Okay. All right. Let's call this main order. Please call the roll.

Council member Kaplan

Council member Dickinson

is expected momentarily

Vice mayor Talamantes

Council member Plekibom

Thank you

Council member Maple

Council member Jennings

Council member Vang

Mayor McCarty

Council member Talamantes

please send the pledge

and land acknowledges

Please rise from the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nisanom people, the Southern

Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwin-Wintun peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria,

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

who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing

to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgment and appreciation for Sacramento's

indigenous peoples 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 do we have a report out from closed session? No report out.

So, Mayor, you have one special presentation this evening, recognizing GIS team during Geography Week and GIS Day, and Council Member Pluckibama is going to make that presentation.

Okay.

All right, and I left the resolution upstairs, but I hope everyone is able to find their way here.

Is there anyone here looking to be recognized?

I'm not seeing who I'm—there you are.

Come on up, guys.

Come on up.

These are the map makers for the city of Sacramento.

This is how we're able to find our way.

So for those of you that use any of the city's wayfinding tools,

I came to know and love your tools most intimately through the redistricting process.

Is there anyone that would like to say anything on behalf of the group?

Otherwise, what we want to do is recognize you and say thank you.

Yes, good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

My name is Dan McCoy.

I'm the GIS Manager for the city.

On behalf of the city's GIS team, I wish to thank you for taking a moment to recognize GIS Week and GIS Day here in Sacramento.

GIS Day is tomorrow.

Special thank you to Council Member Plekabalm for this recognition and helping us shine a light on the work that goes on behind the maps and the dashboards that many of us use every day.

For those of you who may not be familiar,

GIS stands for geographic information systems.

It's how we connect data to location.

It helps the city understand where things are happening,

why they're happening,

and how we can make smarter,

more equitable decisions for our residents.

Our GIS program started more than 30 years ago.

It's grown into a citywide resource

that supports almost every department.

GIS supports everything from 311 service requests

and 911 emergency response to infrastructure planning,

land use, and special districts assessments.

In short, GIS helps connect people, data, decisions across the city,

and we're really proud of the impact it has on everyday operations and long-term planning.

Thank you again, Mayor of Council and Councilmember Plecimov for recognizing Geography Week and GIS Day

and for your continued support of the GIS team and the work that we do to help keep Sacramento Informed connected and moving forward.

Would you like to join us for a quick picture?

Sure.

Okay.

Do you have nothing?

It's coming to the end.

Thank you.

You're on the GIS, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, go.

Thank you.

You're joining us, Mindy?

Sorry, I was actually...

What?

What?

What?

Who's directionally challenged?

Everyone say GIS!

Geographical information systems.

Thank you.

Great, thanks so much.

Our office, Matt!

Thank you, guys.

Did you see it, brother?

Thank you, brother.

My favorite class in the QPA.

Mayor Pro Temp-Gara, are you punched up for this item or for our next?

For consent, is that?

Perfect.

Okay.

Yes.

Item is 14 and 29 and 30.

Council Member Vang.

Thank you.

I'd like to make a comment on item 29 and item 23 as well.

Item 23.

Hold on real quick.

Council Member Kaplan.

Speak on item 7, 13, and 20.

Okay.

Were there other items that council members wanted to comment on or pull?

Seeing none, let's go to Council Member Kaplan on item 7.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I'm really excited that we are moving forward for North Natomas to get a bike and pedestrian crossing on the Jackrabbit Trail, which crosses Arena Boulevard.

We all know public safety and transit and keeping it safe is really important.

And Jackrabbit Trail starts in my districts and goes down through our vice mayors as well.

And without adding this traffic signal, people would have to go over to Truxell out of their way.

And you know people are not going to do that.

So this is just another way to create an increased quality of life and pedestrian safety so that everyone can enjoy the Jackrabbit Trail.

and I have been told that this is going to get installed in the next six to nine months.

So I really want to thank city staff for moving forward with this

and then all that you've done to make it a possibility to increase safety in North Natomas and Crossing Arena.

Would you like to go to item 13 now?

Want to bring up on item 13, it's the citywide transportation development impact fee.

and as a council we talk a lot about how do we bring equity and equality

and you look at where our transportation impact fees are coming in.

20% of the fees come from development in North Natomas,

but the projects that are being funded, not one of them have to deal with North Natomas.

And I hear on a weekly basis complaints about needs for road improvement infrastructure,

more bus paths, you know, support that Natomas brings in the money for the city,

but we don't get our equity fair share of investment.

And I know part of this goes off of our transportation priority plan,

but I can tell you North Natomas is fairly upset that we provide a decent chunk of the fees

and yet see nothing return in benefit.

And so my community is asking for a fair share review in that.

Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Gata on item 14.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

First, I wanted to thank our mayor, Mayor McCarty, and our city staff for this item.

You know, Little Saigon in District 6 has a very proud history,

a history that comes from the refugees who came here after the fall of Saigon.

And it was through their effort that a lot of the economic development that's occurred there

has created a sense of culture, a sense of community.

And I do want to thank our mayor who led the effort to designate that area as Little Saigon.

And now, through his time as Assemblymember McCarty,

he was council member then and as Assemblymember McCarty,

he was able to secure some funding here to create some signage,

a real entry signage, and creating a gateway to recognize the history of all of those

that were Vietnamese, Myanmar, Indo-Chinese that have built up what was old Highway 99, Stockton Boulevard.

So with that, I just wanted to say thank you to our city staff for the work on this,

but more importantly, I also want to thank our mayor for his commitment to Stockton Boulevard.

And Assemblymember Roger Dickinson, who voted for it also.

He's an assembly member as well at that time and was on the Board of Supervisors for that.

Yeah, on 99. Yes, yes. Exactly.

So thank you again for your work on that. Long time coming.

Thank you. Council Member Kaplan on item 20.

Yes, I have a quick question of staff. I sent in an email but did not get a response.

If Ophelia or somebody on item 20, Amber or Matthew Johns is here to answer a question.

If you look at item 20, which is supplemental agreements to the Master Services Agreement for on-call construction inspection services, and this is publishing for its 10-day review.

I did look at this, and it is basically extending or doubling every contract that we have on this.

You know, it's hefty.

It's, you know, $19-plus million.

Where is that money coming from?

because I ask for that as we look at facing a looming budget deficit

and wanting to make sure I understand where money is coming from.

Sure. Hi, my name is Amber Castle-Keene.

I am a senior engineer in the construction inspection section of Public Works.

I've never stood up here before, so is there anything else you need from me?

So these contracts are for our inspectors that inspect the large development projects

or the encroachment projects or any other variety of those.

So the money does not come out from a majority of our projects that we do.

It comes from the development projects that are done by the developers.

So it is, for the most part, the funding for them is fully backed by whatever the developer is doing in the right-of-way.

Okay.

So it's not general fund?

No.

Okay.

That was a, I saw that, but that wasn't clearly stated in the staff write-off.

So I think it's really important when we're spending that much money that that's just made clear.

and congratulations on your first time standing in front of us.

You did great.

Thank you.

Let's move to Council Member Vang on item 23, then 29.

Thank you, City Clerk.

I just have a comment on this item and then just a question for city staff from Economic Development.

This is regarding Ralyard's special fine district.

I know that this past summer, Mayor and Council unanimously voted for the expansion of the EIFD,

but it was later delayed for a year because of a resident protest vote that took place.

One of the leverages that we had as a city in negotiation was included in a term sheet.

That included one, security for three years with the possibility of extending it for 35 years,

which was $3 million of PD service.

And the second was providing revenue of billboards directly to the developers as an expansion of the EIFD.

I just wanted to state for record to the public that this item, item 23, is for pass for publication.

And the purpose of it is to establish the boundaries of the rail yards special sign district.

And it is not, my understanding, it is not to direct where those revenues will be going.

And so my understanding is that staff will bring forward one or more ordinance that will actually provide sign regulation for each of the five sub-districts.

And I just do hope that we can discuss regulations of leases and revenue in larger context,

given that it was originally part of the conversation for the expansion of the EIFD.

And so my question for staff is, this is mainly just to establish the boundaries for the sign,

but what is the timeline when the item will actually come back to council to discuss and finalize the lease and the revenue for the billboards?

So this is a pass for publication for the ordinance, and then the ordinance would follow, I believe, on December 2nd.

We will be returning to council in January with the actual lease arrangements for the signs themselves.

So into the new year is when it will be returning.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I appreciate that clarification.

I had several community and residents reached out to me if what we're voting on today is actually determining if signs revenue from the billboards will be.

Does that is that part of this ordinance?

And the answer is no.

Is that correct?

I just want to make sure that's on record.

That's correct.

OK, thank you so much.

Thank you.

And Council Member Vang, do you have comments on item 29?

We'll move to that.

Thank you.

Yes, this is for the approval of the Sacramento Employment Training Agency.

I believe Mayor Pro Tem Guerra is queue up for this as well.

As many of you know, we have an open seat on SETA for a public member, and it is a two-year term.

Both Mayor Pro Tem Guerra and I serve on SETA, and we were excited during our last SETA meeting to appoint Dr. Stewart,

who currently serves as the vice president of instruction at Sacramento City College.

I had the opportunity to actually meet with them and have coffee,

And I'm really excited for the partnership.

One, because our community college serves a large underserved population, particularly

parents who have greater need in terms of child care work and their educational goals.

And so I'm really excited and enthusiastic about this partnership.

I think this is going to be really key for the work that we do at SETA in terms of child

care support and workforce development.

And so just wanted to, I know we're going to vote on this today and hopefully my colleagues will pass this, but really excited to have Dr. Stewart be part of the SETA board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Potom-Gara on 29, then 30.

Great.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I'll speak to 29 and 30 all at once here, and I wanted to just, again, as the new chair of the CETA board,

and I want to thank my colleague and the other board members involved to look at what a public member on this board should be,

should qualify as, and what kind of value they could provide.

And I'm excited that the board has nominated Dr. Davon Stewart to this position.

Not only does he come from faculty, starting as a faculty member at Los Rios District, but now as the vice president of instruction at Sacramento City College.

He helped secure funding and start the new STEM building.

He launched programs to help graduate students on time and increase transfer rates to other colleges.

and excitingly and with a lot of passion from his own family history,

he's worked with immigrants that have been instrumental in our community

and helping all of those resources as faculty and students needed in our entire district here.

And so one of the interesting, unique things about the Senate board is not only is involved in workforce development,

but it manages our Head Start programs.

And in his role, he also oversees a lot of the child care facilities as an administrator.

And so it's important to have someone here who's looking at not only on the workforce development side,

but ensuring that we have someone who understands the need for affordable, quality, and available child care

so that families can get the training and education they need,

and also the ability to work to increase their future potential.

So with that and the exciting work that we have here, along with accepting the grant that's identified here in the staff report as well, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move the consent calendar for this and welcome Dr. Davon Stewart to the Sacramento Employment Training Agency.

Thank you.

And then, Mayor, I have only one speaker on the consent calendar, Lambert, on items 4 and 10.

Yeah, as Lambert's walking up, I just want to note that in the spring of 2021, on my little iPhone here, I put in my notes section potential investments in the state budget.

And that was a record surplus year.

And so one of my observations at my first state of the city is things take too long.

But five years later, I see from my notes was Two Rivers Trail, Jackrabbit Trail, and Little Saigon Monument.

So good things come to those who wait.

And so certainly pleased to see these projects come to fruition.

And yeah, let's get to work.

Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

I'm actually speaking on four and nine.

I think it was no four and 10.

Excuse me.

The reason I'm here is because District 2 is the only district in Sacramento that has over 20 communities.

And when you have 20 communities, and I'm a native, I'm a stickler for where that money goes.

And if you look at number four, it talks about Dixie Ann alleyways.

That's a peculiar amount of money coming supposedly from the general fund.

And then, you know, they combine Measure U monies.

So we're studying that.

That's just one of the 20 something districts.

It's one of the most gerrymandered districts in California.

District two.

Now, District 10, it means something to me because it talks about Harry Renfrey Field renovations.

This is, as a teenager, I actually played here.

So I know this field.

And it's not just for the field.

They should stop saying it's just for the field.

Because there's some very expensive homes behind Harry Renfrey Field.

and I believe that's behind it.

Also, I see where the city manager's office

is able to expand something into $3.34 million.

My question is, was it bidded out?

Because if it wasn't bidded out,

it's really, to me, a violation of the Brown Act.

I'd like to know how can you have a contract

and then all of a sudden you can take it

to 3.34 million and the public doesn't even know,

was it bid on?

And it even says measure U.

So measure U and the general fund being combined.

That's why you have that controversy.

Thank you for your comments.

Mayor, I have no more speakers.

You have a motion by Mayor Pratim-Garra

and a second by Vice Mayor Telemontes.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

He knows their abstentions.

Yes, that motion passes unanimously.

We now move to item number 35, which is a public hearing.

It is a City Council Housing Authority item, which is approval of the 2026 Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency proposed budget and adopting a multifamily loan and mortgage revenue bond application schedule.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the Council.

My name is Kay Junta.

I am pleased, I'm sorry, Kay Junta with Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency, Assistant Director

of Finance, and I am pleased to share with you our 2026 proposed budget.

Sorry, is it going to be on the screen?

Vice Mayor, before we get started, may I open the public hearing?

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, but I, yes, I am pleased to share with you, um, our 2026 proposed budget reflecting

a balanced plan that supports our mission to expand affordable housing opportunities

and strengthen community revitalization throughout Sacramento.

The budget brings together resources from federal, state, and local partners, and it

represents a careful alignment of revenues and expenditures to ensure financial stability.

As we walk through the details today, you will learn about both our funding priorities

and the programs that have the greatest impact on the families and neighborhoods we serve.

For the coming year, SHRA anticipates approximately $341 million in new resources.

These resources represent the foundation of our budget and support the wide range of housing

and community development programs we deliver throughout our communities.

The majority of these new resources is derived from federal funding,

which accounts for over 70% of our budget and is primarily through the Department of Housing

and urban development.

These dollars are critical in sustaining our largest programs,

especially the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Public Housing Program.

The remaining 30% come from state and local resources,

including state and local housing trust funds,

homeless housing assistance and prevention funding,

permanent local housing allocation,

as well as new opportunities such as ProInstead of Housing and Green Means Go.

Here's how these funds are allocated across our programs and operations.

216 million is dedicated to help payments.

This is the cornerstone of our housing choice voucher program and

provides direct rental support to families in need.

60.7 million is expected to go towards capital projects,

ensuring we continue to invest in new housing development,

rehabilitation of existing units and community revitalization initiatives.

37.1 in salary and benefits is for the dedicated staff who administer these programs and deliver services across Sacramento.

19.2 million towards services and supplies support the day-to-day costs that keep the agency running efficiently.

5.5 million in public services will go towards targeted programs that strengthen neighborhoods and support residents.

$2.5 million in debt service allows us to responsibly manage long-term financial obligations.

This distribution demonstrates how SHRA balances operational needs with program investments while ensuring the majority of our dollars go directly into housing assistance and community development.

Now let's take a look at how the agency has trended since 2023.

operations have steadily grown from 250.7 million in 2023 to 280.8 million proposed in 2026.

This represents a 12% increase over four years driven primarily by growth and housing assistance.

Capital projects by contrast have declined from 89.4 million in 2023 to 60.7 million

in 2026 at 32 points 32 percent reduction and this reflects the completion of major construction

projects such as completion of Marisol Village. Housing assistance payment shows a steady rise

primarily driven by increases in per unit housing costs reflecting inflationary pressures and rising

market rents rather than a significant change in the number of assisted households. By 2026 nearly

four out of every five dollars in operations growth are directed to housing assistance.

A major program is a housing choice voucher program. This slide highlights the trend in

housing assistance payments, or HAP, alongside related expenses and reserves over the past

several years. What you're really seeing here is not a sudden jump in the number of vouchers we

administer. SHRA has long managed voucher utilization at a consistently high level.

Instead, the upward curve reflects the steady rise in Sacramento's housing costs.

As rents climb, the cost of providing assistance rises along with them.

Funding for this program is tied to how many families we assist, but is also shaped by the federal appropriations process.

Even when eligibility is strong, the dollars available depend on how much Congress allocates.

That's where proration comes into play.

In previous years, HAP funding was essentially fully covered, close to 100%, while administrative fees were supported in the 90% range.

For 2026, however, both are projected to be in the 80s, meaning we will receive less than the full cost of providing these services.

This forces us to request and compete for additional funds as demand and costs grow.

This chart shows the revenue history of the agency's public housing program and how its role in our overall budget has shifted over time.

Back in 2020, total revenues for the housing authorities reached $21.6 million.

That was a temporary peak driven by one-time federal relief.

Since then, revenues have steadily declined.

the biggest factor is the reduction of operating subsidies, which continue to shrink each year.

In 2026, we anticipate our biggest decline in support, estimating a proration of approximately 88%.

In 2025, subsidies total $9.3 million, but for 2026, they are projected to fall further to $7 million.

This reflects both the declining number of public housing units and declining federal proration,

which reduces the percentage of costs that are reimbursed even when we remain eligible.

At the same time, tenant rental revenues are showing slight growth.

In 2025, tenant revenues brought in $7.7 million.

In 2026, we expect that to increase to $7.9 million.

This modest improvement comes from stronger rent collection efforts,

as the agency has focused on ensuring rent resident contributions are collected consistently and on time.

And now, Executive Director James Shields will provide additional updates impacting 2026.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor, Council Members.

My name is Jim Shields, the Acting Executive Director.

And what I'd like to do is to take you through some of the federal and state issues that we're having right now.

So on the state side, the affordable housing support, the state has continued to support affordable housing,

and the governor and the legislature has finalized a budget that provides $4 billion in resources to address affordable housing.

Homeless housing assistance prevention, the budget includes $1 billion for new housing homeless assistance prevention programs.

Additional housing investments, $500 million added to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, $418 million for competitive multifamily housing or supernova from HCD.

Home Key, finally there's $2.2 billion granted for the new Home Key Plus Program.

Throughout the state, Home Key has added an additional 16 million homes throughout the last few years.

On the federal side, on November 12th, the legislature and the president passed a continual resolution through January of next year.

We're used to a continual resolution.

In the 24 years I've been at SHRA, we've never had a full budget on time.

And so this is not new to us.

What was new to us was that 40-some-odd day shutdown.

down. So we continue to work. So we are fully budgeted and funded through January.

One of the other issues we have is the impact on vouchers. And I've talked to some of you

about the emergency housing voucher program. Unfortunately, it looks like that that is

not being funded the way it was supposed to. It was funded for a 10-year program and now

Now we're a year and four and we're out of money.

We've gone from 494 units, we're now down at 440.

On the national advocacy side,

we work tirelessly with organizations

to put through solutions that will preserve these vouchers.

We received a waiver from HUD to place the individuals

with these vouchers at the top of our wait list.

Unfortunately, because we're in a state

where we don't have any more money for vouchers,

once we lose a voucher, we can't put them on the wait list.

And so what we've asked HUD to do

is to see if we can put them on the public housing wait list.

They have our request.

And since they've been out for the last month,

they have not answered our request.

But we would hope that we'd be able to put them

on our public housing at the very top

of our public housing wait list.

As Kay said, we take a balanced approach to the budget.

And one of the things that we've really worked hard on is to look at our technology.

We have some technology that manages the housing authorities.

It's called Yardi.

And it's at the end of life.

And we're putting in a new system.

It's going to be a two-year program.

It will be much more efficient and easier for the residents of Sacramento County to

access the system, get on the vouchers waiting list and be able to get housing.

So we think that's a good positive aspect.

On the national housing organizations, we work with the National Association for Housing

and Redevelopment Officials and the Council on Large Public Housing Authorities are advocating

on your behalf to make sure that Congress understands the needs of the local housing

authorities.

The last on this one is the 10-year roadmap.

What the 10-year roadmap does, the last one was done in 2010.

It's supposed to be done every 10 years by HUD.

It hasn't been done since then.

What this addresses are the capital needs for public housing.

In today's dollars, the capital needs for all of public housing in the U.S. is $169 billion.

Our need for capital funds is $130 million.

And so you can see we're well short of getting that kind of money every year.

Homeless response, the SARA program, just a few seconds on that.

We managed that for the city and the county, and there was $185 million.

that we received in grants and we were able to

continue housing

16,578 households.

Very successful program. We've come back before with you and so it ended this year though.

Housing Finance, the organization that provides

funding for all the projects that we work on.

We distributed 15 million dollars worth of loans

this year. We've renovated and or produced a thousand new homes or renovated homes and

we've worked on six home key projects. Most of them are in the city which created 620

new housing units. We also partnered with Habitat for Humanity to create six new homeownership

to create six new homeownership communities.

And we provided 285 home repairs for low income families.

On this slide, we're allocated $18.6 million

on federal funding and this is for our safety nets.

And these are for all the programs that we have that,

I think I'm on the wrong slide.

No, that's the right slide.

programs that fund complete public housing, facilities, improvements, restrooms, different

programs that we have that are used with CDBG and home type of funds.

What I wanted to do is discuss a little bit about the numbers of projects that we work on.

We have two that have been done so far in the city and four this year for the county.

More importantly, we provide support for Meals on Wheels, 4,000 seniors,

home repairs for 1,000 people, and support for 650 people in shelters unhoused.

That's this slide right there.

Now, asset repositioning is our RAD program, our Rental Assistance Demonstration Program.

And what we've done for the seven years ago, the governing boards approved the revised

asset repositioning plan for the public housing, which takes public housing into the private

sector, puts them into where we have tax credit programs, we partner with a developer, and

and we're able to provide vouchers,

RAD vouchers and project-based vouchers

so that we can sustain those projects.

Everybody that lives there gets to stay there,

but it's much more efficient

and it's much more cost effective for us.

And so this year, next year, excuse me,

we're gonna focus on the county.

We've done most of them in the city,

so we have three projects that we'll be working

the county on for the RAD projects.

Asset Management, that is our nonprofit, Sharp.

We have three nonprofits.

We have Sharp, we have Phoenix Park,

and we have, what's the other one?

Shasta, excuse me, Shasta, excuse me.

And those are the units that make up the LLCs,

the light tech, and it's gone from seven years ago,

zero to 1400.

And those 1400 are really public housing units

that we transitioned into that.

And last is Marisol Village.

And I wanna thank the city council

for all the support that you've lent

this organization to make this happen.

It's been a long, long time.

And it's cost a lot of money,

but it's gone from 215 units to 487 of mixed income.

It's changed the neighborhood.

We've added light rail, worked with RT on that.

They've been a wonderful partner with us.

We really appreciate that.

And I just wanted to thank you.

We're at the last stage in this.

we have the new Child's Learning Center,

which we're partnering with SETA on,

and they are starting to have their teachers

and their students start there real soon.

And so I just want to again thank you so much.

This means a lot to the organization

and also to all that you've added to our support there.

With that, that concludes my presentation,

and I'm here for any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

We're going to take public comment first, and then we'll do mayor and council questions.

Do we have any public comments?

Vice Mayor, I have no more speakers on the slide.

Okay.

No speakers.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Council Member Maple.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

And thank you, Mr. Shields.

I really appreciate all the information.

I know there's some challenging times, but I just really appreciate you stepping into

this leadership role now, especially the last few months while we've been, you know,

the shutdown, all kinds of issues, things that you can't predict, some that you can.

So I just really appreciate that.

I have a couple questions.

One is a general one.

How many people do we approximately,

I understand you may not have the number off the top of your head,

on our voucher wait list,

and then how many people on our public housing wait list?

Does anyone know that answer?

Mary Liz does.

I was like, I need someone.

You got the whole team here.

She knows it.

She doesn't even have to have the numbers in front of her.

Yes.

Great to see you again.

Good afternoon.

On the HCV wait list, the number's about 97,000.

And to be clear, those are applications.

So if you go to our website, shra.org,

and look at the Housing Choice Voucher web page

and scroll to the bottom, you can see a monthly update

with how many people or how many applications

are on the different wait list.

And I'm saying that to be clear,

because that doesn't necessarily mean 97,000 families.

Families can apply for multiple wait lists.

Okay. And then on the public housing side?

On the public housing side, the number is, I want to say it's about 42,000.

It's not quite as large.

And that information is also by different wait lists.

Okay. That's really helpful.

And I know that these numbers change.

I guess I'm curious.

It seems like it's probably not 97,000 families in Sacramento

that are waiting on the housing choice voucher list.

And so does a SITRE periodically go through that and kind of determine how many people are still actively looking versus how many people might have been on there and don't actually aren't looking anymore so that there's an accurate number?

Yes.

So there's different wait lists and the answer is a little bit different for the different waiting lists.

So some are site based and so are for our project based vouchers.

And so we do periodically go through and check with the families to see are they still interested or not.

For our tenant based voucher list, that's the one that most people are interested in,

we typically open for just a set number of families that we feel we can serve in a two-year

time period.

We opened it in 2022 and we received over 23,000 applications.

We said in advance we were only going to take 5,000.

Once the wait list closes, we randomly select the 5,000 to go onto the wait list.

It's currently at about 3,500 and we're moving through that slower than when we anticipated

or expected because we're in shortfall there hasn't been the funding as Mr. Shields mentioned.

And then do we know approximately how long people tend to be on the wait list or is that

just completely random?

Again, it's going to be different for each of the wait list.

For the tenant based waiting list, we opened it in 2022.

So the longest anybody's waited on that list has been since January.

So three years.

Okay, thank you.

That's really helpful.

I just wanted to make sure I wrote my mind around it because I get questions about this.

So one of the, I have two main questions.

One is around the local voucher program.

You mentioned we know that it has been out of funds for some time and there's a lot of

of different reasons for that, including the cost of rent and the, you know, not getting

the anticipated or hoped revenues from the federal government.

And I'm just kind of curious what this means in actuality on the ground.

So, you know, for example, we have, you know, X number of people who have a voucher who

are currently in a unit, and that voucher is paying for their unit.

And then we have people who are on the wait list.

And so if you're someone who is in your unit, so the people who are in their units and they

have their vouchers currently, are they going to be able to be paid under the funds that

we currently have or are we unsure if we're going to be able to continue to do that?

So the funds are appropriated by Congress every year. So right now through this year,

through the end of this calendar year, our fiscal year, HUD has said that the funding

exists to continue. There's a continuing resolution, as you've heard, that we'll cover

through January. So we're waiting to see, but we fully expect there to be the funds in January. We

have not heard that officially. And then beyond January at this point, we, like everybody, is

waiting to see what Congress approves. Okay. And that's for the folks who are currently in units,

not necessarily folks who have vouchers who are trying to get in a unit? So for everybody who has

As a voucher right now, we believe that there is funding for them. There's always about

500 families that are in the midst of moving who are not associated with the voucher. So

and that's fluid. It changes every day, every minute as families are in the process of moving.

So at this point, we believe based on history and HUD and Congress are very reluctant, have

not terminated assistance for someone who is currently housed yet through the voucher program.

So we believe that that is something that will be covered. But we don't have vouchers for new

families, for the families on the waiting list that you're asking about. Okay, that's really

helpful because we do get questions about this and I know it's just a challenging time and it's

an issue to not only us but all over the state and the U.S. folks are trying to grapple with.

The other question I have is, I'm not sure if it's connected, but I know for the COC funding for homelessness, the directive from the administration is to a 30% cap on those funds being spent on permanent housing.

Does that impact SHRA in any way, or is that completely separate?

Well, that does impact, because SHRA oversees the Shelter Plus Care program, which is funded through the Continuum of Care.

And so in the past, the majority of funds have been used to support permanent housing,

permanent supportive housing.

And so with this change, with putting a cap on the amount of funding that can be used for permanent housing,

the focus is transitioning to transitional housing, which in the past has not been an eligible activity.

So this is a very, very big change and will impact the families that are currently participating.

Let me say also Shelter Plus Care is serving the folks who are the neediest for housing.

They are folks who cannot live independently.

That's why it's Plus Care.

So we work in partnership with the Supportive Services to provide the care to folks who need that special assistance to be able to remain housed.

So that is a concern.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

That's it for my questions.

Just really briefly, I want to say that, one, we move mountains, make miracles happen with the few resources that we do have.

So I just really want to thank you all and your team at SHRA for doing the Lord's work.

But I also want to say it's really incredibly disappointing to see this federal administration take away needed resources and make it even more challenging to do what was already very difficult.

right it was already very difficult to to get some of the most vulnerable people in our community

housed to keep them housed and now it's it's that much harder and so I just want to recognize that

and you know and say hopefully that we can all weather this storm together and continue to do

good with what we do have but it's just it keeps getting harder each and every day so thank you

thank you so much and you took my questions about the voucher system so I am good to go

and I don't see any other council members punched up.

Council Member, Mayor Pro Tem Guerra.

Yeah, just thank you, Vice Mayor.

I just wanted to thank your work with SETA at the facilities

and anything we can do to reduce the transportation costs

to get to some of the programs that we have,

on-site services is critical.

And finally, I do appreciate the folks at Marisol Village

for working to do the e-bike voucher program outreach

and trying to look at different multimodal ways

and if we can reduce the amount of costs in transportation,

such as owning a vehicle with insurance and maintenance costs,

let alone the purchase itself.

I think we need to do more of that in our public facilities.

We started with the car share program at the Broadway location.

I think all of those pieces are key,

but overlapping the services we do, I think it's critical.

So thank you for that, Mr. Shields.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Jim, really want to thank you for your service and stepping into this

and continuing to try and float the ship during this uncertainty.

Just a couple things if you could remind me of,

because we know that we've got increased costs.

we're getting less money from the state,

we're getting less money from the federal budget.

Right.

This is about your budget.

What measures has SHRA done?

Because we know we're going to have to tighten the belt.

Right.

So thank you for the question.

We have frozen 40 positions and unfunded them.

So, and there are positions,

and I'm still putting a chart together,

but they're positions that are relatively,

have not been open that long.

And so there's 40 of them.

That's a $5.5 million savings for us.

So that's money that would continue to go towards

the support of the HCV and public housing.

We are not, we're looking at our unwrapped employees

not receiving an increase.

We are cutting all travel.

We are looking at consulting, you know, very limited consulting.

So it's a bare bones budget for us right now.

We want to be very conservative and make sure that whatever dollars we had went towards the programs.

So a lot of administrative positions are being unfunded.

And then the SARA program, which ended this year, those were open positions as well.

So they were funded through this year, but they're not going to be funded next year.

Thank you for that.

And I appreciate you making those hard decisions.

I don't think anybody wants to do this.

Speaking of, you know, and you've said a lot about HCV.

What, and then, you know, unknowns with a federal budget.

Right.

You said you're funded through the end of January.

Yes.

Worst case scenario, something happens again and we don't have a budget.

What do we as the council need to know?

Where's a heads up?

What decision making may we have to make if it appears that you're not going to have any federal funding or money come in?

If we don't get the funding, we have enough money that we could probably keep most of the staff working to provide support for the residents.

We won't be able to do, we won't probably have people can't come in.

We probably won't take phone calls, but we can continue to, if people have issues, we can try to work with them on that.

But it's an unknown.

What we really would have to work on is we would need your support on outreach to the community,

making sure people knew exactly what that meant because there are 5,000 landlords

that are going to be needed to communicate it with to let them know what happens if we don't get that much.

because that means they don't get their payments.

And so there's a lot of communications

that are going to have to take place.

Well, and that brings up kind of the,

what do we have in place

if something like that would happen?

And does it stay people getting kicked out

if the federal government doesn't send in the money

or do people get notifications

of you're going to get evicted?

Because that's a big concern.

Good question.

when landlords sign their contract, they agree not to evict a resident if they don't get their

funding. So they cannot evict them. They won't evict them. They won't. And I think that's a good

thing for us to get out because that is an unknown and many of the residents don't understand that

because there isn't available housing because of the cost and everything else. And so this would

also mean they would end up on our streets.

Yes.

We were ready to come to you in early December if the continuation of the resolution wasn't

signed.

We have a contingency plan and we will go to you and say, here's what we'd like to do.

So those are some of the things that we would do.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure those questions were asked just if a worst case scenario happens.

And just want to thank you for your service and stepping up and being a leader for all

the employees as well.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Wonderful. So I will close the public hearing and move this item.

I'll second that.

Thank you. And then all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? One abstention. Mayor McCuddy.

One absent.

One absent, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you all. Have a great day. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right. Now we're moving along to item 36.

and vice mayor item 36 is also a public hearing so we'll go ahead and open that public hearing

public hearing has been opened and if you can introduce yourself yeah

good afternoon vice mayor council members my name is kevin collin i'm the zoning administrator for

the city of sacramento i'm joining me today is kirk skierski senior planner also uh courtney

Burdick and Greg Sandlin our planning director. Today on your for this agenda

item is an ordinance. On September 16th we were before you requesting direction

on what should this ordinance contain and at that time we had a staff

recommendation and a Planning and Design Commission recommendation. From that

meeting we took your direction from the majority of council members and we've

attempted to reconcile that in a single ordinance reflecting that direction and

I'm going to present those in the same format we did in September in terms of subjects or topics.

And while I do so, I'll address both majority opinion and minority opinions of council members

to help you understand what's included or not.

First, first topic, we're talking about cannabis land uses, where they can locate.

One significant factor in terms of regulation we call sensitive uses.

The ordinance presented today includes the staff recommended sensitive uses as we presented in September and as they are listed on the slide before you.

The types on the left, their locations, and their buffers on the map to the right.

These are distances from which cannabis businesses, dispensaries in particular, can locate.

Schools is a mandatory prohibitive buffer.

no dispensary may go within that distance.

As I'll explain in a moment,

the rest have a little bit more nuance

based on your direction.

We have other business types besides dispensaries

that I would characterize as industrial in nature.

They are not storefronts.

The public do not visit them.

The school's sensitive use would apply to those uses,

which we call production and testing.

The buffer distance we discussed in our prior meeting,

the ordinance includes a 600 foot buffer distance.

In our prior meeting,

we also heard an alternative proposal

for a different distance.

In the staff report that we provided in writing

and on the illustration before you in this presentation,

there are effects of having a larger buffer distance,

in this case from a school.

If that buffer distance is increased,

it does reduce the acreage where cannabis businesses

could locate in an eligible zoning district

by just about 28%.

The council districts which are most affected

in terms of reduction are districts one, five, and seven.

Showing a different representation of what that means

in terms of actual properties where these businesses

located is now shown on the right

by those different colors of zoning districts.

Another alternative proposal presented at the prior meeting is rather than the staff recommended

sensitive uses or the commissions that the state of California and the business and professions

code does list sensitive uses.

And those are K through 12 schools, daycare centers, and youth oriented facilities.

We have the first and the third of those included in the ordinance, not the second.

If you apply those to, there we go,

to eligible zoning districts,

the effect of using the state uses versus the city,

the staff recommended is about an 8% reduction,

just over 750 acres that are increased citywide.

Districts five and seven see a reduction

in zoning districts and properties

that could accommodate cannabis

under that sensitive use scenario.

Next topic that we discussed concerns permit type.

This works hand in hand with sensitive uses.

The ordinance before you today

includes an administrative permit

for businesses of dispensary production and testing.

For a dispensary, that permit option would exist

when located more than 600 feet from a sensitive use.

Consistent with the direction we received,

we heard a desire for some flexibility

to consider locations for dispensaries

that might be less than 600 feet from a sensitive use.

And this is all accepting the school.

As I mentioned, the school is a prohibited buffer.

It's a firm line.

That there should, the ordinance includes

a conditional use permit that could be considered

by the Planning and Design Commission

for dispensaries that are closer than 600 feet.

And then of course in the final column, lounges,

consistent with our recommendation and your direction

are required under the ordinance

to have a commission level conditional use permit period.

Now for all of these different permit types,

I wanted to summarize, we heard an interest

in being educated as a community member

to know what may be coming, how to participate,

each of those permit options in the ordinance,

we would provide notice for both types.

Even though a hearing wouldn't be provided

for an administrative permit,

there would be two public notices provided,

an application receipt and an application decision

for an administrative permit.

In the middle column, when a decision is rendered,

if you're a concerned citizen, or an applicant,

You didn't agree with the decision, what could you do?

The recourse options are provided for both permit types,

for both an administrative permit and a conditional use permit.

And then finally, in the third column, consistent with your direction,

conditional use permits would continue to be provided a call-up provision

as they are today, so that a decision could be called up by the mayor

or council member in whose district the business is located

from a commission decision to this body for a de novo hearing.

To give you a sense geographically,

what does this mean in terms of who may decide for cannabis businesses

where the salmon is indicating an administrative permit would be possible

based on our map at that point in time of sensitive uses.

The purple is indicating properties that are less than 600 feet

and would require a commission level decision.

Now in terms of permit type, we did receive another perspective and that is that there

should be a conditional use permit for all cannabis businesses.

We'll defer to your direction should that path be chosen.

Today we do require them for all businesses.

If you are more than 600 feet, that's a zoning administrator level decision.

If you're less, it's a commission level decision.

Next topic, consumption lounges.

Although codified in Title V of City Code

for business regulation purposes,

the zoning does not yet include this land use.

The ordinance before you includes it and provides,

as I mentioned, a commission level permit required.

They must, by law, be at a storefront dispensary.

And for locational purposes,

the ordinance uses the dispensary location

as a determinant for where a lounge could be considered.

And then again, as I mentioned,

a conditional use permit would be the ultimate requirement.

We have a slight change in the ordinance

in terms of the location criteria for consumption lounges.

I would characterize what we've drafted

as being a little too specific.

We were not intending for it to be in all instances

a consumption lounge within a building,

specifically which is what the ordinance in the packet includes.

We instead intended for the location to conform to state law,

as well as our Title V business regulations.

And what this specifically would accomplish

with the reworded language here is would allow a type one

non-smoking lounge to not be strictly within a building.

It could be within an enclosed outdoor area

that is not visible to the public, but again, not smoking.

So should you agree with the staff recommendation and move,

we would ask that you include this in the motion.

And with those topics, I'll now move on.

There are a couple of other,

I thought we thought were substantive,

important elements of the ordinance

that were worthy of mention.

The first is the inclusion of some new zoning districts.

It was an idea at the beginning of this project

and we presented it previously.

So there would be three new zoning districts

that would allow store foot dispensaries.

and those are the C1, C3, and RMX zones,

primarily in terms of location concentrated

in the central city or the grid area,

but also distributed in much smaller parcels throughout town.

Another recommendation concerns cannabis production,

which is our industrial type,

an umbrella for different business types.

Currently, distribution is subject

to a 2.5 million square foot cap

within the Power-In Alliance area.

We're recommending that distribution be removed from that cap

and not count towards the limitation,

but the cultivation cap would still remain.

Next, there is a new state business type of processing

that we have integrated into the ordinance

for consistency purposes to include it within production.

We're getting to the end here.

We also heard some direction about treating lawful cannabis businesses fairly or not having them be subject to different requirements should sensitive uses move in to their vicinity.

So the ordinance includes what we call a first-in-time provision.

So should a dispensary, for example, open up lawfully with permits and over time, the next year a sensitive use moves in in the area within 600 feet,

and then subsequently this business decides to expand or change in some way

that they will not under this ordinance be subject to any different requirements than they originally were.

With that, I'll conclude our recommendation is that you determine this ordinance exempt from CEQA,

the California Environmental Quality Act,

and that you adopt the ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 relating to cannabis land uses.

We believe that this ordinance is responsive to the cannabis study that has found cannabis has not had a negative impact on retail or industrial uses.

It has not increased crime above those of other businesses.

It has not had a negative fact on home values.

And it has not produced negative economic effects on commercial and residential districts.

Additionally, we think that the regulations we're presenting are equitable, fair, that they balance a variety of competing viewpoints.

The standards that we're recommending, sensitive uses in particular as defined, are predictable.

And that's an improvement over our current regulations.

They are clear and verifiable for staff, business owners, and the community.

The permit types that we're recommending, we believe, reduce existing barriers appropriately in terms of cost and permit type.

And we believe overall that this ordinance provides a more predictable outcome for cannabis uses that comply with prescribed standards.

That's my presentation.

Thank you so much.

We're going to take public comment now and then we'll do a council member questions and comments.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I have 20 speakers on this item, so I will call a few of you.

You'll line up in the little aisle.

We'd appreciate it.

Mayesha Bahati, Jennifer Copenhaver, Jeanette Carpenter, Joy Patterson, Joshua Lewis, Deanna

Garcia.

Mayesha.

Good afternoon, Council.

and Mayor. My name is Maisha Behati. I am the CEO of Crystal Nugs, our city's first black

woman-owned dispensary, and I'm located here in Midtown. I want to start by thanking the council

and OCM for carving out a pathway for social equity. If that didn't happen, I probably would

not be standing here. I stand here in support of Title 17, as I hope to be one of the first

consumption lounges in Sacramento to open. As a mother of three, I understand and respect the

passion behind protecting our youth, but I also want to bring some kind of common sense into the

conversation. After eight years of operating a licensed cannabis business, two years operating

a very visible storefront dispensary on J Street, I have never, not once, had any minor attempt to

get into our store. So let's give our youth some credit. They're not trying to get into regulated

candidates dispensaries. I also want to point out just something I read in the comments as I was

preparing. Back in 2023 in September, we as an industry stood before you asking for a reduction

in our excise taxes. And the room was full of youth advocates that stated that a reduction

would harm the youth programs, that our funding was essential.

Yet today, we stand before you trying to grow our businesses,

and we're looked at as predators and risk of youth.

So can we be both?

Can we be essential to fund these programs and predators at the same time?

That's just my question I have.

I fully understand that we're going to get a CUP.

I went through that process before.

I thought it was a process that really gave the community a voice.

So again, I hope that we can lead on economics and not fear.

And I look forward to hopefully opening the lounge.

Thank you.

Jennifer and then Janette.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer Copenhaver.

I'm the HR manager at A Therapeutic Alternative.

I spoke before in September.

I just want to thank you for considering our concerns related to on-site consumption and more specifically our healing tea garden.

It means so much to be heard and seen as a positive contributor to our city, our community, and our local economy.

I know a lot of hard work went into balancing the needs of businesses and the needs of the community.

I urge you to adopt the ordinance as amended before you, and I thank you again for your time, consideration, and everyone's hard work.

Jeanette.

Good afternoon, Mayor McCarty and Vice Mayor Talamontes, Mayor Pro Tem Guerra, and council members.

My name is Jeanette Carpenter.

I'm here on behalf of Child Action.

Since 1976, Child Action has empowered Sacramento County's families by connecting them to high-quality child care.

We are proud to partner with 4,204 child care providers, and we serve 2,897 children across our community.

We respectfully urge the City Council to support the Planning and Design Commission's recommendation to include child care facilities in the sensitive use buffer requirement for cannabis dispensaries and consumption lounges.

The council also took direction on September 16th, and we would also like to encourage that same recommendation to keep the child care facilities within sensitive use.

In addition, one of the staff proposals, rationales for retaining K-12 schools categorization as sensitive use, applies equally to child care.

So the current proposal had asserted that impressionable youth are those age 6 through 17.

However, that's incorrect because child care facilities can serve 6 to 13 as well.

So for these reasons, we urge you to ensure that cannabis dispensaries and cannabis consumption lounges require the 16-foot buffer and include child care facilities.

Thank you for your consideration and your support for children and young people as well as the young educators that serve them.

Next speaker is Joy, then Joshua.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council.

The cannabis ordinance before you reflects the discussion and direction of the City Council

to staff at the September 16th Council meeting.

This ordinance as presented to you today takes into consideration the conclusions of the

comprehensive cannabis study and the concerns of community members, cannabis business owners,

and customers that were expressed in the public hearings.

It clarifies and defines sensitive uses

and continues to require conditional use permit approval

for dispensaries that propose to locate

within sensitive use boundaries.

I urge you to adopt the proposed ordinance

amending Title 17 as amended by staff today.

Thank you for listening to all the comments

at the previous meetings and the work of city staff

in developing the ordinance resulting in clearer

and improved regulations for cannabis in the city of Sacramento.

Thank you.

Joshua Lewis, Indiana Garcia, Kimberly Cargill.

Vice Mayor and Council Members, good afternoon.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this item.

My name is Josh Lewis, and I serve as Government Relations Manager for Embark.

We are a licensed and operating cannabis business in the city of Sacramento down on Mack Road.

You've seen your locally licensed cannabis operators before you a few times now over the past year or so,

raising concerns about these proposed amendments. I'm here to focus on one, that the city must

include existing cannabis retailers in the list of sensitive uses that's adopted tonight.

Without that, these amendments will undercut the very businesses that Sacramento has already

licensed, regulated, and relied on to build a stable cannabis program. The amendments being

considered today were drafted more than a year ago without meaningful consultation with the

operators who actually live under these rules. Since then, my colleagues and I have raised the

same concerns repeatedly and very little has been changed in the draft to address them.

The framework before you still allows new retailers to be cited directly next to and

in more sensitive areas than longstanding operators who made significant investments

based on the city's original expectations and land use decisions.

Cannabis retailers in Sacramento are simply asking for consistency.

We're not asking for a new accommodation, but rather to maintain the regulatory profile

that we applied under.

When the city first opened this market, it established buffers to ensure thoughtful growth, neighborhood compatibility, and a level playing field.

Operators made numerous business decisions, signed long-term leases, and built their stores around these rules.

Maintaining these protections matters because stability is what allows us to keep providing quality jobs, generating millions in tax revenue, and showing up for the neighborhoods we serve.

Removing those guardrails now introduces unpredictability that no well-regulated industry can operate under.

Oversaturation is a real risk across every retail category in this community,

and cannabis is no different.

When you combine that with higher taxes, strict compliance requirements,

and competition from the illicit market,

throwing out basic land-use spacing is actively harmful to the very market

the city has grown to rely upon.

Sacramento deserves a cannabis ecosystem built on stability and intentional planning,

not one forced into a race to the city.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Deanna Garcia, then Kimberly Cargill, then James Allison.

DEANA GARCIA, MOTHER OF FIVE AND A GRANDMOTHER OF ONE, LONG TIME ADVOCATE FOR CANNABIS AND

PATIENTS' RIGHTS.

I THANK THE CITY FOR BRINGING US THIS FAR AND ALL THE HARD WORK AND GREAT WORK THAT

WAS DONE BY THE CITY STAFF.

I just ask that you accept and approve as written by the city staff and bless you and

happy holidays.

Thank you for your comments.

Kimberly, then James.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Kimberly Cargile.

I'm the CEO of a therapeutic alternative, a legacy storefront dispensary in East Sacramento,

planning diligently for many years now to provide an on-site consumption tea garden for our patients.

The cannabis ordinance before you reflects the discussion and direction of city council from the last meeting,

and it takes into consideration both the concern of community members and the industry.

I went through this ordinance with a fine-tooth comb as it directly affects my business, thus my life and my future,

and I found the ordinance has taken into consideration the majority of my concerns to date

and has remedied them at the direction of council.

I'd like to thank staff for their hard work on this issue.

I really appreciate the time and effort spent on getting this right the first time around.

I've worked for years to imagine, design, and plan for our healing tea garden,

and I'm hoping the last deterrent can be resolved.

We can move forward with our hard-laid plans.

Oh, yay, I have a minute.

So I'd like to say a few more things.

I do agree with the dispensary-to-dispensary buffer, as you will hear from many people today.

That's one thing we've been asking in numerous letters for.

And then I also just wanted to talk to the community and let you know that we have been in operation for 15 years

And we have never had a child knock on our door or do a haymister in our parking lot

We're highly regulated. We're mothers. We're grandmothers

We care about this community and care about the children

There are places in the community that they are maybe getting cannabis at a high school level

It's not the dispensaries

I'd love for the city council to address that with the smoke shops and the hemp cbd

that's on the market that we are seeing in schools and is dangerous.

I'm actually studying cannabis in depth, scientific level, like the highest level possible.

Cannabis has never caused a death until the synthetic cannabinoids arrived.

That's what we really need to regulate.

We need to protect our children from, so I'd love to see that at a future meeting.

Thank you.

If you have any comments, James Allison, Aaron Cardoza, Cajar Rasa.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor, Council Members and Staff.

My name is James Allison. I'm the executive director of the Power and Alliance.

We're a property business improvement district that represents over 1,300 businesses

and nearly 30,000 jobs in Sacramento's manufacturing and industrial core.

You can also make us out by the heavily impacted area where all of the cannabis business are

in the bottom southeast corner of the district or of the city.

I'm here today to offer our support for most aspects of the staff suggestion today.

We're hugely supportive of cannabis consumption lounges.

we believe that that's an exciting new opportunity presented to businesses in the city.

We're also very excited at the prospect of being able to expand some of those buffer areas

to reduce some of the heavy concentration that we have in power in.

Ultimately, though, we do have to ask that we strongly oppose reduction in CUP requirements

for any cannabis business.

Ultimately, we believe that this makes sense.

It's an age-restricted, controlled substance.

The CUP process is undoubtedly overly burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming.

It is that way for every single business in the city that requires a CUP.

We aren't saying that we shouldn't address that problem,

but it should be something that we address separately

is something like our Streamline Sacramento initiative,

where we can reduce that burden on all businesses within the city.

But ultimately, it provides an incredibly valuable resource

to be able to provide some of those very tailor-made

and custom recommendations in terms of conditions.

And that's across the board, regardless of the type of cannabis business.

We're appreciative of the retention of the 2.5 million square foot boundaries that we have in our district for cannabis cultivation.

But ultimately, we just must really ask a retention of that CUP process and to be a part of that seat at the table.

Thank you very much.

Your comments, Aaron, then Cajar, then Jennifer Pratt.

Good afternoon, board.

My name is Aaron Cardoza, city councilman.

How you doing?

So Aaron Cardoza, and most of you guys do know that I do an after-school program with different programs with our young men.

Today I brought out the school, Miracle University.

This is a school located at a church, which Pastor Lovelace has opened up for us.

I'm here today to not only talk about not having a cannabis close to a school.

They said, okay, we're not going to have it.

They switched the words up in the mouths of the school.

But after school, when the bell rings, we still got to take care of our kids, right?

And so I have programs that's at parks, around parks, around buildings, right in the heart of Del Paso Heights,

where we have these education, where we teach our kids not to deal with drugs, not to go around gangs and gun violence.

And most of our kids understand the value of their life.

And when you put a cannabis club, they're saying, oh, well, they won't.

None of the kids won't come and knock on the doors or ask about.

But that's that's other places other than Del Paso Heights.

They will come to somebody and ask a grown person to buy them some weed or buy them some drugs.

They will rob them.

Violence will happen.

You can't tell me won't in the neighborhood I grew up in.

And I know that I serve that community.

So what we're asking, I'm opposing it.

I don't I'm not with it.

I don't think that they understand how serious and dangerous it is bringing a cannabis club or even having a smoke session lounge around to where the kids smell it.

And that's where they're immediately what they're going to do is attract to that.

And so I'm asking that you guys do not allow that to happen.

I mean, cannabis clubs are mostly out far industrial where the kids don't even see it and keep it that way.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Kehar Rasa, then Jennifer Pratt, then Ronnie Walton Sr.

Kehar.

Hello.

Good afternoon, good evening to everybody.

I'm Dr. Kadir Raja, the founder of the Miracle University movement.

We are a dropout prevention movement in Sacramento, California.

Really briefly, our mission is to end the dropout crisis in this city,

There's roughly 3,000 to 4,000 children who drop out of high school every single year in Sacramento County.

We know that 80% of our incarceration, crime, homelessness, trafficking, all of that is tied to our dropout crisis.

And so currently we have over 100 students.

Some of our students are here who are enrolled at the Miracle University School located at 24th and L Street in downtown at the Center of Praise Church.

and one of the reasons that we are so successful is that the environment,

the environment around Center of Praise Church,

the environment around the Miracle School, which is at 24th and L Street,

is a really positive, conducive environment for our students.

Our students, they are tied to internships that are located in the community, for example.

And so you have stores, you have businesses, you have the capital,

you have such a positive, clean environment around the school and the church.

And so we want to keep it that way.

And our students are thriving.

And so we encourage you just to help us maintain a positive environment around all the schools in the city

and keep the cannabis shops away from our schools and our churches.

And we really appreciate you for your time and caring about the children and doing the right thing for our children.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Jennifer Pratt.

I have 10 more speakers on this agenda item.

So Jennifer Pratt, Ronnie Walton, Mindy Galloway, Angelica Sanchez.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Jennifer Pratt.

I'm a product manager at a therapeutic alternative here in Sacramento.

It's nice to see you all again.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our thoughts regarding on-site consumption,

and in particular, our healing tea garden.

We're really excited to use this as an opportunity to educate our senior members

and provide a safe space for socialization.

It truly means a lot to be acknowledged as a positive part of our city,

our community, and our local economy.

We've been in operation for over 15 years near sensitive uses,

and we've never had an issue with public safety.

In fact, our community knows us for our security guards that participate

and the yellow brick road to make sure kids are able to get to and from school safely.

I recognize the significant effort that you all have had in going into balancing the needs

of a local business with those and the broader community with this issue.

I encourage you to approve the ordinance before you with the proposed change to allow a type

one non-smoking lounge to be on premise rather than within a building.

And I want to again say thank you for your time and hope you have a wonderful day.

Thank you.

Ronnie Walton, senior.

To the mayor and council, Pastor Ronnie Walton, I have my short friend with me to stand here with me.

But I'm concerned, and it's already been mentioned, about having a buffer for churches and daycare.

I don't know how we missed it.

We met with the Planning and Design Commission.

They brought that recommendation, I believe, to you.

And I don't know how I didn't make it to this point, but we need a buffer.

We need a buffer.

I don't know how we passed it.

Let me say this, and I don't mean to direct this to anybody,

but many of you show up at our locations, faith-based locations.

You talk to us for the vote.

You tell us whatever you want us to do, not necessarily what you want us to do,

but you listen to our voice.

Well, I ask you to listen to our voice at this point.

Give us a buffer.

Give us a buffer.

That's all we're asking for.

We can't stop marijuana from being sold.

It's illegal.

Give us a buffer.

Don't ignore us.

Please don't ignore us.

Again, thank you for this time.

All we're asking for a buffer for faith-based daycares.

Put us back on the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Mindy Galloway.

Angelica Sanchez.

Trey Ish.

Hi, good afternoon, Mayor, Council, and staff.

My name is Mindy Galloway.

I am the owner and CEO of the Pocket Dispensary.

And, you know, I just want to say thank you for your work on this project.

It has been many years that we've been looking in, talking about the consumption lounges,

and then another many months of Title 17 cleanup, which I do appreciate the streamlining to make

it easier on the city and for the industry as well.

I think as an operator, I will say I do understand the gravity and the responsibility of being

able to operate a cannabis lounge.

And I know me and many of my fellow colleagues, you know, will do all that we can to do that

responsibility and do our lounges in the right way to protect public safety and to be a good

a member of the Sacramento business community.

I just really wanna say thank you.

I also asked to, as well, add the buffer

from dispensary to dispensary back into the land use.

But more importantly, I'm just really happy

to see everything move forward

and I'm happy to be able to start planning

and preparation to open my lounge.

And again, I just wanna say thanks.

Angelica, then Trey.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the City Council and staff.

My name is Angelica Sanchez and I'm here representing Perfect Union, a cannabis

retailer that has operated in the City of Sacramento for the past 15 years. First,

I want to acknowledge the significant work that has gone into these zoning updates. Thank you,

Kirk and Kevin. The ordinance before you creates a transparent and more predictable

path for operators while maintaining oversight. That

That said, we support the creation of two permit pathways, an administrative permit for projects that meet all standards and are not near sensitive uses,

and the conditional use permit for sites that are within those sensitive use and buffer areas.

This structure allows straightforward projects to move forward efficiently, reducing the long delays that often threaten a business during the planning phase,

while still preserving the CUP process where additional review is appropriate.

We also support allowing cannabis consumption lounges through the CUP process, which provides the proper level of scrutiny for this type of license.

On allowable zones, thank you for including RMX C1 and C3.

This is a significant improvement.

These additions open access to viable commercial areas, reduce unnecessary clustering, and support more equitable distribution across the city.

Finally, I support an 1,000-foot separation between storefront dispensaries to maintain balanced distribution without limiting access or future growth.

Overall, this ordinance represents meaningful progress to a more efficient, fair, and workable cannabis land use system in Sacramento.

Thank you so much for your time.

Trey, then David Sinclairty.

Thank you, Mayor McCarty and Council.

My name is Trey Ish and I am the CEO of Symbiotic Sacramento at the storefront dispensary in Sacramento.

We've been in Sacramento for 16 years, same location.

I'd like to thank you for amending Title 17.

I think the changes you have made make sense.

But my only ask is to keep the 1,000-foot buffer distance in between dispensaries.

We don't need dispensaries right next to each other on every corner.

The amendments that you have approved open up more zones, and I believe that there are areas in Sacramento that are underserved.

And we should encourage new dispensaries and ones that want to relocate to look for those locations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, David, then Alexis Angolulo.

Dennis Clark, how are you all doing?

Appreciate you guys' time.

I'm one of the original people that ever got their medical marijuana license in Northern California by Molly Dale and Dale Schaefer.

The idea of what we were doing today is not the idea what they had.

They wanted access to good medical marijuana.

They wanted process.

I'm homeless, okay?

And I'd love to go get some weed right next door.

But I could get fentanyl everywhere, right?

I go get do math there.

I don't do that.

All I'm saying is my name is Jeremy Stiggy, Molly Fry, Dale Schaefer,

the original Prop 215 advocates in this.

Yeah, I see you smile, Bubba.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

Got a little tear in my eye because this is the truth.

I come out of goddamn bush to talk to y'all.

I just use my language.

Hey, we don't need it near parks.

We don't need it near nothing.

at it. You guys, this is

an advocate so we can have good medication

and a good process.

That's all I'm trying to say.

I've been here three times now.

This is my third time. I'm coming

out of my heart. Hey,

we don't need that. We don't need any other churches.

We don't need any other parks.

I'm homeless. It sounds

really good to have it, but it's not a thing,

you guys. Lead the kids

out of it.

That's all I got to say.

it's up Tammy thank you for your comments Alexis then Carla

good afternoon mayor vice mayor and council member my name is Alexis Angulo I am the founder of

Pretty and Posh Cannabis Brand and I was recently awarded a dispensary license from the 2021 RFQ

process I'm here today in strong support of the proposed amendments to the title 17 related to

cannabis land use these updates directly reflect the city's ongoing commitment to reducing barriers

for core operators and strengthening the equity framework Sacramento has invested years into

developing. Allowing administrative permits for dispensary located outside sensitive use buffers

is a critical step forward. It creates a more predictable and efficient plan to becoming

operational and aligns the zoning process with the realities of site acquisition, financing,

and timeline pressures that equity operators face. This amendment cuts unnecessary delays and ensures

the compliant businesses, especially core licenses, can move forward without being stalled by

procedural hurdles that were never intended to prevent our success. And as well, I am against

any increased buffers between dispensaries. I don't think that that would be fair as there's

already a limit into where we could actually become operational. And so I feel that the

thousand square foot separation would actually be more harmful than help equity businesses.

And that is all. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I have three more speakers, Carla,

then Jacob Smit, then Carlos.

Thank you.

So the handout has your yellow is my black.

Proximity to children is a real issue.

You can keep calling concerns stigma, but families in Sacramento know better.

and dismissing parents as misinformed is not only inaccurate, it's insulting.

Youth mental health impacts are not imaginary,

and pretending that they are does not make the risk go away.

Putting additional cannabis activity closer to daycare parks, churches, major youth corridors is reckless.

Increased visibility normalizes use, normalizes, drives experimentation,

and experimentation harms kids.

We cannot keep pretending that this is not harmless.

Armed guards are also a legitimate concern.

It is outrageous to downplay the risk.

If a business requires guns on site,

then it has no business being placed near children, period.

A conditional use permit does not streamline anything.

It's a political spin.

What it truly does is cut the community out of the process.

This isn't greater transparency. It's silencing the neighborhoods that will bear the consequences.

Standing against reasonable protections for defenseless teens and toddlers is a shocking position to take as it puts their futures and their families at risk.

And if adding simple daycare protections make half the city off limits, then maybe the ordinance is the problem, not the daycares.

cannabis revenue is not a moral shield you can talk about tax money all you want but no amount

of revenue will eliminate the risk the long-term risk it certainly does not justify weakening

safeguards meant to protect children if you want to reshape sacramento for the decades to come then

at the very least have the integrity to priorities prioritize children's neighbors and public before

cannabis lobby. Thank you. Next speaker is Jacob, then Carlos will be our final speaker.

Good afternoon.

I'm up here for one point. Please do not allow dispensaries to collect to cluster next to each

other. These are putting Sacramento jobs at risk. When dispensaries are placed side by side,

you don't create opportunity, you destroy it.

Cannibalizing existing small businesses,

many of them poor and legacy operators

who built this industry.

We are local employers paying taxes,

providing benefits and hiring from our neighborhoods.

Our margins are very thin.

We've been in a downturn for the past four years.

Putting another shop next door

often pushes predator landlords

directly threatens our revenues, our workers, our viability.

We do not allow liquor stores next to liquor stores.

City use spacing rules are for a reason,

to prevent oversaturation and protect stable local businesses

and local neighborhoods.

Cannabis deserves the same fairness.

If Sacramento wants strong community-based operators, especially core license holders,

we cannot set them up for failure by removing reasonable distance requirements.

Please increase it from the 600 that's proposed or actually was eliminated to 2,000 feet.

Thank you guys for your time. Appreciate it.

And Carlos will be our final speaker on this agenda item.

Good afternoon. My name is Carlos Ramirez. I'm here on behalf of the sanctuary to echo off of what my colleague Jacob just said in that we want to maintain at least a 1,000 foot buffer between dispensaries.

One, to prevent detrimental saturation and two, as a matter of fairness, we think that the 1,000 foot buffer between dispensaries should be treated as a sensitive use and subject to a CUP.

One, as a matter of fairness to legacy operators and core participants, we had to go through that time-consuming and expensive CUP process.

It wouldn't be fair for new operators to come in and basically bypass that.

And two, it also gives the community a voice that lets members come up, speak, and say what they want in their neighborhoods.

I suppose an exception could be made if a proposed operator were to show that existing businesses can't meet the demand.

But apart from that, I'm strongly suggesting that the 1,000-foot buffer be maintained.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Mayor, I have no more speakers on this agenda item.

Okay.

Council Member Guerra.

Thank you, Mayor.

wasn't intending to go first here, but

let's give it a shot here.

Let me first start off by

thanking

the staff and our planning commissioners

and also

many in the industry who have been involved,

actively involved, since

the

inception of

Sacramento's effort in this.

Ms. Cargill, I want to thank you.

You always spent more time than

anybody else. I almost felt like you had a seat here with your name on it. And it's been productive.

And I appreciate the actual details you've been involved in this. So let me start off by saying

that I think that engagement by the industry in figuring out what is a productive way to move

forward, given the voters' interest in this, was important.

So, the revised ordinance addressing the issue of non-combustion and on-site premises, I

think that's an important concept there.

I think that's an important piece to include in there.

The issues that I think District 6, District 2 has faced has been overconcentration, and it has affected mostly.

You know, I disagree with your conjecture because I know before this study was done, we had issues when overconcentration occurred.

We had many other businesses in the industrial area that were squeezed out because of this rush and elevated and created this inflated market.

And, unfortunately, people lost their jobs because of that, and other businesses relocated to, say, like Rancho Cordova.

When the study was done, we had the council, along with the industry, had created, I think, gotten to a place to normalize industries with the real estate market.

because the operators here, the industry folks here, also had landlords who were creating these normative rents

and taking advantage of the lack of supply.

So, one, I would say the RMX C1 and C3 addition is positive.

I think it's making sure that we expand the opportunity so that there isn't a one, two particularly council districts where it's there,

but also just creating a little more fairness in the market so that you don't have this inflated real estate market that we had before.

The next issue I think that I'll bring up, I think the CUP process.

There are things that I think that need to be stepped down.

And this is from the experience of watching what gets cited, how operation goes, and then what becomes a real issue.

Distribution, manufacturing, testing, those are, I think, one, those are processes that have been less complicated with less issues.

And I think those do warrant an administrative step-down process.

The issue of cultivation, I think, must be, as was mentioned by the Power and Alliance, must maintain itself in the CUP process.

And that's because you still have major odor issues.

And, in fact, you know, to, again, I'll disagree with this point again on safety issues.

Not necessarily that one type of crime happens,

but I just met with an operator for two hours about the issues that they're facing

with their community being targeted,

and part of it has to be with the early design and the issues that the city have.

And so I think the CUP process addresses that,

and the fact that they've had folks that are followed from work

where the facility was designed in a way

where they could track what's happening inside,

and people fall victim to that.

So I do think that the COP process helps in addressing that

because it gets more eyes on the project.

It makes it a better project.

I agree with folks that have said that we have to have parity on this

because I think the CUP process in itself

has created better projects.

And to the point about a recommendation here

that if we go through the administrative process,

then there isn't a council call-up provision.

Well, that's a problem in itself as well.

What you're saying is that the staff is recommending

that essentially if there's an administrative process

and there's a council member who has an issue

with a project and sees that maybe

there were gaps in the outreach or the communication, that then the council would not have an opportunity

to weigh in.

And particularly for cultivation, I think that's a significant issue.

Let me move on here to the cultivation, no call-up provision.

I do think that there are other things that can't be addressed here, but that should be

addressed.

The issue of the multi-tax situation when you have a vertical integration, and many

of the operators have tried to do cultivation with manufacturing to address quality and

to make sure that they're getting products that maybe they don't want pesticides or any

particular things that give them a better or safer product.

I think that the situation that we're trying to address is the cost impact to operators.

And if that's the issue, what we're doing is reducing the COP process to reduce the cost issue,

when the cost issue maybe is in the taxation of the vertical integrated process.

And that must be, I think, looked at instead of reducing the safeguards that come with the regulatory process.

So in my opinion, I think that should be reviewed.

And while I don't agree reducing the number, but if you're the operator that manages a vertical integration process, maybe the taxation point is only at one point there.

So I think that should be something to be explored.

you know in earlier recommendations had a number of of places like you know museums and other uh

you know locations in there i do think that that putting too much on that list reduce it goes

counter to what we tried to do which which is expand the op of the number of places so you

don't have clustering um so i think reducing those number the those uh those locations is okay

I still have a lot of heartburn with child care centers because our current K through 12 facilities now accept TK.

Those are four-year-olds.

That's the same thing as a child care center.

So I do believe that if the council moves forward with this, that child care facilities, let's put it that way,

child care facilities should be, centers should be explicitly written into.

It is hard to determine if there's an in-home care person.

And while I empathize and understand that Child Action works with a lot of in-home care

facilities, that could be anybody's home, and that would be difficult to regulate as

well.

But specifically for centers, I think that needs to be back into the CUP process, in

my opinion here.

I do want to thank the operator here from Crystal Nugs

for also being so engaged in this process

and figuring out how does the city maneuver

to be a good operator, a fair operator,

and then also address the issue of what happens

when a sensitive use moves in.

And I agree with the first-in-time provision.

I think that is a sense of we've had this kind of policy of not moving the goalpost in the past.

It's like when someone has invested a lot of time in their project and that we've allowed folks to continue through that process because this isn't an overnight process.

Everybody knows who's gone through this process.

It's not even a one-month or a two-month process.

This is a significant investment in time and money.

So I do think that whatever the council passes and moving forward must maintain the first-in-time provision.

And then future buyers need to do their analysis of who their neighbors are.

Again, that's why we have the CUP process, to make sure that neighbors and everyone is aware of that.

And if we're removing that and saying it's going to be an administrative process, and with all due respect, even an administrative hearing when you have to go to Richards Boulevard is not a true communicative process.

I'll agree with the power and alliance that we have a general problem with the cost of the overall COP process.

Whether you're opening up a bakery or, you know, a restaurant or one of these, the CUP process is onerous.

So I think a deeper focus on how do we benefit the CUP, improve the CUP process to reduce the cost and the time.

I think that, I think, deserves more exploration there.

So and then I also want to, I think, say that that there are there when it comes to consumption lounges, I think there are very two clear distinctions between smoking consumption lounges.

And that's why we made two types. And I still I think that the city should not be in the in in the realm of of of encouraging, you know, facilities and locations where people smoke.

Not when there's so many different ways of consuming the product.

That's why we've done issues of addressing flavored tobaccos.

We've done issues of addressing menthol and others.

But that's not for this item.

That's been discussed already.

That's already been deliberated here.

I'm on the minority end of that decision.

But I do believe if the council moves forward, these are clear things that I think we need to ensure

that cultivation continues to be in the COP process.

There needs to be a call-up provision available to the council

in every category, not through the entire process,

but at least at the category.

And I agree with, finally, with the dispensary-to-dispensary buffer zone.

1,000 feet is two blocks away.

Maybe that's too much.

I don't want to say whether it's 600 or 1,000, but I do think that there is a point to be made about whether an existing legacy business that went through the CFP process and then all of a sudden an administrative process comes in.

There is a question of fairness now on that point.

So I'll stop there, Mayor, and say those are my comments on this.

I'm not ready to entertain or push a motion, but I do think that if the council moves forward that we need to address some of those issues.

And I know this has been an evolution in process.

We're revising what we tried in the first place.

And so I'm willing to continue to work with those industry partners here because a large number of them are in District 6.

and I've worked with many of them through the point of their first start of,

I think I'm going to purchase this property or lease this property and what should happen.

And whether I agreed with their location or not,

I think that we've been able to move through this process in a different way.

So let me stop there, Mayor, and looking forward to hearing my colleagues on this conversation.

Okay. Thank you. Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

Mayor, let me begin by echoing the comments of my colleague, Mayor Pro Tem, with respect

to thanks to the staff and to the public, to the Planning Commission members, to all

those who've been deeply engaged with this over an extended period of time.

I'm sure notwithstanding differences of point of view, probably everyone would like this

to conclude. Perhaps everyone could agree on that, but I'm not so sure that, at least

for my part, we're there yet. I do want to ask a couple questions, and let me—the first

question really picks up on the final point that the Mayor Pro Tem was making with respect

to fairness. We heard testimony that this really is unfair to those who have been previously

certificated, approved, and changing the standards now is in fact something that operates to

their detriment unjustly.

And I just wonder if there's some comment on that that the staff would like to make.

How do you perceive that?

So if I could maybe ask a clarifying question, there's a few different ways we've heard this

comment be surfaced in the engagement phase and in hearings in general. From the business owner's

perspective. There has been a comment about fairness as it pertains to the cost in time that

was incurred to become lawful. And I think you could use an analogy of gaining any type of

government benefit or having to pay a substantial cost where if you make it less of a burden from

others for others in the future does that make it right to make a regulatory change? And I will

defer to your judgment on whether using the evidence that has guided us to produce an ordinance

that we thought appropriately addressed the legislative purpose of a permit that's a

conditional use permit is there are special or unique problems that this business causes

the evidence doesn't tell us that and so we've used that evidence to reflect on the permit process

and the associated time and cost that's related to it and that's where our recommendation is

attempting to more on a balanced way

address competing viewpoints for where these should be located

in proximity to other uses.

And what is the permit type that we should use

to balance those competing demands?

So we feel the administrative permit is an appropriate remedy

that will benefit other business owners of the future.

And it may in fact benefit existing business owners

if they wish to relocate or expand.

So it sounds as if improving the process from your point of view may have some consequences that you might not prefer necessarily in a perfect world but may be unavoidable.

Well, I think if you received a commission-level conditional use permit and you're a successful business today, that's great.

is that the test for these regulations

for what you would deem appropriate

for citing future locations?

I wouldn't say the cost or barrier,

the barrier to entry is the measure

for what's appropriate in staff's view,

if that makes sense.

Yes, it does.

I understand what you're saying.

I think it remains a consideration

that's very hard to address.

Perhaps that's what we can agree on.

I wanted to also ask about whether or not, since we heard testimony both about buffers for churches and for daycare locations,

whether you had, and it was in the Planning Commission recommendation, obviously, whether you had mapped those.

I did not see maps, but did I miss them, that mapped what it would look like if you included those buffers from those uses?

So we did include that in the September staff report.

It was presented to show you what the commission's recommendation would mean.

I could characterize those for you if it's helpful generally.

Sure.

Okay.

So to add churches to the list of sensitive, to keep it on the list of sensitive uses,

it is in terms of geography, it is the top sensitive use.

so meaning that they are prevalent throughout the entire city and that having that as a sensitive

use is one of the reasons today we look at current acreage that's zoned for cannabis dispensaries

92 percent of that land is within a sensitive use buffer so every sensitive use stacks up

to essentially encumber almost all property as being within a buffer today now to us that's

That's meaning that a dispensary is more than likely going to go to commission level based on the zoning and that sensitive use buffer.

So let me see if, does it work the other way around?

In other words, if you included childcare locations and churches, you wouldn't expand the area significantly that would require a buffer?

if i understood if i understood you correctly you said because of because of the stacking effect

of uses that 92 percent of the area of the of the city would require some sort of buffer

and and and so that that implyingly would include churches and and daycare locations does it does

Does it work the other way around?

Yeah.

That's not the church's in there, is it?

No.

Yeah.

That's okay.

Didn't want to interrupt.

So the difference between the staff and the commission recommendation is that the commission's

recommendation would increase the land that's zoned for cannabis businesses by 25% as being

within a buffer. So more property within a buffer of a sensitive use. Okay. Okay. All right. And then

in terms of the administrative process, then the administrative process would come with notice

but no hearing.

And assuming the prerequisites were satisfied,

then obviously the permit would be issued administratively.

Correct.

Just as a small sidebar here,

we were talking this morning about notices

when we were talking about 10 units

to a parcel of the new legislation.

And the comment was, well, if we gave notice there,

we'd have to give notice in every planning application,

and that would be cost prohibitive.

But here we are requiring a notice.

So what's the distinction?

Oh, there's a very simple distinction

that the body of law that we were talking about

this morning concerns residential land uses.

Commercial land uses are not subject to the body of law

that was referred to earlier.

I see.

Not to say that there wouldn't be a cost, but...

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, so you're saying because it's non-residential, it doesn't have the same requirement?

Correct.

That's why we have a unique notice requirement for cannabis business, the administrative permit provision in this ordinance.

Okay.

I'm not going to, Council Member Gattuck covered a number of the other issues, so I'm not going to retread those.

I would say that I have thought all along that something that parallels the PCN process for alcohol sales makes sense in concept with respect to cannabis.

because of the restrictions to whom it can be sold or who can consume,

because of the sensitivity of the kind of use from a community standpoint.

And so we require, in effect, we require conditional use permits for alcohol sales.

I'm still trying to parse why that shouldn't apply equally to this.

And I suppose the argument is, well, we did this study and we don't see these kinds of

adverse effects that people had worried about.

And so we can reduce the level of scrutiny.

I'm not sure that that's shared at least in certain parts of the community and particularly

in the parts of the city that I represent.

So just conceptually, the conditional use permit makes sense to me.

You can always look at process improvements, as you were referring to,

Councilmember Guerra, with respect to how it is administered,

what it costs, the time it takes, those kinds of things.

But personally, I would still favor that.

If we're proceeding with essentially what's been presented as a staff recommendation,

then I would certainly support enlarging the buffer zones to encourage essentially the

Planning Commission recommendation in that regard.

So let me leave it there for the moment other than to say as one, I'm not ready to support

the staff recommendation at this juncture, but I think it's getting closer. Thanks. Thank you,

Council Member Maple. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to the staff and everyone who came out

today with, you know, various points of view. I know this has been a topic of discussion for

years at this point in time. So just want to really appreciate you for being steadfast and

working with stakeholders, working with the community. I think it's important to note that

in processes like this, nobody gets everything that they want.

That's how it always works, and that's maybe a good thing and a bad thing,

but it is our democratic process.

But I do know that there has been input taken from all across the spectrum

for a very long time.

Before I was in this position, when I was on the other side of this position

in the audience, we know how hard the staff work to make sure that everyone

is heard, that everyone's point of view is taken into account.

and also that there have been so many iterations of this that have included

everything from community input business input to the input of the Planning and

Design Commission to the input of Law and Legislation Committee and now here

and so it may not look exactly like every person wants and what's what's the

old adage if no one's happy that's probably a good thing and so you know

with that I know I've made many many comments on this over the years so I

won't belabor it. I think people know where I stand. And with that, I stand with the staff

recommendation. I think it's the right one because it is not what everyone wants, but because it is

what everybody, all that input has taken into account. And so with that, I'm going to make a

motion to move the staff recommendation. Second. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion to second.

Council Member Plekibahn. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be supporting the motion and look forward to,

further moving the cannabis industry away from prohibition,

treating it more and more like alcohol and tobacco.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

A couple of questions.

Thank you for everybody.

A couple items I want to put a pin in that will probably come to law and ledge,

but I think we need to continue the conversation that have come up,

is taxes, because as it was laid out in the 2022 report,

that was given to council back then.

It looked at what different cities do.

And I think that's something we should,

we started that conversation, got waylaid.

I think it's something we should look at.

And then it's been called up,

but I think it might've been done

by a council member Valenzuela before she left,

of restrictions on smoke shops and CBD,

especially there is like some CBD and extra like extract

that kids can overdose on, but they can go get to a smoke shop and can legally buy that I think we need to look at.

And that's been asked within the industry.

So two things, probably parking lot, not today, but I think we should follow up on.

I do think when whatever passes, I think there should be, if it is administrative approval of something,

I think there should be a provision that allows a council member to call it up and and I want to

just preface it by say that I think staff you guys do an amazing job but you're not the council

member and you weren't elected and there may be some things you just don't know so this is

something I would like the makers of the motion just to think about as we listen to our other

colleagues that I think if we do that council members should be given deference to a certain

extent on something that they may not know and should be taken into consideration.

I do agree with that we should give, I know people say this is the wrong term to use.

I'm sorry, I'm an attorney.

Grandfather, everybody in, especially if they've gone through the CUP process and a sensitive

use moves in next to them.

I don't want to see them having to go through any CUP, any other process.

I wanna make that very clear.

One of the things, maybe you can help me clarify,

I'm not sure I saw, but council direction was to allow

for like tea lounges or just edible lounges,

which are different from smoke shops.

And I did not see where that was or how that was included.

Thank you, council member.

You wouldn't see it in this ordinance

because it is regulated in Title V of the city code

under our business operating permits for cannabis generally.

The consumption lounge topic defines two categories

of business, Type I and Type II.

So Type I is non-smoking, everything that's non-smoking,

and Type II is everything plus smoking.

So we're not in Title 17 getting into that regulatory space

relating Title V do its work.

Okay, just wanted to make sure that was clear.

And then what was the reason for eliminating

the dispensary to dispensary buffer?

Thank you for asking the question.

There are a couple of purposes that,

so it's in the code today to have a 600 foot buffer,

a dispensary to dispensary.

What overall a theme that we're attempting to convey

through this analysis and our recommendation

is to reassess from a business perspective,

what are the costs of doing business?

And in looking at the industry itself,

in what ways is it truly needing special

or different regulations?

In that sense, we're looking at a retail establishment

for a dispensary.

We do not regulate other retail establishments

in this manner for competition purposes.

That is not a zoning topic that is regulated today

for a coffee shop or a grocery store

or any other retail business.

So that's one reason.

Another reason that you could perceive

that regulation being enacted,

although the record doesn't clearly describe it,

is for concentration purposes generally.

Now, dispensaries are limited in number citywide

by a finite number, it's codified by Title V,

So it's 43 total in the city.

That's the max, the cap.

That's one way that concentration is addressed.

Another indirect mechanism could be what you're hearing from business owners is having a little bit of space,

which would indirectly affect real estate transactions and locations.

So those are some of our thoughts.

So I hear you.

From liquor store to liquor store, is that regulated in zoning and buffers?

through the PCN process many of our census tracts so we're getting into an overlap

similar to cannabis of state and local law so there are two bodies of law that are operating

here locally liquor stores or off sale establishments are not regulated by census tract

They're regulated by zoning district.

So whether or not there is one next door is irrelevant.

It simply is that business allowed in that zoning district?

If it's a liquor store, it needs a conditional use permit.

Separately, in a similar parallel process,

there's a public convenience and necessity finding that is likely required

when the census tract is over-concentrated,

which is a similar but different question.

So that the police department administers a PCN process to make that finding or not.

Okay.

So you said a terminology.

I want you to say again, necessity.

What was with that or over concentrate?

It's a.

So alcohol law in the state sense uses a public convenience and necessity finding process.

So a local government before the state will issue a license, so a state license.

If that census tract is overconcentrated, it will require the prospective business owner to seek approval from the local government of a public convenience and necessity.

So it's kind of a funny term, but it's legal jargon to say that it is appropriate for this.

It is in the public's interest to have this liquor business be here, even though it's overconcentrated.

So public convenience and necessity.

So, I mean, I think that almost opens up another can of worms because I think we regulate cannabis different than we regulate alcohol, yet they have the same restrictions.

And why do we treat them as different instead of the same?

So it then begs the question of why, if the state does look at a potential buffer and overconcentration,

Not that we would have that necessarily with dispensaries, but I believe the council also authorized an additional 20, potentially, to dispensaries to come online.

Why wouldn't we keep a potential buffer that maybe has to go through the CUP that allows for the public input to say whether there is an overconcentration or not?

Is there a question?

Why wouldn't we?

Why wouldn't we keep it the same?

Why wouldn't we treat cannabis like alcohol?

They are, from a state regulatory perspective, subject to very different requirements.

Which I totally get that.

I get the law treats them as differently.

but why can't the city of Sacramento look at them as this is kind of like a policy conversation?

Why don't we regulate them the same way?

While state does it differently, why don't we look at them as a policy-wise?

Because I hear you saying we don't regulate coffee shops.

Well, cannabis, you know, and liquor are not equal to coffee shops.

But cannabis and liquor can be equal to themselves, even if so, liquor is more dangerous.

So, you know, I think it is important for us to potentially, because this is a policy

conversation, and we have authorized more dispensaries.

Plus, these dispensaries that just, that have their CUPs went through an entire process

that now we are streamlining it to make it easier, which may shut down existing businesses.

So, it is, it is a balance of how we look at things.

And so I'm asking my colleagues, why wouldn't we keep a potential buffer between dispensaries but allow it to do a CUP?

Because we would do the same for alcohol.

So that is something to think about of if we're having this policy conversation.

And I get making things easier, but it's also respecting small businesses that are in place.

And when we talk about we just passed having economic development and economic drivers as a key thing for the city of Sacramento, this brings in a fair amount of tax-based dollars.

Why would we do things that would harm existing businesses that are bringing in millions of dollars of taxpayer money and did all the hard work to pave the way?

So I hope that is something considered.

I also asked you, if you look at page 288 in your report, wouldn't mind if you pulled that up because I have a couple questions on page 288 of the 454 page document.

so this is a map that was used in the 2022 report kind of looking at what

what works and what doesn't work in the city of sacramento what you'd be looking at if you

We're on page 288 of the 454 Council Report

that I clicked on.

Is figure 22 for the City of Sacramento

Cannabis Buffer and Available Land.

It's black and white.

So am I correct in saying that when it looks at the City of Sacramento cannabis buffer and available land from this report from 2022,

for parks it has a 600-foot buffer and those are in black, right?

Can you say what it tells me about what the buffer is for schools?

so yeah what i'm seeing is the report produced by eps economic planning systems so the consultants

that produce a cannabis study the legend identifies a thousand foot for schools as a buffer

which is not our regulatory buffer in title 17 for zoning purposes i couldn't speak to why the

thousand foot was put there could you go up to page 287 and and read the last paragraph and

and explain that to me, please.

There's a lot of information in the paragraph.

I want to make sure I understand your question.

It's speaking to different zoning districts and buffer distances from uses.

It says in figure 22, which shows the zoning districts where cannabis uses are permitted

and where there are restrictions.

The restrictions on areas around schools is increased to 1,000 feet to account for the

distance from the center of the school to the edge of school grounds from where the 600

regulatory buffer is measured. And so I'm wanting you to tease that out. So in your maps that you're

showing, where is the 600 foot buffer measured? Is it measured from the beginning of the center

of the school or the school boundaries? School boundaries. School boundaries. So why does this

report use a thousand feet because I'd been asking questions that there had been reports in the city

of Sacramento that there had been a thousand foot buffer and this is actually where it came from.

So I'm wanting staff to understand and explain that because I've been asking this question for a while.

The report wasn't produced under our supervision. I couldn't speak to why it

It specifically says that.

It's produced by our OCM staff.

Okay.

I don't understand the rationale behind it, to be frank.

But you understand why people would be confused that this report went public?

People have been reading it.

They've been saying that there should be a 1,000-foot buffer with schools.

I know state law is 600 feet.

One of the questions I did ask you, because it was, could we expand the buffer to 1,000 feet for all schools?

And I understand when I was in the minority, but I'd like our council members to consider it this way.

You know, our daycares, the kids are not going out and buying it.

Elementary school, for the most part, they're not.

But we got high school kids.

And the gentleman that came up is correct.

High school kids aren't going to go into the dispensary, but they know how to get adults to go get things for them.

And a thousand feet buffer from high schools is basically three and a third football fields.

It really is just a fifth of a mile, which makes it just a little bit more inconvenient.

I did ask you to analyze that.

if we did amend the staff recommendation

that say for high schools, K-12,

be it charter, churches,

whatever registered school and where it's run,

how much land, available land,

would it remove from the city

as available for potential cannabis items and dispensaries?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

We did analyze it and produced a map.

What we're seeing,

if any school that goes up to grade 12 were included,

it would result in a 29-acre decrease

from the staff recommendation.

So it's a very modest 1% decrease in area.

So I would say it's a very minor change

in terms of available acreage.

So I would hope that the makers of the motions

would consider, because we did have requests

in the requests that we hear from our youth

and our high schoolers,

that we keep the 600 foot buffer of K-12,

but specifically for schools that go up into high school,

we make it a thousand foot buffer

that they mandatorily can't have a dispensary

within a thousand feet of a high school.

And I heard you correct,

that only just adds an additional 29 acres

or less than 1% of the available land on as restricted.

If the makers of the motions would consider that.

I'm happy to respond. So this is I thought a lot about this and this is a

challenge that I'm having with the a lot of this in general is that there is

actually no no research that shows that if it's within 600 feet or a thousand

feet or 1,200 feet that you're gonna see more or less students going into a

dispensary. In fact we are hearing and all the research shows in our own Nexus

study shows that they are not going in dispensaries. In fact what we see often

is that students when they are accessing cannabis they're getting it on the

illicit market which is in my opinion where we should be channeling our

energy not the legal companies that are trying to do the right thing that have

security that have protocols that are checking IDs and so on and so I just I

struggle with adding an additional layer when it's not clear to me what that's

gonna get us and so I would prefer to keep the motion with the staff

recommendation because I know that they put a lot of work and time and energy

into this and I believe that it's the right path so that's where I'm at and

and I and I really appreciate that and I think that's you know the dialogue

that's hard that we got to have now because I actually agree to you it's not

the dispensary itself but it's the location of the dispensary and having

adults go in and the proximity to high schools they use adults they use others

that are going in and getting it because I talked to our high school kids and and

they are having other adults when it's convenient go in and get this stuff for

them and so making it and moving it a little bit further away you know is

something that my community is asking for I do want to streamline but looking

out for our youth and we've also heard a lot from our youth of this is just a

small request of extending it a little bit further that I hope that a certain

amount of this is trying to find some some common ground of what we hear but

also understanding because it's not our dispensary what's inside and how they're

running it it's the location that that does cause some some issue I guess I'm

So just not to belabor this, but it would be really interesting to see for me if we had any data from law enforcement or anywhere else to show that that's actually the case, that there are students that are using adults within a certain distance of schools.

And we're seeing a higher likelihood of that within a distance of schools.

I just I'm cautious to not do something in search of a problem that we don't even know exists.

I hear you say that you've talked to students that have said that that's the case.

So I believe that maybe it is happening.

But I just I would love to see the information on that personally.

And I wish there was information,

but we also know having over 100 cops down,

this is not part of what they're doing,

and there isn't,

but I'm also using my 20 years

of having been a school board member

and working with students in areas

of something to be considered.

Okay, I'm gonna stop the back and forth.

We have a motion to second.

We have multiple issues to hear still tonight.

We have a closed session,

and we apparently have a five o'clock council meeting.

People are already lined up for us.

So I'm sorry, Mayor,

Are you interrupting me in the questions that I'm asking?

Are you done with your question?

No, but I was appreciating the dialogue that I was having with the council.

Okay, we're going to cease the dialogue between your council, but if you have more staff questions, please continue.

The second one that I did ask for is potentially on all items that are admin, a council call-up provision.

So I'd like to ask our city attorney if I could to share with us the challenges with that.

Sure.

So an admin permit is a ministerial permit under the law.

And so when the reviewer is taking a look at that, they're just checking boxes to see does the project meet these requirements.

And so the admin permit we have, there is an opportunity for reconsideration by the reviewing director, whether it's the planning director or the zoning administrator.

In other words, if staff makes a mistake in checking those standards initially, there's an opportunity to make sure it's done correctly under reconsideration.

But to have a call up on an admin permit to council, council's hands would be tied in terms of there's no discretion in that process.

It would just be, is it within X feet of a sensitive use?

Council would not have the opportunity to shape the project in any way.

So if that was important, the vehicle to do that would be a CUP.

Okay.

So I guess that's for listening to my other colleagues who have that and had requested a call up that it would look like a CUP.

Those are all my questions at this time.

The next speaker?

Yes, Council Member Guerra.

Thank you, Mayor. I mean, there's really two things that still stand out here.

And one of them, again, goes to if you're going to include a kindergarten school, then you should be including child care facilities.

I don't necessarily agree with so much the churches. Industrial locations have a lot of churches.

I think that they're next to places like even Procter & Gamble and others that do other locations and churches can choose to locate there.

But that brings up to the second point.

And the second point is the call-up provision.

And I really can't support any staff recommendation that removes the call-up provision, even if it's, you know, I appreciate the staff's work.

But if the council were to approve the item today without a call-up provision, essentially what they're instituting is that District 6 and District 2, which is the only place where the majority of the M1 provisions, M1 zoning is at, would have the inability to respond to their issues.

because the rest of the city, the rest of the council districts,

which would be using either delivery or dispensaries, would have that provision.

But really where cultivation and the majority of that work happens is in District 2 and District 6.

So I think instituting and ensuring that the call-up provision is in every option is important.

I think it's an important piece of the council function.

And it's a de novo situation, so it allows us to hear everything from the beginning and have the appropriate amount of time.

So I'll leave it to that, and I think that having the council call a provision for everything is critical,

and at the very least adding the child care centers.

Thanks, Mayor.

I just wanted to keep this short.

I just want to thank all of the folks who came to speak today in support of staff's recommendation.

or in opposition, I think we're doing our best to really thread the line and figure out how we could

support our local businesses at the same time address any unintended consequences as well.

I would be supportive of this if we actually had a call of provision for all usage. I want the

ability as a council member to hear directly from my constituent if there are concerns so that I

could work through with my community. I think that's really important. If we had a call of

provision just for all usage I would I would be in support of this and so just

asking the motion the motion around the table to see if she would be interested

in just adding that call of provision and I would support the motion if that's

possible I'm just because as councilwoman I just want the ability to be

able to have if community has had concern they could the council member

could could you know do do the call of provision I just think that's important

as the local elected for neighborhoods that we represent so just wanted to make

that ask to see if that's possible and if it is then you know I would vote to

support it. Okay thank you. We have some suggestions for a potential but right now

on the floor we have a motion a second on staff recommendation. No further queued

up. Please call the roll. And Council Member Maple may I confirm that you did

close the public hearing when you made the motion. Thank you. So this is roll

call for the staff

recommendation. Council Member Kaplan?

No. Council Member Dickinson?

No. Vice Mayor

Talamantes? No.

Council Member Plekibom? Yes.

Council Member Maple? Yes.

Mayor Pro Temgada? No.

Council Member Jennings?

No. Council Member

Vang? No.

No, Mayor, your motion

fails. Well, you can call me.

Pardon me, Mayor McCarty? Aye.

Yes, thank you. You only got one

vote still. I apologize. The motion continues to fail. Mayor, can I make that same motion,

but with the amendment to allow the call-up provision? Yeah, we have a motion.

Let's make the first motion a chance to engage here.

No, that's okay. No, and I really appreciate it. I know we wanted the opportunity, the mayor and I,

to have it on the staff recommendation because the staff works so hard on this.

But I hear my concerns from my colleagues. I don't know if it addresses Councilmember Kaplan's concerns

or Councilmember Dickinson. But doing staff recommendation with the addition

of call-ups for all the license types would be my motion.

So the same thing that you just said, right, Van?

Look at this clarity.

You need clarity.

I think I would second that.

So we have a motion and a second with the call.

Yeah, Dickinson has it.

Dickinson?

I just have a question of clarification.

Number one, what does the call-up provision apply to?

And number two, what is the discretion of the council

if a matter is called up?

Well, I'm happy to do it from my perspective.

So for the call provision would be for all the various license types because I heard concerns from cultivation to retail distances from schools.

And so that would allow a council member to be able to, so if an application comes through and they have a concern, to be able to call it up to the city council for a vote and discussion.

Or for any aspect of it.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

For all the license types.

Okay.

Is that fair?

Right?

Yeah.

I'd like, thank you.

Courtney, if you.

Sure. So right now the ordinance has a call up provision for all conditional use permits.

There's not one for admin permits, but those are subject to reconsideration under our normal rules,

meaning the reviewing director will double check that staff has done everything correctly.

So theoretically, you could have a call up on those admin permits to council,

but councils just there's no discretion. You would just be reviewing the does it check the box within 600 feet,

which I believe is why staff did not initially include that

because it's just a ministerial check the box.

Yeah, and thank you for that.

I'm going to ask the question because I wanted to be sure about that.

And so I appreciate the effort to find a pathway here.

But then the council's action in a call-up setting

is simply to make a judgment about whether the facts are accurate or not

with respect to the application.

and that doesn't quite get there for me personally.

It's not a conditional use permit.

Yeah.

Is that right?

Yes, admin permits subject to reconsideration

and conditional use permits are subject to call up.

Okay.

So we have, yes, done with your questioning, Mr. Dickinson?

Yes.

Okay, Councilman Kaplan.

Just clarification, what I've heard.

So as we're trying to address everybody and I'm trying to get to a yes, what I'm hearing is that if we keep admin, in reality, the call-up provision doesn't give council members a discretion, but the CUP process does.

So it would really be eliminating admin and having everything CUP.

If we wanted to have discretion and council ability to change things.

Correct. And may I ask one more comment? If someone were to move staff recommendation, I just want to confirm that also includes the amendments that Kevin put up in his PowerPoint.

Correct.

so so I think that's where I almost would want to see that black and white thing up again of of

what admin was and what planning and design commission was if you can pull that up madam

clerk because I think that's what what permit type is admin ours what we're saying we want all of

those to go to CUP or is it like certain ones are we cool to leave public notice

and ministerial review on there and only change over all types but lounges and

the mandatory six foot hundred buffer to PUC or CUP sorry because that's really

because if we leave those on admin we have no ability to change the checkbox

if we do a call up but if we move all types but lounges to CUP and mandatory

600 foot buffer to CUP we still have the provision to call it up and have

discretionary where we might want to leave the other ones so if you if you go

back to the black and white what it said what was admin versus what was CUP I

I think what might address what Eric and Mai and I are talking about is the first two items,

which were under admin review, which were all types but lounges, move that from admin to CUP,

and this 600-foot buffer from admin to CUP, and then that would allow the council call-up

and a discretion versus if we just added call up for admins.

What I'm hearing legal counsel say is if we leave them under admin,

we only have discretion on check boxes,

no discretion on our knowledge as council members

and our ability to represent our community.

So related to COP, we would be changing nothing.

The effort to change the COP process for cannabis,

if we were to do that would result in no changes to CUPs

because CUPs are currently required now for everything anyway.

So are you willing to consider the alternative?

So we have a motion on the floor.

Well, it's clear that that is not something that's going to be widely supported,

and so I don't see the point in doing a whole other vote on this,

especially when we can't do the call-out provision with admins.

But the whole point of a lot of this conversation was around trying to streamline the process away from the CUPs

because the CUPs are so onerous and costly to business owners.

And so at this point, you know, I'm willing to take my motion off the table,

either open it up to others or perhaps we can continue this or just let the current vote stand.

Yeah.

Mayor?

I would, yeah, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, can I?

I think that we can all get to a yes if the city attorney's office can figure out how to make it so that we can do some kind of CUP process,

do some kind of process where if there's a large concern in the community with the business coming in,

the community has a say to be able to say, hey, this isn't the right place, maybe look at another location,

and us as council members having that discretion.

So I feel like we're on hour two of discussing this item and there's a general consensus,

but not fully.

And I think taking it back to your office and the experts to figure out how we can get

to what we want to achieve here today, I think can eventually lead to-

Yes, I think I'm going to take that recommendation and cease the discussion.

The motion's been withdrawn.

This item will be continued for further deliberation.

Next item, Madam Clerk.

So, Mayor, do we want to continue this to a date certain?

No date certain.

A date certain.

So we're going to continue the item.

Indefinitely.

And so you're making that motion to continue the item?

Yes.

Do you have a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Nose or abstentions?

Hearing none.

Next item.

Okay.

So we now move to item number 37,

which is adoption of the outcomes of the City Council Priority and Goal Setting Workshop on September 30th, 2025.

Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here today as your interim city manager.

Today I'm recommending adoption of the outcomes from the September 30th Council Offsite Priority and Goal Setting Workshop.

It's been a while since our September 30th workshop,

so I wanted to just spend a very brief moment outlining what we accomplished that day.

The agenda for the day was organized around teamwork and governance, council visioning together, shared district interests, setting a citywide path forward, and ending with consensus on priorities.

For me, the day felt really different in that there was a consistent and full participation by everyone with a lot fewer distractions than would normally have on a meeting at the dais like this.

And I want to thank you all for your time, attention, and commitment to this process.

The key outcomes for that day included consensus on top three priorities, which we'll talk about in a minute.

Council input about success measures and some elements to be included in the city manager's work plan.

Council support with the concept of creating strategic goals, which we've brought for you here today, and strengthen teamwork within the council and executive staff.

I wanted to share this slide because I think it encapsulates what you as a team collectively feel about what is true today.

We have a strong sense of pride.

We value open space, have strong neighborhoods, to name a few, and what you hope for in the future, like more investment in the city, people not living on the streets, strengthening our core services, greater employment opportunities, and livable neighborhoods.

We're here today, as we promised on the 30th, to formally adopt Council's priorities and share our next steps.

taking what was heard from council along with our facilitators individual interviews with each of

you prior to the offsite we provided a preliminary list of priorities to start with including budget

and fiscal health climate change economic development equity homelessness housing

infrastructure public safety and transportation and mobility the value of setting a few top

priorities is to name what will be our key focus of attention over the coming year.

This graphic demonstrates how the three priorities, economic development, homelessness, and public

safety are interrelated.

And with these priorities in mind, council discussed and brainstormed measures of success,

which will ultimately help staff to track and monitor a work plan specific to managing

the work and updating council on priority area projects and programs with milestones

and measures.

And just so you know, we're already working with our incoming city manager as we start to create a detailed work plan around these priorities that will be updated and reported on to council regularly.

However, even with our priorities as a key step, we still lacked a roadmap for the entire organization for the day to day programs and services remain a substantial portion of what our residents expect and our employees are engaged in.

with that this is where we started to discuss broad strategic goals which are intended to be

statements of desired outcomes these concepts were fully supported by council with direction

to me and the staff to work to finalize and define so we took what we heard at the offsite

met as a team and reworked them to better define the suggested strategic goals which you have here

in front of you. These three goals provide a broader framework for all city programs and

services within which we are focusing on council's priorities. I think all city departments and

employees will be able to relate to at least one of these strategic goals. And finally,

we took, as we refined our work, we took one of the facilitator's suggested goals because to us

it resonated more as a set of foundational principles.

These principles represent what we believe in

and overlay every aspect of how we conduct ourselves.

Equitable investment, fiscal sustainability,

accountability, and good governance.

With the work we did in considering all we heard

at the offsite on September 30th,

we believe we've developed strategic goals

and foundational principles that reflect a sound framework

for a resilient Sacramento.

With that, I ask for a motion adopting

the three council identified priorities

from the council offsite, economic development,

public safety and homelessness,

and the supporting foundational principles

and strategic goals.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Questions?

No, I know seriously we spent two hours

talking about changing our cannabis licensing policies

and 30 seconds on this, and this is the future of Sacramento,

public safety, economic development, quality of life issues.

So we want to make sure we follow through on this

and everything we do.

So thank you.

Mayor, I just have a quick comment.

Thank you, Interim City Manager, for that update.

I really appreciate it.

Last time we did priority setting,

the item actually never came back for a formal vote,

so I appreciate you bringing this.

I just want to put on record,

I thought it was a really good workshop as well.

obviously economic development, public safety, homelessness is a priority for me,

although my votes went to youth and climate and racial equity. But just wanted to reiterate as

we're looking at the work plan and our benchmarks that when we talk about public safety to ensure

that we have a shared definition, I know that before I came on council, this mayor and council

redefined public safety than more than just police and fire. And I want to make sure that

as we're moving forward that we have shared definitions around public safety that's really

key to what we do right because all of us can see public safety from a different lens and making

sure that we have shared definition is important so just wanted to share that and make sure that

we uplift that that resolution that was passed before I came on to the city council that public

safety is more than just police and fire it is public health it is supporting our young people

and violence prevention so just wanted to put that on record thank you okay thank you

Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

I really appreciate the work.

I do think that while we have overarching the three priorities that we adopted, and now you're putting more substance to the process that's going to be applied to flesh out and operationalize the process.

operationalize those priorities, they aren't the only things we will, obviously, they're

not the only things we will spend money on or do.

And so I'm curious whether you're at a point where you've thought through, do these same

foundational principles and strategic goals then apply to those things that aren't on

the list, or is there something separate that will apply to them?

The point of the strategic goals and foundational principles is that they apply to everything

we do.

So it is to encompass, right, we have employees who may not see themselves reflected in those

three things.

Those are the three council priorities.

When we talked about it at our workshop, 90% of the day-to-day work we do is the all-day,

every-day, and we wanted to ensure that everybody saw reflected, community and employees, these

big strategic goals for what we do all-day, every-day, and how we do it, those foundational

principles.

I appreciate that answer, and I think it's important.

I think it's actually important that we underscore that for the very reason you're talking about,

that there are a lot of folks working for the city who are going to look at these three priorities

that we've highlighted and said, well, wait a minute, that's not what I do.

And so we certainly don't want them to feel as if their work isn't important

or that they're being overlooked or forgotten.

So I appreciate the response that the principles and the goals will apply to all the work that we're doing.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council Member Maple.

Thank you.

And thank you, Madam City Attorney, for all the-

I don't have a lot of-

Sorry, City Manager.

I'm sorry.

This has already been a long day.

We haven't even gotten to the closed session before the 5 p.m.

But thank you for all the work on this.

I know this has been something that has been in the works and desired for many, many years in different forms.

And I know that it really helps you, it helps the rest of our staff and the organization be able to understand what the priorities are,

where do we put our energy, and also what are the things that we say no to, or not right now to.

Because I think that it can definitely be a problem in organizations when you have everything as a priority,

you have nothing as a priority, and we have certainly suffered from that at times.

And so I think this is a really helpful exercise for me as well to understand what my colleagues care about.

I think walking out of this, one of the things that was a little bit surprising in a really positive way to me was that the number one priority from this council is economic development.

Walking into that meeting, I probably would not have guessed that to be even in the top three.

And that was number one.

And so that's great because that tells us all, hey, we care about this a lot.

We know that we can't just, you know, tax our way out of a budget issue.

we need to make sure that we're growing businesses and making sure they thrive.

And so one just request that I have of our city management and of our council is that

on the topic of economic development, that we work on creating a strategy, an economic

development strategy for the city, working with our business community, working with

groups like GSEC and region business and Metro Chamber and also our small, all of our small

businesses to make sure that we have a real strategy that we're putting into place.

on this number one issue.

And so I just wanted to make that request

and say thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have two.

Do we have a motion on this?

So moved and second.

Second.

We have a motion to second

and two public speakers on this.

Please call them.

Thank you.

Jasmine Ward and then Lambert.

We do have a motion by Council Member Kaplan

and a second by Maple.

Jasmine.

Yes.

Thank you for your patience, Jasmine.

I hope you learned a lot last four hours.

Absolutely.

I did.

So my name is Jasmine Ward.

I'm the vice president of marketing and communications at the Greater Sacramento Economic Council.

I'm here in strong support of adopting these three priorities outlined today, especially the focus on economic development.

So really excited to hear that is the number one priority for the council.

Expanding the job base and growing revenue is not optional for the city.

It's essential as you think about the future.

And economic development is one of the most effective tools that the city has to strengthen not only its long-term fiscal health, but also the well-being of its residents.

We're already seeing clear opportunities for Sacramento through advanced industries like manufacturing, semiconductors, and beyond.

The opening of Aggie Square this past spring is a strong example.

It shows what's possible when the city, higher education, and the private sector align.

This innovation district will anchor high-wage jobs, attract research activity, and spark new company formation in the city.

And we also need to focus on reviving our downtown.

With many state workers still remote, we're seeing the impact on safety, homelessness, and the small businesses that make our urban core vibrant,

Bringing more employers and workers downtown fills vacant space, creates more eyes on the

street, supports retail and restaurants, and restores that sense of safety and activity

to the area.

Economic development is the path to achieving that.

Adopting these priorities sends a clear message that Sacramento is ready to compete for the

next generation of employers and the investment that follows.

A stronger economy will give the city the resources it needs to address homelessness, improve public safety, and create opportunity for residents in every neighborhood.

On behalf of GSEC, I urge you to adopt these priorities and keep economic development at the center of the city's strategy.

Thank you for your comments. Lambert is our final speaker on this item.

I don't see Lambert. Oh, there he is. Come on up, Mr. Lambert.

It's Peter Lambert, right?

Yes, September 28th.

And I would really appreciate it if the entire roster would pay attention because you are being paid to be here and the public.

I know I'm not. So pay attention to this.

On September 28th, I actually attended the press conference of the incoming city manager.

And somebody gave me something that all of you should be aware of.

And I see people talking, but it's going to come back to haunt you if you don't really pay attention.

While I was there, a lady handed me something, and I can't show it to the rostrum, but it's to the public.

It says negotiated term sheet.

And when they handed this to me, I studied it.

And while everybody was excited and in a love feast with this new incoming city manager,

and it's really a shame that the people are not listening to this,

but it's going into the record anyway.

In her term sheet, it says no cause termination.

Now, what a no cause termination is,

I've never heard of that as an employed person over the years of my life.

What that means is that a group of city staff can get together

and they can terminate this incoming city manager

for no cause. I've never heard of no cause. And she would only receive nine months base pay.

What does that mean to somebody that's alert like me? That means she has a three-year contract,

but she wouldn't get the two years because some people got organized at City Hall and terminated

her for no cause. And I hope she's listening because her and her lawyer, if they sign this,

they should be ashamed of themselves.

And if they haven't,

they should send me a check for bringing it to their attention.

That doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.

Okay.

Thank you.

No more public comments.

We have a motion,

a second on our council priorities for 2026.

All in favor,

please say aye.

Aye.

Who knows their abstention?

Seeing none.

Measure passes.

We are going to continue the waterfront item till the 2nd of December.

And we're going to hear one final item relating to,

our acting OPSA director.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

So we'll continue item 38 to December 2nd.

So the item 39 is the appointment of Jody Johnson

as acting director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability.

And so again, item 39 is setting the salary

and other terms and conditions of employment for Jody Johnson,

who was appointed on October 21st, 2025

as the acting director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability.

while serving in the acting role.

Mr. Johnson's rate of pay will be $84.92 per hour.

He will receive all of the benefits

to which he was entitled while serving

as the assistant director

of the Office of Public Safety Accountability

as outlined in the personnel resolution

covering unrepresented officers and employees.

And I have no speakers on this item.

Okay.

We have a motion to second.

All's in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any no's or abstentions? Seeing none. Item passes.

Let's see. I'm assuming we're going to not go to council comments, ideas, and questions. I do have...

Perfect. Did you want to do your AB123 report? And then I have four speakers for matters, not on the agenda.

Can we do it after the council meeting? This late night?

No, because I'm recused.

Oh, that's right. Yeah, yeah.

I want to do my AB1234.

I was invited to speak, and I represented the city of Sacramento at the seventh China Sister City Conference in Hangzhou

to talk about our cultural and student exchange that we have with our sister city, Jinan, in China

that is seen as an exemplary standard for student and cultural exchange,

which I was happy to present and got some great ideas, saw some things,

visited some amazing battery, electric, AI factories of what China is doing.

Definitely eye-opening, and that's my one, two, three, four.

Oh, and then from Gene On, I gave to everybody this is a reusable bag,

and then if you do hiking, the circle is for a wet-dry towel that you can use.

There was a lot of sustainability in China, believe it or not.

Thank you.

I have four speakers for matters now on the agenda.

Lambert, John Jew, Lisa Sanchez, and Lisa Bates.

So please line up in the aisle.

I'm assuming some people may have left.

Okay.

I'm going to speak on what's coming at 5 o'clock.

It's going to be honoring the Hmong community.

And as a person who's of age who remembers the Vietnam War, a lot of people have forgotten about the blacks that were drafted into the Vietnam War.

They were drafted into the war because they couldn't go to college, but yet when they returned, they didn't get their benefits from the GI Bill.

A lot of people have forgotten that. And it is my understanding that the Hmong community were involved in a secret war with the CIA during Vietnam. That's a known fact.

I've even heard my vang say that they don't have a country because they can't go home and then they're here.

My point is that I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam vets.

See, that's the thing. A lot of people don't really know my age.

But I'm very aware of that.

And I don't really think that until the black soldiers who, when they returned, they couldn't get their GI bills, they couldn't get their education, the actual Hmongs are part of a resettlement program where they're benefiting and they were not fighting in the United States, they were fighting in Vietnam.

Most of them cannot go home.

I have a lot of Hmong friends that have told me this.

I didn't know this until they enlightened me.

It's good to be enlightened because then you can't be deceived.

So that's coming up next at 5, and I wanted to put my protest in that the black GI should receive the same benefit.

Thank you.

John Jew.

Is John still here?

Lisa Sanchez.

Then Lisa Bates.

Thank you.

I wanted to speak on item agenda number 25.

I was happy to see that there was the lower American River design that's going to be implemented

for the juvenile salmon rearing projects, again, in the lower American River,

something we're very happy about.

I've been reading about the water forum and know very well about them.

But what I would like to actually request is that we have the same or something similar to this for Steelhead Creek.

It was actually just identified today that there was salmon, a 30-inch salmon swimming up Arcade Creek over behind American River College.

I was out there with today.

And knowing that salmon are actively swimming up not only Arcade Creek, which is not a big known salmon habitat restoration, but Steelhead Creek is.

Steelhead Creek runs up through Dry Creek over by Roseville and a lot of

salmon spawn up there. Last year I had the privilege of being able to do a

salmon count with the Dry Creek Conservancy and it went from four salmon

the year prior to 208 last year and we're hoping to be able to have an

exorbitant amount of salmon count this year that we will be doing. So with the

number of salmon habitat restoration projects that are in the American River

lower and regular American River Upper we would love to be able to start

implementing money resources and priority to Steelhead Creek as well so

thank you so much and appreciate your time thank you and Lisa Bates will be our

final speaker for matters not on the agenda

good evening council Lisa Bates with Sacramento steps forward your lead

applicant for the Sacramento continuum of care just real quickly want to share

with you that today in your inboxes you received some information about the HUD

notice of funding availability that comes out every year. Can't hear me?

Louder. This NOFO has substantial changes in it and creates quite a bit of

both challenges and opportunities for our community. We are hosting a community

meeting Thursday night virtually from 5 to 7 so I encourage you to attend if

you can also willing to give you a briefing we are working closely with

your staff particularly Yian and Brian Pedro so this NOFO is going to require

an all-in effort between the county the city and SHRA I understand maybe you had

some questions earlier of SHRA so more to come but just wanted to make sure I

made you aware of the work that we're underway with and again any opportunity

we can do to meet with you more extensively or deeply about what this NOFO presents.

Be happy to do that.

Okay.

Thank you.

That concludes public comments.

That concludes the 2 o'clock council meeting.

We're going to adjourn briefly to closed session.

Our clerk will read that.

We hope to be there 15, 20 minutes max and get back for the 5 p.m. council meeting.

Thank you, Mayor.

We are adjourning to closed session.

We have a quorum of council members in chambers.

There are two items on the agenda.

We're only going to hear the first item this evening.

I have no speakers for any items on the closed session agenda.

That one item we will hear this evening is conference with labor negotiators,

government code section 54957.6.

Designated representatives are Shelley Banks Robinson, Aaron Donato, and Tim Davis.

Employee organizations are Sacramento City Exempt Employees Association,

Sacramento Police Officers Association, International Union of Operating Engineers,

stationary engineers local 39

Sacramento area firefighters

local 522 Sacramento Sierra

building and construction trades councils

plumbers and pipe fitters

local 447 auto marine

and specialty painters local 1176

Western Council of Engineers

International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers and

all unrepresented groups so Mary you

may adjourn to closed session

we are adjourned

to close session.

We should be back.