Good afternoon everyone. The Sacramento City Council please come to order with the clerk

call the roll to establish a quorum. Thank you. Councilmember Kaplan. Councilmember

Tao. Mayor Per Tem Telemontes. Councilmember Valenzuela. Here. Vice Mayor Mayful. Here. Councilmember

Gettas. Here. Councilmember Jennings. Here. Councilmember Vang. Here. And Mayor Steinberg.

I am here. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to ask Councilmember Tao and Valenzuela

please together to please lead us in the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance

may one or the other. How ever you choose to do it. Okay. Thank you, Mayor.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern

Mahidu Valley and planes me walk the put one went to people and the people of the well-ten

retiree of Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the native

people who come before us and still walk beside us today on these ashrerstral lands by choosing

to gather together today and the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation of Sacramento's

indigenous peoples history contributions and lives. Thank you. A please remain standing

in salute pledge. I pledge allegiance to the five of the United States of America and

to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God in a visible liberty and justice

for all. Thank you. Next time we'll switch. Yes. How about it five o'clock? Yeah. That's

exactly the way we should do it here. Thank you to both the good and great public servants,

council members, town, balance, wayla. Members, we have one item of business this

afternoon. It's a very important item. It is a consideration of a community benefits agreement

ordinance. And Leslie Fritch, are you going to present? I want to thank you and the entire

city staff for working so hard on all this. Let me make an opening comment if I may. I

mean, you know, don't get to make opening comments too much longer. So make a brief. This

of course arises out of the Aggie Square settlement agreement, which was a model community

benefits agreement that was organized essentially by the community with some creative tension,

ultimately in collaboration with the city, the developer, Wexford and the University of

California at Davis. And we created something that I think was really impactful and important

to that project. As part of the settlement agreement, there was a provision that was

requested by the SIDWD to consider a city wide community benefits ordinance that could or

would apply to other projects throughout the city. And so it's taken a while. It's

often does in government a lot of discussions with the community, with the city staff,

some with the elected officials, etc. We actually heard this, I think, in some form at the beginning

of 2024. And we are here now today to consider a staff proposal and the community's perspective

both the SIDWD and the business community's perspective on all of this. And that's what

brings us here today. So I just wanted to make that opening remark to kind of set the

context. Leslie?

Well, it's my pleasure, Mayor Steinberg. I can say that I think perhaps the last time

this afternoon to be here with you and council members. Thank you for allowing us to present

today this afternoon. We're bringing forward for your consideration a draft community benefit

agreement ordinance as required by the Aggie Square settlement agreement with the Sacramento

Investment Without Displacement. The ordinance before you would require community benefit

agreement for projects receiving over $10 million in city assistance. Putting this draft

ordinance together, as the mayor has mentioned, has taken some time for we've tried to strike

a balance between the input received from SIDWD and community members and the business community.

And what we've created is a defined CBA requirement, which includes benefits to the residents

and neighborhoods adjacent to a proposed project while not negatively impacting development

activity in our city. Our approach is to allow the tailoring of a CBA to the needs and

parameters of the proposed project rather than being too prescriptive and since one size

doesn't fit all. We have outlined a framework and not a specific outcome. The draft ordinance

contains the elements as required in the settlement agreement. Additionally, the draft

ordinance respects the role of the council as the city's elected representatives to make

the ultimate decision on the inclusion of elements within a CBA if one is triggered.

It's important to note that it's the opinion of staff that a community benefits agreement

is not necessarily needed to achieve community benefits on any particular project. We bring

forward projects all the time and we consider the benefits to the community as we're bringing

those elements forward. Staff considers and incorporates community benefits in every

project. We bring forward for financial assistance regardless of project size. So I wanted

to highlight a couple examples where we enfold in community benefits agreement. The mayor

mentioned Daiki Square and that project was a collaborative process. We had started some

community benefit discussions and inclusion and then with community input that agreement

was strengthened. Some of those elements included a 20% set aside for affordable housing,

local construction hiring, housing stabilization and workforce pilots. And just I'm kind of

going to brag a little bit and brag to you, Darryl and excuse me, Mayor Steinberg and Council

Member Gettah because that has really netted a lot of different benefits. $51 million committed

for affordable housing along Stockton Boulevard. Approximately $5 million for housing stabilization

efforts. Yielding about 800 people already assisted in some way or another through those

stabilization efforts. And approximately $600 million in local contractor spending. And

almost 90 apprentices hired from the local Aggie Square zip codes. So that's a broad example

of a large project. But then we have smaller projects such as the San Miguel Market which

was a $1.1 million loan for grocery store at the corner of Broadway in Stockton which filled

a vacant storefront with an employee owned grocery store. So it eliminated light and it

created about 60 opportunities for the residents around the area. And also added and made sure

that Oak Park wasn't a significant food desert by allowing that grocery store to continue.

From a policy perspective, we've also ensured the consideration of community benefits in

reviewing projects as they are a foundational element in our Council's approved inclusive

economic development policies and are included in the 2040 general plan. CBAs are commonly

used across the country to ensure community benefits are provided. But it's where the

jurisdictions have approved and ordinance requiring them as they are often viewed as detrimental

to development and difficult to codify requirements as each project has its own unique parameters

and context. We've had many meetings with SIDWD members over the past three years I believe

they might correct me on that over the course of the past number of years and acknowledge

it there are differences in approach. We are sensitive to those differences and thus

wanted to make sure we had a transparent process where all views could be heard by Council.

Therefore the format for today is staff will give a short presentation outlining the elements

in the proposed ordinance we're bringing forward for your consideration followed by a presentation

by SIDWD. We also want to highlight other stakeholders and other stakeholder views such

as the downtown Sacramento partnership, the BIA, the Greater Sacramento Economic Council

and some of those comments that you've received. We've included all the comment letters we've

received prior to the posting in your report and then there are additional ones that are posted

through the e-comment process. With that I'd like to turn over the conversation and the presentation

to my colleague Ellen Sullivan who will provide you an overview of the proposed ordinance. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Ellen Sullivan, Senior Project Manager with the City Manager's Office

of Innovation and Economic Development. After staff's presentation, Sacramento, investment

without displacement has prepared a presentation for Council. We wanted to go over some of the

key points of the draft CBAL. The ordinance currently has a threshold of $10 million of

SIDI investment or subsidy that would require a community benefits agreement. The ordinance

defines subsidy consistent with government code 508083 as referenced in the Aggie Square

settlement agreement as an expenditure of public funds or loss of revenue to the city such

as grants, loans or fee waivers. All CBAs require compliance with prevailing wage laws, local

higher provisions and designated third party beneficiaries. These are requirements that cannot

be waived. The benefits and the ordinance are required by the Aggie Square settlement

agreement, transportation was an added benefit and the ordinance allows Council to add project

specific benefits. The ordinance also includes language to allow Council to approve a CBA with

some, none or all of the listed benefits plus any additional benefits. This allows Council

the flexibility to tailor benefits that are most beneficial to the community while balancing

the realities of delivering a project. The ordinance also provides exemptions for all

housing projects including certain mixed use projects and pipeline projects that received

site plan and design review approval by effective date of the ordinance. The ordinance requires

the city manager engaged the community at two key points when developing the CBA and

when evaluating the performance of the CBA. It also includes a provision to allow the

city manager to adopt policies and procedures to implement and enforce the ordinance. This

concludes our presentation and now I'd like to turn it over to Sacramento investment without

displacement for their presentation and staff is available after for questions.

It's great. We will listen to SIDD's presentation. We'll then hear from the public and then

we will debate and deliberate here. So who is presenting for Sacramento investment without

displacement? And thank you for being here and for all the time and effort you have all

collectively spent on this. Good afternoon.

I am Kim Williams. I am the director for Sacramento investment without displacement as well as

Sacramento building healthy communities.

It's a meek of a clue. I am the executive director of the Sacramento community land trust as well

as the vice president of Sacramento investment without displacement.

QR read executive director of civic thread and I'm the transportation chair for Sacramento

investment without displacement. Thank you all. We will be presenting today. It'll be a brief

presentation as Leslie talked about earlier. This has been a long long process and there's

still so much so much so much work that still has to be done. When we came together, Sacramento

investment without displacement actually back in 2018 is when we started the work and then

up into this point, it was for the sole purpose of making sure that our communities don't

get left in the dust when it comes to development. We want to see things happen in our city.

We want our city to grow prosper and be the wonderful Sacramento that we all want it to be

and know it can be. But we also don't want that to happen and leave the people behind who

have left left what in tears in the city and have worked hard for generations but get

pushed out because of that development. And there's a way to do it responsibly and do it

together with the development with the city and with community. And so that's why we came

together and that is why we still stand here and why we will continue despite what happens

today, continue fighting for our communities. And that's all communities in Sacramento.

We want to, which one is it? I always do that. Yes. Our Sacramento investment without

displacement members in case folks don't know. Of course, it's building healthy communities,

Sacramento housing alliance, organized Sacramento, civic thread, Sacramento act, Ecos, Ace,

Washington neighborhood center, love lift. Sorry, love lift up. My glass is on lift up,

love always. And then the Sacramento community land trust. We also have other members,

individual members that are a part of this group, residents from different parts of the community

that are also a part of SIDWG. And our work really became, is really looking at what a community

benefits agreement is and what it should be. And it requiring strong partnerships between

local government, developers and community groups and working together to determine what

is needed in the community. Every community, it's not a one size fits all. We recognize that

each community may need something different. And that's why we wanted to build that into

what a community benefits agreement ordinance would look like. We know it was a part of

the lawsuit, how it ended up becoming an ordinance or maybe discussion as to who brought it

to the settlement piece, but it got put in. And that was something that we were very proud

of because we did want to see this happen so that we don't have to come and fight every single

project that comes. There's a commitment from this group, this body to the residents in Sacramento

that says if something comes, it's coming into your community. We want to make sure you are

well taken care of. And this ordinance would also outline the CBAs would be required, what

would go into them and who would be involved in the process of creating and enforcing the CBAs

making going into the future. And so my counterparts are going to talk about what makes it strong.

So this isn't a surprise because last time we were here we talked about the same elements of

what makes a strong CBAO. It's having minimum benefits, it's having strong community engagement

and community led decision making power and having an ordinance that is enforceable.

Unfortunately, the ordinance that you have in front of you doesn't have those things. And for

that reason, SIDWD does not support the ordinance as it stands. This shouldn't be news. Again,

we have been advocating for these to be included since 2021 and we haven't seen those things change.

We've been fighting really to develop an ordinance that protects longstanding residents

and that ensures that the benefits of any economic or infrastructure investments are shared

and experienced by those impacted communities. But this ain't it. The draft that is before you

is insufficient and unfortunately it will not address long-term anti-displacement protections for

residents and small businesses that would be impacted. Research has shown us that community benefits

or wheat community benefits agreements will actually do more harm than not having one at all.

If we can't put forward a strong ordinance that has those minimum benefits that has community

decision making power and that is enforceable, then SIDWD can't stand behind it. And so we're not

standing behind this one that's that's in front of you today. We believe that our residents and

our small businesses deserve more than what's being offered to them. At its core, a CBA is about

equitable access to decision making power. It's about giving community members who may be harmed by

displacement or by large developments, the agency to come to the table and to ask for what they need

to really be able to communicate what their needs are and to be able to have that decision making

power for the things that are going to impact their own livelihoods. It's really about respecting

the needs of the community and it's also about people over profit. Unfortunately, the current

proposal lacks meaningful community participation and let's be real. SILOING, engagement and

limiting community participation and decision making processes only exacerbates what the CBA

is intended to do. So why are we doing that? If you can't have a CBA without community, it's

literally in the name. So let's call it what it is. What you have before you is a benefits

agreement ordinance. It's not a community benefits agreement ordinance and it's not intended

to benefit the community and so we won't stand behind it. Thank you.

And I'm sure that's not what you probably were expecting to hear from us today. They

here are laid it out really perfectly clear. A weak community benefits agreement is like worse than

having no community benefits agreement at all. So we want to speak to this process because

while I appreciate the reflection of the Aggie Square project in the San Miguel market over

there on Stockton Boulevard which would not have triggered our community benefits agreement,

this wouldn't have the benefits of Aggie Square would not have come out if we hadn't

settled a lawsuit. These are the same things we asked then that we're asking you all now.

And the fact that the city of Sacramento put themselves in a position to be a defendant of that

lawsuit does that's not how we want to continue working. That is not how we want to continue

doing development and doing community benefits. I think that we think as a collective that it's

really unfortunate that the direction that your council gave on February 28th of this year was to

conduct a workshop to wear the Sacramento investment without displacement and the business

community and the Peabeds and small business owners and construction workers and the unions

could all come together and really talk about how we can make this a win-win for all of Sacramento

and that did not happen. When we talk about meaningful engagement it means that both parties both

sides come with their whole hearts and whole cells to the table and that did not happen from the city side.

We were really hopeful with the small business protections ordinance work that this could be

something where we could come together and work out the details to make this strong enough

to benefit all of Sacramento and that did not happen. And so that leaves us with this

this whole of what where's the trust that was supposed to be built in this process.

And that's a question I think really for your leadership for you guys here at the Dias because

that trust really has been broken. We have come in good faith over these past three years to do the

work to bring forward minimum benefits to bring a tiered ordinance to bring all these different

tools and resources to make this the best ordinance it could be and that did not happen. That is not

what's in front of you today. So as Sacramento investment without displacement rejects the city

strapped of the community benefit agreements ordinance. I suppose this means that we will continue

to look at every single development and if there isn't a community benefits agreement that

really puts community first that brings that investment that's the city is putting into that

development those investments need to go directly to the people who are impacted by them. And

it's unfortunate that we're put in a position to fight for benefits for every single project that

is not a good use of our time that is not a good use of our resources the community's resources

nonprofit we're nonprofits but also staff resources this is unacceptable.

So I'll just close with saying that this is unfortunately a lost opportunity for the city of

Sacramento. My hope is that maybe a future council will bring something back that is stronger

that has community at the forefront that has minimum benefits that the community decides where

that investment goes to. Now someone is saying that we're not going away like Cara said we started

this work in 2018 together and we're all still here and we'll continue to be here and we'll

continue to hold the city accountable we'll continue to hold big developers accountable and we

hope that you do the same. Thank you thank you thank you to all three presenters let us now

hear from the public and then we will turn it over to the council and I would say a few things

to begin and then turn it over to my colleagues. Thank you Mayor I have 11 speakers the first is

Robert Copeland, Alberto MacCardo, Scott Ford, Rashid Sedeck. As an ace member and a doc by

member which is this bill you write group here in Sacramento this ain't working for Sacramento.

A committed benefits agreement should benefit everybody in Sacramento is it going to do that? I don't

think so. Can you please get your act together? I mean along with how they should be accessible

for people in a wheelchair walkers and 20% affordable housing is that all income levels? What

income level at this rate? Does it help people on SSI minimum wage? Get it do better. We can

vote you out. Thank you. Next speaker is Alberto and Scott Ford.

Good afternoon councilmembers and mayor my name is Alberto Mercado I'm a resident of O'Para

and I've been a resident Sacramento for the last 30 years. As a resident district five I urged

my city council representative and city of Sacramento to reject the current version of the cities

proposed community benefits agreement ordinance. Currently the draft community benefits

agreement ordinance does not sufficiently address the long term until the placement protections

for the residents and the businesses as he was intended. At a personal level I am advocating for

us community benefits or agreement ordinance to include minimum benefits to make sure residents

like myself can stay and leave in our neighborhoods where we grew up. A affordable housing

transportation or first development is more local business protection and community having a

direct role in CBA negotiation is critical to the development of community benefits agreement.

Residents represent the people most threatened by the impact of large developments

and in their communities and must also enjoy the benefits they bring. Thank you.

Next speaker is Scott Ford and Rashid Sidik.

Good afternoon mayor Steinberg members of the council city manager Chan and city staff.

My name is Scott Ford on behalf of the downtown Sacramento partnership representing the 66

block neighborhood in the heart of California's capital city and on personal note I also

represent the entire Sacramento community. I grew up here. Yes we represent the business community

but we represent the entire Sacramento community and we hear deeply about our city.

We recognize that the council must consider community benefits agreement ordinances part of

the Aggie square settlement however we have strong concerns with the proposal is written and we

adamantly urge the rejection of this ordinance as we are concerned it has the potential to undermine

the growing momentum in our community. We agree absolutely that community benefits should be

delivered as part of catalytic projects especially projects that receive public subsidy

but those negotiations need to play out on a case by case basis given the unique and the very

delicate nature of each project. Simply put there are no community benefits if there is no project.

Recently we've seen great opportunities legacy projects, stadiums and the rail yards adaptive

reuse live music venues and a much needed convention center hotel come forward. Those are great

projects with major potential but they're also very delicate and we're concerned that this is

well intended but counterproductive policy that may jeopardize those very projects.

Now is not the time to bring forth a one size fits all ordinance which will limit future

opportunities for the residents while also not addressing their needs. We thank you for your

consideration for your leadership and we're committed to continue to be here to work with all of

you and to work with our community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments Rashid

and then Liz Lim and Jameson Parker.

Rashid Sadeek would lift up love always. I'm here with a heavy heart because I've seen a lot of

good work go down the drain for three years. Mayor we've been waiting for I don't know 18 months

to get to our workshop. I don't know so a PLA just had a discussion. PLA is at the school just

is at one million dollars to benefit the whole community. Here we are talking about 10 million dollars.

I don't know how many times you contribute 10 million dollars to a project but I bet you it's

near to now. So what you put in front of us has to be rejected because it's a joke. It's not

intended to help anybody. It's intended to check a box and let's move on. Everybody's

mayor and then you put us on your last day on your last day. That was intentional.

No I wasn't. Yes this is intentional racism right here. This is intentional and I see it as that

and I hey listen your day is just your last day. Thank you for all your contributions but this

right here is disrespectful. We've been working on this with three four some have been working

on since the 2018 with your leadership and here we are on your last day and you feed us.

Come on this we have to do better city manager we have to do better than this next week is going to be

your week. We're going to see. Thank you thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Luz Lim then James and Parker and Devon Strecker met McDonald.

Good afternoon my name is Lou Slim and I am here to speak on behalf of the Environmental

Council of Sacramento. I'll keep it brief because I really can't put it any better than the

SIDWD folks who are here today. It's clear how passionately they have worked over the past years

to make sure that community has a place at the table and a voice in deciding what community benefits

should be. The proposed agreement ordinance does not account for SIDWD's very thoughtful recommendations

to create an effective citywide ordinance and it excludes community at benefit negotiations.

Eco stands with SIDWD in opposition to the proposed community benefits agreement ordinance

and we have submitted a letter of the e-commerce thank you very much.

James and Parker? Good afternoon mayor and council members I just want to start by making staff

for their hard work on this project. I'm James and Parker with the Midtown Association. We're a

property based improvement district here in the central city we represent about 1200 property

owners in our urban core our mission is to make Midtown the center of culture creative the

environment see. I'm here today to voice our opposition to the agreement in front of you today.

I think actually Leslie did a really great job. We're not opposed to developing community

benefits but we believe that it needs to be done on a project by project basis. We believe that

in doing so that the city council retains its flexibility to be able to make sure that we're

able to achieve our outcomes based on individual projects impacts and that they are most supportive

and responsive to the community that they are impacting. At the same time this flexibility

ensures that economic development agreements are created that don't slow or halt positive momentum

that we have in our city and what we really experienced in the last month seeing the preliminary

term sheet come forward for the Sacramento rail yards and the development of our stadium.

In working to achieve this common goal of delivering sustainable economic growth we employ the

city council to consider a thoughtful economic growth without creating a burden through this

ordinance which could create unintended limitations on our future and the city council's ability

to manage it. I appreciate your time. Thank you. If you're comments Devon Stryker, Matt Mcdonald,

Chris Valencia, Barry Brum.

Good afternoon. I'm Devon Stryker, Executive Director of the River District and a resident

of District 4. River District we'd like to express our opposition to this ordinance.

As you know we are a redeveloping area of downtown Sacramento. We are different from much of

the rest of the region and so our needs are different and so for that reason we would ask that you

would consider these type of community benefits which we do see as valuable but on a case by case

basis. We are trying to redevelop a formerly industrial warehouse distribution center. We did not

have any very many residents until just recently and our residents are looking for these

catalytic projects to come in such as the proposed Sacramento FC Stadium in the rail yards

and we are hopeful that there will be no additional layers of bureaucracy to prevent these types

of projects from moving forward. Thank you. Thank you for your comments Matt Mcdonald.

Good afternoon Matt Mcdonald from the California Department Association.

Speaking in opposition to community benefits agreement ordinance. In short we oppose the creation

of a one size fits all policy with respect to large economy building projects that have the power

to act as engines for future growth in the city. The instinct to expect community benefits to play a

role in future major projects is not wrong but Sacramento needs to respect the reality that within

this region there are multiple other jurisdictions that lack Sacramento's red tape and who are frankly

far easier for major developers to do business with. Raising your barriers to entry through an

untalered ordinance doesn't just discourage investment it creates a reputational problem for the

city. It says if you have a major project we don't want to be at the top of your destination list.

Once you've built a reputation for being hostile to this new investment that impacts your ability

to do everything else vital in the city like increase housing supply or reducing homelessness.

Being aspirational in economic development becomes impossible at that point.

We would urge you to reject this proposed ordinance today and send a signal to the region

that you're committed to being competitive for major projects region wide thank you.

Chris Valencia and Barry Brune.

Hello Mr. Mayor and City Council my name is Chris Valencia. I am here speaking on behalf

of the North State Building Industry Association. We want to thank Council and staff for working

with us to insert language on housing into this. We just want to urge caution when considering the

community benefits ordinance that this could create a cooling effect on development giving

developers pause and we definitely do not want to see home building in the Sacramento region slow

to a trickle. It is important that we continue to and continue to attract investment into Sacramento

building housing as well as other projects. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Barry Brune then Sarah Robilato.

Yeah thank you. We're going to contest. First off you know we want to work with the neighborhoods

and we're always available I reach out the Gabby so we can start tomorrow working together. We

don't need to be guided by the city and we're committed to helping everyone. The reality on the

Aggie Square agreement is UC Davis and the city's to pay her on this not to developer.

Developer doesn't have a discretionary penny in this settlement. So if you start moving this

around other parts of the city where UC Davis isn't backing it up you're going to run into the

private conditions which is this developer would have walked away if you decide you got to pick up

the city's contribution towards Aggie Square. The second thing if you look at the union agreements

from AFSCME they pretty much keep local businesses from participating in this project.

So maintenance construction workers have to come from UC Davis union workers. A real missed

opportunity for minority ownership and participation from the neighborhood. There's food union

agreements we already know from one local vendor that was trying to get a big opportunity to Aggie

Square that was minority owned was turned down by the legal department of UC Davis because they're

not unionized. So if you look at Aggie Square it's you know the city's paying the universities take

in the risk labor is getting all the benefits and not everybody in this community is in labor right

very small percentage of people in the private sector in California and in the union it's about

6% 12%. So 88% of the people aren't in a union and when you start looking at minority enterprises

and minority participation they're typically not unionized. So we do think the construction

agreement was very good we're all four local options on requiring local hiring. We're

Sacramento guys I live in Midtown we want to see people pulled from the neighborhoods but I think

we're overstating the value of Aggie Square when it comes to community impact when you really

start to pull it apart and take a look at it. So obviously we oppose a blanket ordinance thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Sarah Ropelato and thank you for the spelling and then Josh Leachman.

Good afternoon y'all I'm Sarah Ropelato I'm the managing attorney with legal services of Northern

California. We were at the table when the community of the idea for the community benefits agreement

ordinance was conceived and agreed upon and developed and that idea actually came from the city

to bring the parties together and to create something innovative for Sacramento and the idea is

a good one. A good CBO has the potential to create a collaborative structure for future projects

and to ensure meaningful benefits and protections for the communities that host these future projects

and bear the impacts and to prevent the mess that comes from ad hoc basis negotiating these

agreements. The work that SAWD has engaged in over the last three plus years is truly remarkable.

They commissioned professional research about CBAs and CBAOs across the nation they met continuously

as a coalition to pool their collective wisdom and experience. They did several workshops and

community surveys that reached over 300 residents and over and over more than 20 zip codes and they

drafted memos and ordinance language and they met with the city on a weekly basis for months at a

time and when the city ultimately brought forward a framework and an ordinance that lacked any

resemblance to the CIVD's proposals they cuffed up their sleeves and they got to work and good

faith with the city to provide detailed comments and recommendations. They spent countless hours

in meetings with with the city with you all with stakeholders all to try to reach a compromise

and bring the vision that the city promised to life but the CBO before you doesn't live up to that

promise. The community is absent from this CBO. There's no role for the community to be at the

table negotiating future CBAs. It's relegated to and to enroll of providing input. There's no guard

rails or requirements for community oversight and it lacks specifics that is required by research

and for the reason stated in our letter neither the process nor the draft complies with the settlement

agreement. This is a missed opportunity. Thank you for your comments. Josh Leachman, then Dianne Dwyer.

Good afternoon Dianne Dwyer representing the Archery Partnership.

Good afternoon mayor and council. I want to thank staff and everyone here. This is obviously a topic

that's important to the entire community and as a residents of Tahoe Park I understand

how we try to balance community and we try to balance development. The ordinance that you have

before you today we are opposed. The one size fits all model. We realize that we need to negotiate

on a one by one basis for what fits the developer and what fits the community. So I would like to say

again on record our street partnership of poses and thank you for your time. Thank you for your

comments. I have three more speakers. Josh Leachman, James Allison and Liz Williams.

I don't see Josh. James.

Good afternoon mayor councilmembers and staff. My name is James Allison with the power and alliance.

Property business improvement district representing Sacramento's manufacturing and industrial core

as well as the 1300 businesses within it. I am here today to offer a few of our concerns with the

community benefits agreement ordinance and rather than simply reiterate many of the same concerns

that you've already heard I'd like to speak to our chief concern and how it relates to our district.

Firstly we believe that community benefits are an integral part to any transformative project.

We simply believe that this ordinance is not the strategy by which to achieve them.

The power alliance is home to the Sacramento Center for Innovation, a 24 acre special planning

district with the hopes of becoming Sacramento's hub for pioneering and innovative businesses.

We believe that the success of such a district would bring significant investment to the city

of Sacramento but not without a centralized tent post catalytic project that can truly attract

investment in the same way that we have seen in other parts of our city. We however believe that

the ordinance in front of you today would create a hindrance in securing such a project.

As we have seen with some of the projects here in Sacramento the ability to create these benefits

is not impossible without such an ordinance in place. We simply ask that the SEI be given the same

opportunity to create a truly tailor-made and customized approach to our own community benefits

to maximize the benefit within Southeast Sacramento. Thank you very much and we appreciate your time.

Liz Williams will be our final speaker on this item.

Good afternoon. Mayor, City Council, City staff, City Manager. Thank you all for your work

that you've done on this. I'm here today on behalf of the Metro Chamber and the member businesses

we represent, their employees, their families, who all grow up in this city. We would like to take

a moment to appreciate the tenacity of the mayor and this council and the City Manager and staff

for working diligently to bring together a space for public-private partnerships that drive

inclusive economic prosperity for this city and region. We have seen over the last few weeks and

years what this type of collaboration can do to bring to life catalytic projects to the City of

Sacramento but as we all know projects with such magnitude like the ones coming to the rail yards

like the Golden One Center and like Aggie Square are delicate, complex and require flexibility to

bring to fruition. For these reasons we urge you to reject a one-size-fits-all policy to address

community benefits for large-scale public-private investments. Community benefits should not be

prescribed by policies that could have unintended consequences and deter the viability of the types

of investments we want to see in the city and region for the future generations to enjoy.

We should strive to create a climate that attracts and retains major projects in every part of

Sacramento. As they come forward investments into the community should be proactive and tailored

to the uniqueness of the project and the surrounding neighborhood for the betterment of all.

Flexibility will be pivotal to ensure project acquisition and economic investments land here

and without projects our ability to nurture our communities and grow collectively is limited.

We urge you to reject this proposal before you today and instead working collaboration with

the community and development partners to proactively create active strategic initiatives throughout

Sacramento by navigating each development opportunity with imagination and individuality.

Thank you for your consideration and opportunity to comment today.

Thank you. It's all about a clerk. Thank you very much. Okay, let's start off here and then turn it

over to my colleagues. First of all thank you for all the public participation. Thank you to SIDWD

for all of the time you spent on this. Thank you to the city staff. I hear your disappointment.

But I don't think we should pass anything that has virtually no support from either side.

And that's the case here. So I guess that's the bottom line but I want to use a moment here just to

say something which may sound a little bit corny but I mean it. We all are friends. We are not

enemies. We are not enemies here. We may see things a little bit differently about how to achieve

community benefits. But my whole life as well as the lives and the contributions of everyone

sitting on this day as has been for and about community. Trust goes both ways.

I understand. I see Rashid. I understand you're distressed of the systems and of people like me.

And I could say till I'm blue in the face we've produced more affordable housing these last years

than ever before. We have a comprehensive CWTA community worker agreement, a PLA for anything

over a million dollars. I could say to you that we've invested on precedent at amounts of

money and workforce development or in forgotten commercial corridors or we've gotten to 1500 beds now

in terms of our homeless response from a low of less than 100 when we start I could say all of that.

And I know this and I'm not offended by it. I just recognize that we all have a long way to go

including me and all of us when it comes to building trust that none of that has an impact on you.

But telling us that Aggie Square, the community benefits agreement would not have occurred

in any form but for what SIDWD did I disagree. You were a key partner and yes you were the catalyst

and you pushed us farther there's no question about it. But frankly when I got involved with Aggie Square

you better believe front and center in my mind was community benefit that's the whole reason for it.

I negotiated the mandatory not not advisory local hiring requirement the only one in the country

that didn't come from SIDWD that came from me this office. We put the number of 50 million dollars

into the affordable housing trust fund and so trust goes both ways and I look at Aggie Square

and I ask why was it so important and impactful? It was important and impactful because it was in fact

organic and you deserve a lot of credit for that. It was organic. It was the product of a dynamic

and sometimes uncomfortable tension between the stakeholders, careholders in the community

from whatever side and their elected representatives who you do have the opportunity,

Mr. Copeland said to elect or to throw out of office if you don't like the job that they are doing.

It addressed the unique circumstances of Aggie Square including the real threat of gentrification.

That was the impetus behind this and it was right. The ideal of a citywide ordinance is

lawtatory and whether you believe me or not I believe in community benefit agreements.

But a citywide ordinance with mandatory minimums in my view is a flawed concept.

It's a flawed concept because every project is different and needs different community benefits.

As I mentioned we have minimum benefits in the city, PLAs for example for public works projects

but minimum benefits are premised on the idea that every major project causes displacement.

That isn't true. I mean look at the rail yards. What is the displacement that is being caused in

developing the rail yards, the waterfront, the hospital in Atomas by the way?

As well as the rail yards have mandatory affordable housing requirements, significant mandatory

affordable housing requirements built into the development agreements.

So I just think that sometimes trust or lack of trust is conflated with disagreement

because I applaud and in many ways trust you because you're out there fighting for the community.

But I think the best community benefits agreements are ones that are derived

when we repeat what we did with Aggie Square. We organize, you organize, you have effective

representation that meets you more than halfway and that fights for what's best for the community.

The defeat of this today does nothing to inhibit or limit that kind of

ethic, that kind of pattern, that kind of activism going forward. It should continue.

I just think this concept of a citywide ordinance for the enemies is flawed.

Thank you. Councilmember Valenzuela.

Thank you Mayor. I agree. I mean sometimes when nobody agrees it means

we've reached a good compromise and sometimes it means we've just missed the mark.

And I think that latter case is the case today.

You know there's a lot of details in this ordinance and discuss that I'm not going to get into

because I raised very detailed comments every time it was at long-ledged, every time it came

to this body and gave detailed suggestions, a lot of which I don't see in here.

And I do want to applaud the community work because as was mentioned these are nonprofits,

many of whom are not paid to do this who engaged with us diligently for a very long time,

to try to find a solution that made sense. And I want to thank you for your time and energy on that.

And I want to reiterate your comment because I do agree and it's one point I disagree with the

mayor that this ordinance was an effect when Aggie Square came about that we wouldn't have gotten

near the level of benefits that were achieved in Aggie Square. It sets way too high a bar.

In fact EIFEs aren't even covered in this CBA ordinance. You know it's really unfortunate.

And to push back a little on a comment about they're not really being benefits just because I have to.

Most service workers in this region are people of color, very, and they deserve living wages and

benefits. I don't think we ever win. We don't win when we pit business owners against workers.

And I think we can all benefit and can and should be working together to ensure that we rise the

boat for everybody. And it's not about pity minority business owners against workers because we

all have the same goal. I've heard throughout this time with staff that obviously if an

elected city council member for an area wanted a change to any agreement that they would have

a seat at the table. This is deferring to council members. But I have to say that just a couple

weeks ago when we considered the rail yards EIFD which is directly adjacent to my district and

will eventually be in my district in just a week's time. And to the mayor's comment about what

displacement is happening for the rail yards there's a lot of displacement happening because of

the rail yards development. I made a request for an enhanced community benefits process. I didn't

even ask for specific benefits. I made a request for a stronger process and that was denied.

So my time on this council has not shown that council members of that district or near that

district have the autonomy to advocate for what their community needs in a way that will guarantee

benefits in the way that this ordinance is currently designed. And so my opposition to this comes

from a very different place. That I just fundamentally don't believe that the mechanism that's

designed here will work in good faith in the way that staff says that it will. I unfortunately do

agree that we're in a stronger position to fight project by project and I don't think that's

good for anybody. And I just want to say that right now. Not just from capacity perspective. What I

have continued to insist with the business community is that we acknowledge that consistency

and predictability is good for everybody. That if we know going in that there's a 10% affordable

housing requirement. If we know going in that there's certain benchmark expectations that that's

good for everybody rather than one project getting subject to $50 million of requirements and

another getting subject to none. That is not a level of consistency that anyone can take to the

bank and it's not a level of consistency that the community wants either. I think we had an

opportunity here to find something that would have worked for everybody that we missed. And so now

I do believe we're in a stronger position without this ordinance in place to advocate project by

project. And I'm looking forward to joining you all in that work in just a couple of short weeks.

So with that I would actually like to make the motion to reject the ordinance with a lot of

heartache and regret. But I do think it's important to recognize when we just have

inreconcilable differences. I don't think we're going to get there as a majority on this body

and with the staff team. And so I think it's just important for us to put this to bed and make

that motion. Mayor, thank you. Moved in second. It counts from every get up.

Thank you very much. Mayor, I appreciate this and I wanted to also one, I think if anything,

first give a lot of thanks to our city staff that took a lot of time trying to bring

the two parties together. The two very disparate points of view. And I can imagine it's

difficult to come to the data to here and present on a proposal and hearing every single

different person come at it for a different reason why they're opposed to it. But I want to tell

you just personally because I've been in those conversations since 2019 and to say that I

greatly appreciate how much time that has been put into this. The legal work, the policy work,

the looking at the trade-offs to try to find something. And so for me, I want to personally first

think the staff because they were put in a very difficult position to try to find something that

everyone could come over here and say, this is where we should be going. And they came at it with

understanding the true needs that one, our economy is fragile, that all of the places that

the mayor just mentioned, including the need that we still have a challenge because of interest

rates and other things out of our control, the development of housing that are at risk. And also

the clear focus. And I want to thank Leslie because she was at all of those community meetings,

whether they're in Tahoe Park, Fruit Ridge Manor, Oak Park Community Center, to understand the

needs and also the fragility of the community and to be able to develop so many benefits out of

what happened in those negotiations. And it's always interesting how people remember things because

the framework that came out of the CBA actually was agreed upon before the lawsuits were filed.

You know, we are already moving down that path. And so I think to the mayor's point, the issue

of trust is one that, you know, post-this action needs, we need to work on because it was that

lack of trust that, hey, we're going to miss this deadline. So let's file the lawsuit. And what

happened because of that is it actually ended the conversations that we had. It stalled the

conversations and the work that we were already doing. We already were working on the housing

issues, the transportation issues, the small business protection issues. And in fact, the work that

that SWID presented when we passed the small business plan two weeks ago is an example of that work.

And those were conversations we had right in the middle of when we were all trying to learn how to

use Zoom. And to think that those are things about the benefits that came about. And I mean,

I have to give a lot of credit to the mayor here because even in the Golden One Center project,

local hire was a goal. It was an aspiration. It wasn't a requirement. I mean, the fact that

that came out from the mayor's office to negotiate between the two parties because it wasn't the

city. It was the developers also with the UC that wouldn't all agree upon the issue, but to get

a mandatory local requirement. And then on top of that, 20% is hard enough to meet. To go say,

in 10 years, we got to get the 25. And to get everybody able to reach that, that is a huge

amount. And so, you know, I think the other point here, and there's one issue where I do disagree

with the comments about the other lawsuit with AFSCME. A lot of the local 32, 99 folks they live in

might disagree. And even before Agiswere got started or the conversation, those workers had

already faced a potential displacement from the psychiatric hospital that was going to get privatized.

And what this solidified was, and again, I want to thank the mayor on this because he was the one

that was able to get into that negotiation to find out how to be able to make sure that those

local residents who didn't have a place to go to, and they moved to these neighborhoods because

they could walk or bike to work closely or use public transit. Those were benefits out of that

point. But all of those pieces, even before then, you know, they were already happening because of

that community work. So, to all the, to say is that, again, the CB, the community benefits agreement

itself and the lawsuits, I think would have ended up almost in the same place where we were at

today. So, the question really comes down to, in the future, how do we continue to build trust

to get to these negotiations? Because if it's always going to end up in lawsuits, we're going to

find out that we were stuck in a stalemate, and it wasn't until, and I got to thank Gabby Trejo

for this because she was the broker that brought people together from both sides to say, hey,

can we, can we, you know, everybody put their, you know, what do you call it, their figuratively

legal guns decide and get back to the table with the city, the UC, and the developers. So, you know,

the, so I want to make sure that we don't conflate what the real history was and actually getting to.

What I think is a great success, and because of that, because of that, we tried to replicate it

here in a different way. And we shouldn't, you know, we shouldn't be upset that we tried, okay?

I mean, we shouldn't be upset that we tried. If you don't try, sometimes you're going to fail,

you know, but we shouldn't be upset that we actually tried to make something positive.

But the reality is, is this proposal doesn't meet what we want to meet in either way,

and the reality that I think we all can agree on, it is detrimental to both people's perspective.

And in my opinion here, I mean, I appreciate the motion to reject. So, glad to support that motion.

I also think the motion just to lay on the table is the appropriate motion as well,

indefinitely. So, but either way, glad to do, glad to, to either support the motion to reject,

but also the, if it proves that, you know, the maker of the motion, motion to lay on the table would

be the, I guess, the preferred parliamentary procedure in this one. So, with that, I'll leave it there.

Mr. Mayor, and, you know, I just, again, I just want to thank our team, you know, because we did

put you in an impossible situation. And the only thing that I think that should be recognized

is the effort that was made to try to get the council, the community, and all of the interested

parties to get to the table. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, I just want to add that too. For those who are disappointed, and a lot of people just

would do not blame this staff here. This is the direction of the, you know, it's represented

with the direction of the public officials. Like I said, in my view, it is a lotatory concept.

It just doesn't work to prescribe minimums for projects that are by definition fundamentally

different from one another. But this is the staff did a good job here. As did SIDWD work to TARDO.

Okay, do we have anybody else? We do not. There is a motion on the table to, to oppose, reject.

Thank you. Okay, it's called the role, please.

Thank you, Councillor Mimber-Capplin. Councillor Mimber-Tau. Mayor Protémentelementes.

Councillor Mimber-Valence-Wayla. Yes. Vice-Mimber-Maple.

All right. Councillor Mimber-Getta.

All right.

Councillor Mimber-Gennings. Yes.

Councillor Mimber-Vang. Yes.

And Mayor Steinberg. Yes.

The work continues. I hope the work continues into the next

administration. Maybe there is a formula that no one has, no one has yet come up with despite

great efforts. Okay, that concludes the afternoon meeting.

Do we have council ideas and questions? Or do we have any?

Tonight at five, we're going to begin with some special presentations.

And then we actually have a substantive agenda tonight. So we will look forward to all of that.

If there's nothing else to come before the City Council, we are adjourned.