealer. We know because we've done the city and the state does regular inspections at all of our cannabis businesses. We know that the rate of people under the age of 21 accessing is virtually non-existent in these places that has been studied. over and over again. And so I just want to be clear that I don't think that these locations are where the youth are accessing them, but I do understand the concern of seeing it near you. I really do. And I do understand the concern of what does this mean if a young person is able to see it across the street or across the street from church or next to my school. And so while it was brought up, the EPS study that was done in 2022 now, several years ago, made it clear that there is not a direct data connection to negative consequences. We do know that there are still a lot of feelings about this and that there's very real consequences that do happen. We know that. We see it in the community. And so I think this really does strike a balance. For me, I wanted it to go further, but I recognize where everybody else is, too, and I think that's what this job is all about. It's about compromise and working with one another to find a path forward that makes sense for us and our communities and all the various districts that we represent. And the last thing that I'll note is that with the current rules that we had, even besides this, we already go well far above and beyond the state law here in the city of Sacramento. We have the entire time. The rules that we have in place, the buffers that we have in place go beyond state law and most other communities in the state of California. So I hope that folks see that, that we are able to see that there is a lot of investment into making sure that those buffers exist while still having an industry that can succeed in our city. It's important. Because we know that the only way you can beat out the illicit market is by having a legal market that is following the rules, that is following all the state laws and regulations, that is being taxed, that has testing, which is something that the illicit market does not have. And so I think this is the balance that we strike. This was striked after prohibition with alcohol as well. And, you know, I know that we can exist in harmony because we do it every day. When you walk out of your down the street in the road and there's a gas station that sells alcohol, you walk into a restaurant, they're selling a glass of wine. You walk down the street and you're going to find. And yet we have learned a coexistence in harmony with alcohol, which is a drug and is something obviously that. under the age of 21 should not access. And we found a way to do that within our market while eliminating people who used to create and make alcohol that was killing people in their bathtubs. This is a long time ago, but this is part of the history. So where we're trying to get to, I think, as a state is how do we eliminate the illicit market and all of the illegal drugs and products that are making young people sick and are allowing them to access it on the internet and other places. while having a thriving industry. So I think we're striking that balance here. So I'll be supporting this today and just want to thank the staff.

Thank you. Council Member Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll be supporting the motion that's on the floor. I want to thank my colleague, Council Member Kaplan, for putting the motion on the table. It's the exact same motion that I was thinking. So hopefully our time on the council together, we're starting to think a whole lot alike. And I enjoy that. But I also want to thank the pastors and the ministers who came here today and really advocated their voice in a way outside of the pulpit that, you know, this was their pulpit today to let us know why this is important and why we need to stand strong together to make sure that we don't create more harm in what we could have potentially, a decision we could have potentially made. And I thank them, but I also thank them for bringing all the young people and hearing the voice of the young people. That touched my heart as much as anything that has happened today. that you were here today to say no. No loopholes, protect more than schools, right? Make sure our churches and our parks are protected. That's right, raise it up high. And so I just wanna acknowledge you and give you a round of applause. For being here today and let this not be the last effort that you stand up strong for. You know, anytime something is going on, whether it's in the school or in City Hall, you stand strong to make sure that your voice is heard. So I just want to thank our pastors, our young people, and all those who spoke on behalf of keeping this ordinance where it is. And I'm hoping that we have the votes to be able to move this forward. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Thank you, Mayor. So I will be voting no on this item. I don't think that there is an appetite in my district to add more dispensaries. to the district. I did bring this up at one of my Cafecito Con Carina office hours, where I asked my community, like, how do you feel about cannabis? How do you feel about the policy that we're doing? And I heard loud and clear from my community that they didn't want more dispensaries in our district. And so I want to acknowledge the voice in my community. And so I'll be a no on this item.

Thank you. Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank those who've come to speak today, regardless of your point of view. It informs the conversation to have those views all represented in this public conversation. Secondly, I want to thank the staff, because this four-year road has been a long and twisty one, to say the least. And I think it's a reflection of how... not just the community, but how elected officials still struggle with this issue. Should we think about dispensaries more like coffee shops, or should we think about them more like liquor stores? And I think that we're still having that debate with sharp differences of opinion, not just in Sacramento, but across the state. And beyond and councilmember maple's point is certainly not to be lost here about about the illicit Market as well, and it's and it's its impact so this this route has been a complicated one because Those are the kinds of issues. We're struggling with where should where should we land on this on this issue? this question. Should we be of the view that we have enough and we don't need more, which there's certainly validity to holding that view, or should we be of the view that what the evidence and studies that have been done indicate is that there are not significant adverse impacts of dispensaries? Most of us, I think, are guided by our own personal view of this subject and this substance and our own personal experience. For that determination, it's less about what a study shows and it's more about what we have seen and heard and experienced. In our case, in District 2, I think there's a strongly held belief that that we have enough in that part of the city. In fact, we have more than our share. And so the point of view of saying no more is a appealing thought. On the other hand, I think that if We look at what the impacts have been. It is not easy to identify a substantial amount of evidence that indicates that the impacts have been adverse beyond community sensibility, which is not an inconsiderable element, but nonetheless does not rise to the level of a crime. Uh, that, that preface is all a way of trying to just share some of, some of the context of my own thinking about this, about this subject. And, uh, frankly, I think that we would probably be at least as well off, if not better off, if we thought about this more as the way we think about alcohol. licensing and the conditional use permit process that we apply to alcohol. We have two different constructs and I'm not sure that that really makes sense because of the similarity of the considerations for the two different substances. Nonetheless, we are where we are. Maybe we will evolve to something that's closer to a conditional use permit process as we use for alcohol over time. That remains to be seen. In this instance, a couple things that I do conclude. One is I think that restoring the call-up procedure is a sound step. I think that makes a lot of sense in this context. It remains such a sensitive subject. I also believe that providing the same treatment for faith-based institutions as we do for a host of other public uses makes sense. And so I support that, and I appreciate the advocacy of those who have carried that issue and raised it when it was not initially included, and we have responded to that, and I think appropriately so. I also think about, frankly, something we're not doing in this ordinance, which is with respect, I think it was the production and testing of making it a zoning administrator decision for approval as opposed to a CUP approval with greater than 600 feet because those frankly can be uses as I've seen that can have some neighborhood impacts as well. But that we will leave for another day. So in substance and in sum, I will support the ordinance that is on the table, the motion that's on the table. I think it does strike a balance. I think it respects public and important private institutions that deserve recognition in terms of buffering. But at the same time, we're doing some things that I think are sensible in the context of of regulating cannabis sales and streamlining the review process, which I think was a large part of our conversation at one of the hearings previously. And so we're not making it more onerous. We're making it less so for those who want to try to establish dispensaries and those types of businesses. So that is a balance, and that's where I think it makes sense to be today. And so, as I said a moment ago, I will support the motion.

Thank you, Mayor. I first want to take this moment to thank everyone who came today. All the pastors, all our young people, and our advocates who came today to speak about their experiences. Our faith-based organizations serve a critical role and an important asset in our community. Youth programming, senior program, you name it. Not just on Sundays, but seven days a week, right? And so I want to hold space and acknowledge that. And I do believe that As a city, we have a responsibility to be thoughtful and deliberate in our decision-making process, making sure that community serving institutions like our churches, our schools are preserved and that their voices are heard. I also want to take a moment to thank staff just for their hard work to get us to this moment. At the last council meeting when we had this conversation, I couldn't support the ordinance as is. It was actually during that time that I requested that council members actually have the opportunity to call up any proposed site for a public hearing before the final approval. I remember walking across the dais here talking to Council Member Guerra and trying to figure out how we could come to a compromise. And I actually do believe that the call-up provision really serves as an important safeguard in the process because we now have this tool available to us. And so what does that mean for me as a council member? It means that as a council member, I'm gonna be able to have all the relevant information. I could fully evaluate potential impacts, benefits, and unintended consequences for the churches or the minority-owned businesses. And I think that's important for the council members to have. And we should use it. And I think all of us should use it when a project raised significant community concerns, when we hear from our churches or institution, if there are long-term impacts on neighborhoods or youth-serving organizations. I think that's important. And the reason why I am supporting the motion on the table is because we have this call up provision that council members can actually do this during a public hearing, which means that we will get an opportunity to engage with the community as well. I think for me, it just provides an additional layer of protection and accountability. It didn't have it before because at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is also balance the interests of our community-based organization, our community members, and our minority-owned businesses that often are left behind. And so for me, our goal is not to create more barriers, but to ensure that we have a fair and thoughtful process that protects our community asset while also supporting equitable economic opportunities. And that's the fine balance that we have to walk. But again, the last time we had this conversation, it was really hard for me to support it. until we added the direction to add the provision for council members to call up a project. And I think that, you know, I support that. And so with that, I'll be supporting the motion on the table.

With that, we have a motion and a second. I just want to note that I support this. I think this is a good compromise and thank the council members for fine tuning it. I guess the big picture going back here, nearly 20 years that the city, Sac was one of the first cities in California that decided they want to take this industry out of the shadows and regulate it and tax it. And with that, we do have a program that we know funds are quite a few youth programs with that, with Measure L. So we have been a leader on this, but we can focus on refining it and making sure it works. And, you know, the big picture, speaking of the shadows, is, you know, you drive by First of all, I'll admit that I am not a consumer of these products, not to disparage it. It's come a long way over the years. But my understanding, some of the fastest growing consumers are older people, and they don't want to have to go buy stuff in the shadows. And like as Mr. Dickinson said, want to make sure the products are tested and safe and so forth. So having these lounges of a legal product is something that anybody would want to do. I will note that... THIS IS A VERY ISSUE TO MY LIFE. I HAVE TEENAGE KIDS, AND FOR THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH LITTLE ONES, TEENAGE YEARS IS ROUGH, RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER VANG? AND SO THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPOSURE TO THESE PRODUCTS AND, YOU KNOW, CANNABIS VAPING AND ALL THAT IS REAL AND LEGIT AND EASY FOR KIDS TO GET, BUT I WILL SAY I'M 99% CERTAIN THAT IT'S NOT THROUGH THESE LEGALIZED CANNABIS SHOPS. It's through other places that they can easily get them online or through other illicit entities, but it's not through our licensed cannabis shops. And then lastly, as Council Member Guerra noted, I had a district just like all of you, and I remember getting inquiries about nuisance properties and liquor stores and having seen cannabis locations in the city now for nearly 15 years. Rarely are there problems around our cannabis locations. So with that, I think this is the sound approach and continues the city of Sacramento having smart regulations related to this industry. So with that, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, there's one. Okay, okay, eight ayes, one no.

We have closed the public hearing and a no for Councilmember Talamantes. All others in favor? No motion passes.

Thank you.

We now move to item 19, which is a Nantobis Basin Habitat Conservation Plan fee extension of interim authorization. And I do need a four-fifths vote on this item. Let's take just a moment. If you're leaving, please do so quietly. We do have a few more council agenda items to go. Mayor, I might recommend that we take item 20 before item 19. Okay, we'll do that. I can guarantee you that it's less than a two-minute presentation. Yes, let's do that.

Let's wait one minute for the room to clear.

Yeah. We'll take item 20 and then item 19 when our council members return. We could even take item 21 So we will now move to item 20, which is the city council policy regarding disruption of city-operated telephonic or internet services during council meetings. This is from my office, and I can guarantee you it's less than a two-minute presentation.

Good afternoon, Mayor, council members, and charter officers. I'm Wendy Clark-Johnson, the assistant city clerk. As you know, last year, Governor Newsom signed the Brown Act Modernization Act, commonly known as Senate Bill 707, into legislation. This legislation requires that the Sacramento City Council as an eligible legislative body to provide opportunities for remote public participation during city council meetings. SB 707 also requires that the city council adopt a policy addressing disruptions to the telephonic services that the city uses to provide remote participation. The resolution before you adopts that required policy, establishes the procedures the city will follow in the event of a disruption or outage of the city's remote participation platform or city controlled systems.

Thank you. I have a motion by Council Member Gara, a second by Council Member Kaplan. I do have one speaker, Lambert, on this item. Thank you, Ms. Clock.

I was under the impression that this might address what we've been concerned about, which is There's no more call in. And it was disrupted by a guy who shook up City Hall to the core. And ever since he did that, a lot of seniors I know where I come from have asked me that you should turn the phone system back on to accept their calls. They can't come down here. So to me, that's a freedom of speech issue. Also, this overhead, I saw at work one night, I keep hearing that it's out of order and all of that, but I saw a lawyer come up here and say, hey, can you turn this on? And somebody got up and turned it on. So I think it's intentional that something's wrong with this. There's nothing wrong with this. They turned that on. And it was a long meeting that lasted until 1130 at night. So it was just one of the meetings. It's easy to go look up. All you got to do is go back and look at what was the last city council meeting that went to 1130 and they turned this on. This should be on. I mean, nobody wants to show something like this or turn our backs on you and show it to the public. You should be able to show that. And, uh, Internet services, if this is talking about remote working, I'm a person that says that I don't believe people working remotely should get a raise. What are they doing getting paid for Internet service at their home? That's abuse of COVID to me. People working remotely should not get a raise. What's your raise for? You're already saving money by being at home.

Mayor, that concludes our public comment on this item. You do have a motion by Council Member Guerra, second by Kaplan.

Okay, thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Seeing no nos or abstentions, that passes 9-0.

Thank you, Ms. Clark. We'll move back to item 19, the Nonhoma Space and Habitat Conservation Plan fee, extension of interim authorization. And I will open the public hearing.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. I'm Matthew Iola, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department. This item is a brief follow-up to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan fee adjustment that the Council adopted on May 19th of this year. The HCP fee funds the mitigation obligations of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan including habitat land acquisition, restoration, and long-term management. These activities are what allowed development to proceed in north and south Natomas under the city's federal and state incidental take permits. The Natomas Basin Conservancy updates the underlying finance model each year and this year's update supported a modest adjustment to the fee. At the May 19th hearing, the Council took three actions. It adopted the Nexus Study, it adjusted the HCP fee by a four-fifths vote, and made urgency findings that allowed the adjusted fee to take effect immediately, rather than waiting the standard 60 days under the Mitigation Fee Act. The adjustment increased the fee from $47,031 to $47,567 per gross acre, an increase of about $536 or 1.1%, mainly driven by increases in administration, operations, and maintenance costs. There is no impact to the general fund. That immediate authorization is only effective for 30 days. Today's action extends it for an additional 30 days, bridging the gap until the fee takes permanent effect on its own terms on July 18th. which is 60 days from the original adoption. The effect of this is that the adjusted fee stays continuous in place through the grading season with no lapse in coverage. I'll note that there are no changes to the fee amount or nexus study. This is purely the procedural step to maintain what the council already approved. Like the original action, this extension also requires a four-fifths vote. Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution extending the interim authorization and is available for any questions. Thank you.

Councilmember, are we a public comment on this? No. We're a public comment. Councilmember Kaplan.

I want to thank staff, and I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and adopt the fee proposal as presented. I'll second.

Motion is second. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any noes or abstentions? Seeing none.

We now move to item 21, which is the 2027 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, SHRA, one-year action plan, federal programs allocation process workshop number two.

Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Green. I'm the program manager for federal programs at SHRA. Tonight I'm presenting workshop number two for the 2027 one-year annual action plan for the city of Sacramento. As a reminder, the action plan outlines how the city will propose to use federal HUD entitlement funding during the upcoming program year. Those programs include Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, Home Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Solutions Grant, or ESG, and the Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA. This action plan process began earlier this year with workshop one in February, and since then, staff have been working closely with the city departments to identify and evaluate potential projects. Today's workshop, I'll review the estimated funding allocations, present the draft list of projects, and we would like to receive any input before the action plan is finalized later this year. Starting off with CDBG for 2027, we estimate the city will receive about 4.9 million, and this is an estimate based off of prior year's allocations. This slide provides a high-level breakdown of how those funds are proposed to be allocated among the eligible activity categories. As in prior years, public services are capped at 15% of the entitlement, and administration is capped at 20%. We're currently estimating about $670,000 for public services, which is below the allowable cap. And administration is estimated at about $790,000, which is well below the HUD maximum of $910,000. Oh, let me go back, sorry. Another major component of the budget is the required HUD loan repayment associated with Marisol Village. This is estimated at about 1.29 million for 2027. After accounting for these allocations, the remaining funding is for infrastructure and public facilities, housing rehab and preservation, and a small capital reserve for potential project adjustments. Overall, we're proposing about $1.55 million for infrastructure and public facilities and about $405,000 for housing-related activities. SHRA received over $3 million in infrastructure and public facility requests from city departments and elected officials. These requests were evaluated for eligibility, readiness and feasibility, benefit to low-mod income residents, and alignment with our consolidated plan. The requests include a wide range of improvements, including complete streets and pedestrian projects, park and recreation facility improvements, and community facility upgrades. This slide and the next show each of the projects proposed grouped by district. We had three requests in district one, three in district two, one in district three, and one in district four. In district six, we have one, five in district seven, although they are all at the same park and they are separate activities. one in District 8, and one that would provide city-wide services. These requests significantly exceed available funding, requiring staff to prioritize projects based on available resources, readiness, and city priorities. I'm sorry. I'm trying to hit back, and it keeps going forward. Sorry. There we go. As part of the review process, staff identified several requested projects that were either not currently eligible under HUD regulations or not sufficiently ready to move forward during the 2027 program year. Ineligible projects are the two at the bottom of this slide, the South Natomas Park Project, which is not located in a qualifying low-mod area, and the Animal Shelter Improvements Project, which would serve the entire city and therefore not provide direct or exclusive benefits to low-mod income residents. And then the Robla Parks Project did not require any additional funding. And projects that may still be viable in future years but currently would require additional planning or project development would be the Norwood Playground Project, Norwood Complete Streets, and the Del Paso Park Project. We'll continue coordinating with departments on these projects for possible future action plan cycles. After completing the eligibility and readiness review, staff developed preliminary funding recommendations from the remaining list of projects based on city priorities. Shown here is that remaining list of projects, and to the far right identifies which are recommended for funding and for how much. The projects currently recommended for funding include the Dixie and Alleyways design project, Marina Vista baseball field improvements, Fruit Ridge Road complete streets, Richmond Park basketball lighting, which actually is the basketball courts and the softball fields lighting and improvements to the asphalt, and the 24th Street bypass park improvements. The recommendation for all of these projects is to fund the full requested amount. The total funding is about $1.45 million. This slide summarizes the proposed allocations for the other funding categories of housing, public services, and administration. For housing, funding was proposed for both the Rebuilding Together Minor Repair Program and SHRA's Home Repair Program. These programs will help to preserve existing affordable housing stock and assist low income homeowners with critical health and safety repairs. For public services, we propose the Animal Care Services Homelessness Outreach and Assistance Program, which is a new program that was brought to us this year, Meals on Wheels, as well as the Capital Park Hotel Public Services. Administrative funding supports fair housing services, including the Renter Help Line and Project Sentinel, and overall direct administration and supports functions of the federal grant programs. For the city's home ESG and HOPWA programs, home funds will be used for multifamily affordable housing construction and rehab. ESG is proposed for rapid rehousing and or prevention efforts. And HOPWA funding will support supportive services for persons living with HIV and AIDS. Together, these programs continue to support affordable housing production, homelessness response efforts, and supportive housing services throughout the community. Finally, this slide summarizes the remaining action plan timeline. Following tonight's workshop, we will continue meeting with the city departments throughout the summer. Final budgets will be developed by August, and then the action plan will return to the city council in October for formal approval. After that, we will submit the completed action plan to HUD. So that concludes my presentation. We're seeking feedback on the proposed funding allocations and recommended projects before finalizing the action plan. Thank you.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks. Actually, I had a question. There's a 15% allocation for administration of the CDBG money, and this probably isn't a question for you to answer, but I wonder if we could manage to get away with less allocated to administration than that.

Yes, so we're allowed up to 20%, and this year we are actually much less than the 20%. The 20% maximum for administration is 910. We're at 790, and only 590 of that is actually going directly to CDBG administration.

Well, I appreciate that, but it doesn't answer the question whether we could get away with less. Maybe Chris wants to weigh in.

Yeah, well, Chris or Christine. Do you want to go, Chris? Go for it.

Good afternoon. I appreciate the question. When we first presented to you back in January, or was it March, for the first action plan workshop, that was the first time I've interacted with the city council, and I heard the concerns of the admin cost, and was there a way for us to reduce those costs? So we did go back and look at that, and we looked at the history as well, and we have been charging almost 20% per year based on the number of staff that are working on the projects and managing the program. But as we revisited that and looked at realigning, we did reduce. And we actually reduced the cost about 14%. There was an additional amount we had to put back into the budget based on COLAs and merit increases. So we went back up to about 16%. But we did reduce down based on the question and the concern we heard from the council.

So you went to 14, then you needed 16, so you took the middle?

Apologies for that, but right now it's based on the precedent of SHRA with regard to our budget, and we are in our budget cycle for 2027. We did have to put that back in based on union requirements and so forth.

Okay, I appreciate the explanation. We're searching for more money to get into the project.

And we did hear that, and we actually were able to put a little more money back into the capital project budget based on the realignment of the administrative costs.

Thank you, Chris. There are two very worthy entrants, one the alleyways, the Dixie and alleyways, and the others, the Babcock Park improvements. Without doubt, I'd like to scoop up money from other districts, but that might be a difficult enterprise to undertake. I'm trying to figure out whether there's a reason in particular that you looked at the alleyways as opposed to the park improvements at this point. recognizing that we've got a mobility study going on right now along Arden Way as well that's going to make some recommendations and whether this is connected to that in some fashion. But we also have work that's being done at Babcock Park and we're going to take hopefully one of these days open that. I don't know whether the best way to resolve that particular conundrum is cage fighting. That seems to be in vogue with certain people these days. But can you comment on that from your perspective?

Yeah, I mean, we certainly could fund Dixie on alleyways over the park project. I think, you know, we were going based off some staff priorities, but also, you know, we funded parks project last year and didn't fund any transportation projects. And so this year we thought we might try to balance it a little bit and do some transportation projects as well. But, you know, we're open to comments. That's why we're here.

Well, this is just the planning money for the alleyways. This is just be planning money for the alleyways, right?

Yes, I believe so, yes.

And so in order to actually make those improvements, we would have to find another much larger source to accomplish that grant, right?

Yes, and while we could use funding CDBG for planning, there is one concern there where if we use it for planning and we don't end up with a project ultimately, then that money will actually have to be categorized as admin, under the admin category. So that is a bit of a concern when we're using CDBG funds for planning projects only. So we would like to see a project move forward that is pretty sure that it's going to move forward and actually break ground.

Yeah, well, and that's really, it starts to get to the core of it, which is, which is what can we actually deliver? And maybe Leslie's got a comment on this, but if we can, I would tend to say if we can actually deliver the park improvements, maybe that's what we ought to do as opposed to planning for something else, which has got great merit to it, but how do we actually fund the project? This may not be a conversation that has to happen right here and now. Maybe this is something we all talk about together later since we're not taking action today, but I'm interested if you have a comment.

Yes, sir, I do have a couple comments as it relates to the Dixie Ann alleyway improvements, and I think we certainly can revisit that and see if we prioritize the park improvements instead, but I will say that the Dixie Ann Street improvements are in some ways tied to the Arden Way HSC grant that was provided. So there were some match requirements for some of those improvements. And it's my understanding this is tied to some of that match requirement. But we can revisit it as we are just approaching this list for your input today. And before we finalize the list, we'll have some more conversations internally with the Public Works Department, the Parks Department, and certainly CDBG staff and your staff.

Okay, and so this may be part of match for the state grant?

Yes, so there was some requirements for the HSC. They provided some funding for these Dixie and Alley improvements, and there was then some corresponding commitment on the part of the city, but we'll look further into it and see if we can make some adjustments based upon your input, sir.

Okay, all right. Well, I'd like to be part of that conversation. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Kaplan.

Just quick feedback. I don't want it presented in a certain way. You called it Norwood Complete Streets. It's actually not Norwood Complete Streets because that is a separate plan. This is just looking at a certain section of completing a sidewalk. So I just want to make sure that that's clarified when it comes back that we're not confusing the two. because that was one of the things of like not covering, you know, because it's not funded. Well, yes, Norwood Complete Streets is not, but we might be able to find a way with completing a sidewalk next to Norwood Junior High. Thanks.

Thank you. Council Member Guerra.

Thank you very much. First, I'm very excited to see prioritizing Fruit Ridge Road, particularly on the safety issues, the pedestrian issues. We have a school right there where there's heavy traffic, and the condition of that road has been just taking a Quite a bit of beating from all the heavy-duty traffic So I think the project moving forward to allocate funds to do all the safety and road improvements on fruit Ridge Road are critical into Helping slowing down the speed of traffic that's there, you know and beyond just council district six I mean, I appreciate the focus here on Meals on wheels of the support for senior services and particularly all the supportive services involved in some of the programs that we've heard some concerns about Capital Park Hotel I think making sure that we have the services in there to address some of the challenges we have, including the homeless outreach component, are critical. Let's hope, you know, I hope that home program stays intact. I'd like to see more of those funds for multifamily housing construction and rehabilitation. I think not only as we are growing our housing stock, making sure that we're maintaining our older housing stock and rehabilitation. So just wanted to thank for that action plan moving forward. I know many of these have been years in the works, but I think we have to stay the course on some of those programs and make sure that we actually execute them, not just on the planning phase, but actually on the construction phase. So I'm looking forward to a lot of those road safety improvements as well. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Mayor, I have one speaker, Lambert.

I wasn't sure exactly what this was talking about, but then as a native knowing that there's over 20 communities in District 2, right away when I heard Dixie Ann, I know what that is and I know what's going on right there. But I kept hearing some parks, but they didn't say what park. So maybe Leslie Fritchie can, and somebody can give me clarity because there are parks, there's many parks in District 2. Somebody said Del Paso Park. A lot of people think Del Paso Park is in Del Paso Heights. It's not. It's near, if my... memory's good, it's near Harry Renfrew Park, which is a different location. How do I know Harry Renfrew Park? Me and my brother and a lot of people, we played there. So we know that area. So when I heard Del Paso Park, I'm putting on the record that on my way here, I went by And I've been studying this park. I think everybody on the rostrum should take a trip over to a park called Woodlake Park, especially the new city manager. You should get familiar with District 2. It's over 20 communities. Go take a look at Woodlake Park. I went by there today. Do you know that place has two water fountains that work? Children's apparatus and a baseball field. But what it doesn't have that children are going to want to do, they're going to say, can I go potty? And there's nothing there for them to use. And the homeless are there. So that's unsanitary to me. To me, that's not a park if it doesn't have restrooms. It should have restrooms like Hagenwood Park. That's where you should put your money at is in Hagenwood Park.

We were talking about Babcock Park.

Okay.

OK.

I'm talking about Woodlake Park.

Well, I know what you're talking about. We were talking about Babcock Park.

We now move to council comments, ideas, questions, and AB123 reports.

OK. Thank you. What do we have up?

I see none. I have two speakers for public comments. Matters not on the agenda. Lambert, then Patrick B. Mr. Davis, you wanted to speak on matters not on the agenda?

Since you brought that up about Babcock Park and all of that, let me bring something up that we're very concerned about. There was a company called Wide Open Walls. We're going to stay focused on this. Wide Open Walls and also Sabonis Events, they received $160,000 under a no written agreement. That's unheard of. And they were caught by the auditor's department. The millennials and me, they think we should have gotten that kind of money. We have no scandals on us. How many people can say that? And we now know where the money came from. I would suggest that the city rostrum and the city attorney and the city manager's office have an emergency meeting because we have found out where that money has come from. And specifically in this report, it says that you're not supposed to award any written agreement over $500. And let's explain what the money went to. $100,000 went to a company to help them with their advertising and public relations. Do you know how many millennials I could have hired for that kind of money? Plus, we could have bought a couple of delivery trucks to take our cheesecakes in the heat anywhere in California. That's going to be a tremendous scandal on this city. How dare you take our taxpayer monies and give people no written agreements And nobody's, they said they couldn't audit it. How in the world can you not audit money if a check's written? Unless they're writing their own checks. But it was the staff that cut those checks loose.

Next speaker is Patrick B. Is Patrick still here? I don't see any movement. Mayor, we've concluded the business today. You may adjourn.

Okay, thank you. We will adjourn and come back in 19 minutes.