.

Let's meet in order the Sacramento City Council. Please call the roll.

Council member Kaplan. Council member Dickinson. Vice Mayor Chalamantes.

Councilmember Puckabone is expected momentarily. Councilmember Maple. Mayor Pro Tem

Guetta. Councilmember Jennings. Councilmember Vang. Mayor McCurdy.

Thank you. Councilmember Dickinson can you listen the land

acknowledgement and pledge.

And tribal lands to the original people of this land the Nisenan people the

the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Miwok, the Patan Wynton 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 acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history, contributions

and lives. Thank you. And now if you would join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the color 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.

Madam City Attorney, do we have a report out from closed session? No.

Thank you. We now move on to special presentations. The first is World AIDS Day presented by Mayor Patem Ghatta and Council Member Vang.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk, Mayor and Council. We're here today to honor and recognize World AIDS Day as December 1st.

It was first declared in 1988 to not only recognize the loss of life, but also to support those living and suffering with AIDS.

In June of 1981, the CDC first reported out a new unknown virus that had symptoms that were nothing like they'd ever seen before.

Over the next two decades, as millions of Americans caught the virus and died, the federal government would wage war against the disease in the court of public opinions.

Political leaders on both sides of the aisle would legislate against the victims.

Medical officials in hospitals would deny medical care and treatment to people suffering from the virus.

Whole communities would be stigmatized and dehumanized over this virus.

and who they loved.

You know, the first year alone, more than a million Americans,

predominantly gay men, would die from the virus at the height of the crisis.

Over 3 million people would die.

And over the next two decades, the LGBT community would organize,

protest, and fight the injustice being waged against them

by the federal government, medical professionals, and the public.

In the end, the AIDS epidemic would cost over 4 million Americans their lives.

This year, even though the rest of the world is recognizing World AIDS Day,

this year President Trump said to the federal government that we would no longer recognize World AIDS Day.

We are here to say that Sacramento will continue to honor with pride those who have suffered,

those who have lost their lives, and how we need to continue the education that needs to happen to prevent this disease.

That action stripped the funding from the Ryan White HIV AIDS program that helped so many and prevented the loss of life of so many.

Many of us remember Ryan White, who contracted the disease at the age of 13.

and when he passed away at the age of 18, I remember being a teen myself

and thinking how a peer of mine could have lost their life

and what more could have been done at that age.

At an age when you're a teenager and you maybe feel invincible,

the disease did not discriminate.

We're here today because so many people have stood up and said

we need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to reduce the stigma

increase education, and most importantly, support the survivors and honor those who have passed away.

And in the past 40 years since HIV and the AIDS virus was first identified,

researchers have been working hard to find ways to curb that virus.

As we had our press conference yesterday, something to acknowledge is that the rates have gone down in Sacramento,

And that's been done because of great organizations like those today from the Sunburst Foundation.

Let's give them a big round of applause.

And to accept this resolution recognizing World AIDS Day, we have Jake Bradley, who will speak on behalf of the organization, his CEO.

So, Paul Curtis, our one and only Director of Community Engagement and Fundraising, Kelly

Snook-Furr, Director of Behavioral Health and Case Management, Moina Fong, Office Manager,

Michael Jannetz, Senior Medical Case Manager, Jerry Petrieman, our Prep and Retention Case

Manager, and Brandon Lawrence, Medical Case Manager.

And before I pass this over to Jake to say a few words, I'd like to pass this over to

to my colleague who is co-sponsoring this resolution,

recognizing World AIDS Day, Council Member Vang.

Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tem.

I think you said most of what I was gonna say,

so I'll keep my comments really short.

I just really want to take this moment

to thank Sunburst, Jake, your leadership

and everything that your organization has done

to really center families and make sure

that we do everything we can to continue to live, fight,

and thrive despite the current challenges

that we're facing.

If some of y'all don't know, Sunburst Project was actually founded in 1982, before I was born.

And it actually began as a summer camp for children with cancer.

And then it quickly pivoted to fill the need for children diagnosed with HIV AIDS.

And the organization has only grown and have done tremendous thing in our region.

And so I really want to take this moment, again, to thank Jake and your entire staff.

and give you this moment to say a few words

and thank you so much for your incredible work.

Thank you so much, Mayor, Councilmembers.

Thank you for recognizing World AIDS Day.

As you said, it's not something that's recognized everywhere,

but it is an issue that must continue to be recognized.

As a CEO of Sunburst Projects,

I'm privileged to go to work every day

and work with incredible individuals,

some of which are here,

who work with some of the most marginalized individuals

in your districts and our community.

people living with HIV. For 37 years we have served the community living with

HIV through a variety of services including medical case management, mental

health services, HIV testing, SDI testing, and a variety of other things like food,

transportation, and housing all for zero cost to anyone who walks in our door.

And that is incredibly important because when we're working with the

marginalized communities to ask them to pay to be able to receive those simple

services that help them go day-to-day in life I think is the wrong thing and the

federal government seems to think differently so we continue to trudge on

every day offering those services finding unique ways through private

funding and through foundations and through fundraisers to make sure our

doors are always open and that anyone who needs an HIV test has access to get

one. Since I arrived at Sunburst in 2020, we've had some big expansion. I'm incredibly proud of

our testing clinic. We test more individuals for HIV than any clinic in the greater Sacramento area.

7,000 individual tests alone this year were done inside our clinic, all free to them.

I keep saying free because I think that's incredibly important, and that is the one thing

that we're up against every day to continue to make sure happen.

We can charge folks for testing, but to provide it to them for free

is to remove the barrier, and that is the most important thing that we can do.

Let me talk a little bit in general about our general area, Sacramento County.

181 new HIV infections were diagnosed in 2023,

the most latest public data that we have.

It's 181 individuals that are living with HIV that didn't know before they had access to a free test.

We have approximately 5,000 individuals in the county that are living with HIV.

And every day that number continues to grow.

And that is because education, prevention, and access are something we need more of.

I'm always dumbfounded when I go to places in the community where I imagine there would

be a sign or something that says free testing or access to HIV testing or PrEP would be

there and we often don't find them.

Our organization is dedicated to making sure that all of those places know the opportunities

and have those flyers and pamphlets and brochures so that individuals accessing other community

services know where they can go to come get that.

For those living with HIV, I want to give you just a few statistics about what we provided to them.

Over 21,000 hours of medical case management in this year alone.

And 12,000 hours of free mental health therapy by a licensed clinical therapist.

Something that we don't get to see very often, but we've made it a dedicated part of our program to make sure that we have that.

Behind every person is a number.

or behind every number is a person.

That's someone who walked in our hallways at the beginning of the day afraid or isolated

or fearful of what might be the outcome.

We hope that because of the services and because of the work we're doing,

that they leave filled like they're wrapped with a community,

that they have the care they need and the access to get what they came for

to be able to go forward and be successful and healthy in life.

this resolution tonight isn't just about honoring us but it's about each one of you up there on the

dais recognizing that hiv is still a problem in our community and there's still work to be done

so i appreciate that you guys are giving us the time to be here and talk a little bit about this

for being part of our press conference yesterday and for constantly talking to your constituents

about the importance of public health.

Often I see in the papers and in the media,

each one of you recognizing how important that is to the community.

So on behalf of all of us at Sunburst Projects,

the staff, our volunteer, and our board,

as well as the thousands of clients we have served over the years,

thank you for standing with us,

for being with us every day,

for tonight and for the future,

when hopefully HIV stigma is gone

and everyone has the opportunity to access care for free so that they can live with dignity and hope.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Jake.

Thank you to the staff at Sunburst.

And I want to thank my colleagues for participating at the press conference

to ensuring that we're pushing out education to ending the stigma.

because while rates are overall down,

we see a growth in rates amongst the black, transgender, and Latino community.

Y para mi comunidad latina, la ciudad no discrimina.

And for us, it's important for us to make sure that we continue to educate this.

With that, another big round of applause for Sunburst Project here.

Council Member Vance, you're joining me downstairs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Scoot over just a little bit.

Joey, can you get between Eric and Paul, please?

Perfect. Scoot over that way just a tad.

And then Council Member Kathleen.

Would you move just that way just a tad?

Perfect. Council Member Puckett. Perfect.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, everyone.

So, Mayor, we now move on to our second special presentation,

which is the 2025 City Management Academy graduation,

and that will be presented by the Office of Innovation and Economic Development.

Can you guys hear me? Oh, sorry.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Ari Green, and I am a Community Engagement Analyst

in the Office of Innovation and Economic Development.

I am here tonight to speak on behalf of the City Management Academy.

CMA has been around for 30 years and has seen many renditions over the years,

but what has remained is the primary goal of teaching residents and small business owners how the city functions.

Each year, we welcome a new cohort with the hopes of them leaving more civically engaged after 10 weeks.

I have had the esteemed pleasure of managing the City Management Academy for the past two years,

and this year we received 157 applications.

My colleague Danielle and I hosted a cohort of 42 participants here at City Hall.

We provided catering from different small businesses such as Tandoori Fire and Chef Burma to support the local economy and introduce participants to different cuisines.

We provided parking validations to eliminate barriers to participation, and we went on a field trip to allow participants the opportunity to grasp a deeper understanding of how the city operates behind the scenes.

To the 23 city departments and their staff who presented and taught us the importance of their department and how their departments operate,

we are grateful for your participation and your commitment to serving the public to the best of your ability.

As part of their presentations, city staff were asked to present a civic engagement prompt for participants to solve.

These prompts range from outreach strategies to creating programs to issue grant funding.

and the CMA participants were tasked with solving these department issues with the group to foster collaboration amongst one another and then give a presentation.

This year's winning department would receive $10,000 in implementation to incorporate the solutions based on the participants' presentation.

This year's winner was Convention and Cultural Services, whose prompt asked, how can CCS evolve?

The prop asks, how can CCS evolve our offerings in Old Sacramento as a destination to explore and experience the broader history that the district represents?

I must say that Dustin was extremely impressed with the winning group's presentation.

And in the same breath, I would like to thank Jonathan Weiser and Dustin Hollingworth at CCS.

We appreciate your hospitality as we toured your facilities earlier this fall.

Thank you to the procurement team for working with me to determine a method for providing child care stipends to participants to further reduce barriers to participation in the program.

We will be able to implement this year for the next year's cohort.

And thank you to city staff for responding to my countless emails as I ask for you to hold space for me and the program again next year.

a huge thank you to mayor mccarty and interim city manager milstein for visiting the program

this year and to my colleague and partner in crime danielle thank you for your support these

past 10 weeks your help and support has been invaluable to me i'm not sure she's been able

to make it into the chambers she's helping me set up right now but thank you um each wednesday

and then lastly to the participants thank you for your commitment to this year's program

Each Wednesday, you watch two to three presentations from 6 to 9 p.m.

And each night you sat, you listened, you asked questions for clarity,

and you remain deeply engaged and build relationships.

We appreciate your continued interest and enthusiasm to your city and your communities.

And then lastly, I just want to invite a participant up to share some insight into their experience.

Kaylin?

My name is Keelan Johnson.

I was in the 2025 class, City Management Academy.

Shout out to Ari Green.

Shout out to the community engagement team.

Shout out to those who attended to give us their perspective in there and an insight on what you do.

I gained the perspective that the city, it's a beast.

You know, and everybody that's involved in making this city run the way it does, I really appreciate you.

I also want to shout out, show love to the indigenous tribes that were here before.

Much respect.

But my class was amazing.

I'm going to keep it short.

My class was amazing.

Ours was amazing.

I had a great time.

Shout out to group one.

We're going to make OSAC pop off.

And shout out class of 2025.

Thank you.

That concludes my presentation, but thank you guys for having us.

If the class can come up.

Daniel, you too.

Acknowledge you all for, one, raising your hand to sign up to participate in this.

And I know that your knowledge about there about city government is going to make our neighborhoods and nonprofits and businesses much more engaged.

So thank you for participating.

Yeah.

Can I have you step that way a little bit, sir?

Can I...

Perfect.

Yeah, would you guys, would the front two rows

might sorority squatch a little bit?

Perfect. Awesome.

Oh, girl, you don't...

That's fine. It worked.

Ready?

Thank you everyone.

Mr. Mayor if it's okay.

Yes.

Just indulge just a little bit.

But I'm a proud alumni of the city management academy class of 2016.

Woo!

and I just really can't speak highly enough about the value that it brings teaching you about your

city how you can be a part of your city and contribute how you can advocate for your

neighborhoods and the issues that you care about and get connected to all the wonderful people who

work at the city of Sacramento who care a lot and deeply about the communities that they serve and so

really proud of all of you and looking forward to seeing if you haven't already thought about it

maybe some of you in the audience will consider applying next year so thank you and congratulations

So, Mayor, we now move to the consent calendar, items 1 through 21.

Are there council members that want to pull something for a separate vote or have comments on any consent items?

I do have no members of the public signed up to speak.

Council Member Dickinson?

Just comments?

Yes.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan?

Comments on 17 and 18.

And Council Member Vang?

Just comment on number 9.

Perfect.

Let's go in numerical order.

So, Council Member Vang?

Yeah, I just wanted just to make a comment about this young person, Kelly Wong,

who will be appointing to the Sacramento Youth Commission.

Kelly is a proud resident of District 8, and as a youth in South Sacramento,

So Kelly had conversations with my team and she had shared that so often her and her peers

feel discouraged oftentimes by the policies that we make that influence their lives.

And so she felt really compelled to get involved.

And this is the reason why she applied for this position.

And if she's watching this, I just want to let her know that this item is on consent

and we're going to vote and get this passed.

And so she will be appointed to the commission.

And so I'm just really excited to appoint Kelly, and I look forward to her serving our community with lots of pride, heart, and hustle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan on 17.

Oh, I think Dickinson is in front of you.

Pardon me.

Roger.

Council Member Dickinson, I am 17.

Wisdom first.

Thank you.

Age before beauty.

If I could ask our intrepid mobility and sustainability division manager to come down for a moment.

And while she's approaching the podium, I just wanted to make a quick comment on this Streets for People active transportation plan.

Because we're dealing with it on the consent calendar, but it really deserves much more attention than that.

It deserves its own spotlight.

This is the product of a lot of years of work, a lot of participation, a lot of commentary, and real devotion by the staff to put this plan together.

It is an enormous step in the right direction in supporting active transportation for the people of the city of Sacramento and beyond.

and I think it deserves that level of recognition,

not simply to be adopted without that comment.

So I want to express how pleased I am

to see this plan get to us after all these.

I can remember going to a community meeting

a year before last,

and I know that was not the first in a still series,

so this has been going on for quite some time.

Along with that appreciation, I did want to ask a question.

As it turns out, the product happens to omit an intersection

in North Sacramento that I think is particularly acute

in terms of needed attention,

and that's at South Avenue and Ria Lenda Boulevard.

So my question is, would it impair the plan in any way

or violate the work you've done in some way

to add that into the, amend the plan to add that into the mix.

Council Member Dickinson, thank you for the kind comments and words on our team moving this forward.

So the intersection of South and Rio Linda, we use the data-driven process to identify intersections for need of improvement.

We use the high injury network that is part of Revision Zero work.

And we also looked at what the Neighborhood Connections Plan, for which we took to council earlier this year, in which you adopted.

So that intersection aligns with the intersections

that we would identify for intersection improvements.

So if you were to suggest adding that to the plan this evening,

that is something that staff would support.

Well, I appreciate that.

And I can speak from personal observation

that that intersection is both crucial

in terms of both north-south and east-west movements

in North Sacramento.

And it is a location which has been very problematic

in terms of safety over the years.

So, Mayor, whatever the appropriate procedural step is,

I would ask that we add that to the plan.

Sure.

That's doable.

That's doable.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan, you had comments on 17 also?

I do.

I'd like to make a motion to approve consent with an amendment to add the streets

named by Council Member Dickinson, but I heard you say that motion, right? You said that motion.

I'm happy to second it. Okay, I'll make the motion. So he's moving consent with the added

street for included in the plan, and I'm happy to second your addition to that. Just a quick

question, but I want to also thank Jeff and Cerise and your entire staff who put like years

into this because we need a plan that prioritizes people over automobiles and this is just one step

of many but following up on council member dickinson's question because this has been a

conversation i've had a lot of there are streets in natomas that haven't been around as a lot of

others so we don't have as much data how often are streets and intersections going to be reviewed

as to are they part of the high injury network

and do they need improvements?

Council Member Capel, that is a wonderful question.

We are updating our Vision Zero Action Plan

at this time, conducting the data analysis,

and we will be bringing up a new set of data

with new analysis forward for public review and input

beginning in early 2026.

So at that point, we'll be able to,

once we go through the process,

update the high injury network

and bring that before council

so that we can revisit the work that we do.

And then if we change what streets or intersections are priorities,

will that be melded into this?

How do they, so that I don't want things to be in silos,

but how can we have these as like living documents?

I don't have an easy answer for you, Council Member.

I would say that first thing we'll do is update the high injury network

and then see what changes happen from there and then work with you

because not only do we have the work through the Streets for People plan,

But of course we have our tag team, right?

And so Megan is here in the audience this evening.

And so anything that is not necessarily in this plan,

but it's something that maybe could be a quick build,

we can talk with Megan and her team about looking at those.

Just because I want to make sure staff does wonderful plans

and this does prioritize our streets and youth and safety

and dedicated bike lanes and more shade and everything.

But how does that integrate into our transportation priority plan,

quick builds, making streets safer.

So I look forward because I know there isn't an answer now,

but I think it's really important when we look at the next steps,

how do we take this plan and meld it and make sure that there are updates that

come to us, that this is an actual living document,

that we as a council continue to implement,

where more importantly, the funding stream.

So that's where I am.

I am hoping that we can find ways to put something in front of the voters to

make sure that we can implement

maintaining our sidewalks

and our streets and not just downtown

having protective bike lanes. Our suburbs

deserve that

as well. So thank

you for all of that work.

Thank you.

I think Council Member you had comments on

18? Yes.

On item 18 which I love that

this is really just updating our

California building code

standards but I would like to

float something that I hope Council Members

start having conversations and thinking about because you're seeing this done in other cities.

The allowing single stair walk-ups for new buildings that are only three stories high.

I know that our fire department is absolutely opposed to that, but when we look at how do we

build housing faster on smaller lots, how can we potentially have new buildings that are only

three stories high and maybe they have six units. You see that happening all the time in Seattle,

and that's another way that we could potentially look at it because we do have those safety

standards. And I understand the reasons for the fire department being opposed to it,

but I think it's worth taking another look of that. Is that something that we as a city,

when we're looking at prioritizing building housing and quickly, can we, can we be open

to smaller units that have three stories and a single story walk up? But otherwise, thank you

to the team for all that they do.

Thank you.

So, Mayor, you have a motion by Council Member Dickinson

and a second by Kaplan.

Okay.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Who knows or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes with the amendment

from Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you.

So, Mayor, with your approval,

we are going to reorder the agenda.

We're going to take item number 24 next.

We'll then take 22, 25, and 23.

So item 24 is Waterfront Reinvestment Program and Resolution declaring official intent to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

I'm Dustin Hollingsworth, the Assistant Director of the Department of Convention and Cultural Services.

I'm joined today by Ellen Sullivan from the Office of Innovation and Economic Development, as well as staff from the Treasurer's Office.

I have the pleasure of speaking to you today about the Waterfront Reinvestment Program.

I'm here to provide you with an update on the program, to ask you to pass a motion supporting the refacing of the program,

and to pass a resolution declaring the city's official intent to reimburse certain expenditures related to the program from the future proceeds of tax obligations or bonds.

But first, why Old Sacramento?

Old Sacramento is a strategic destination that serves over 4 million visitors every year.

With close proximity to other downtown amenities, such as the Convention Center,

DOCO, and the rail yards, offerings amplified when you consider the temporary relocation of the A's

just across the Tower Bridge, and the aspirations of a Major League Baseball team here in Sacramento

itself to call it a permanent home.

It's one of seven national historic landmark districts in California.

It was home to Sacramento's indigenous people long before anybody knew what the gold rush was.

It served as a modern gateway to Sacramento for over 175 years.

It's always been the center for commerce, a place to gather, and today the merchants in the area still rely on it.

It's a cultural and civic amenity offering museums, parades, special events, train rides, boat rides, food, retail, arts and craft.

It is an icon of Sacramento.

And with all these great things that Sacramento has ahead of us, we need to make sure that our welcome mat is rolled out and that can be found in old Sacramento.

Looking back a year, November 19, 2024, City adopted a resolution directing staff to proceed with the implementation of the Waterfront Reinvestment Program.

The program included six projects within the old Sacramento waterfront delineated into two phases.

Phase one included the waterfront site redevelopment opportunity, formerly known as Rio City Cafe,

specifically replacing the deck that had fallen into disrepair.

the K Street barge hole repair, design of the public market buildings,

replacing more than one mile of boardwalks in Old Sacramento

that are a defining characteristic of the historic district.

The Old Sacramento docks, which was to be funded by a mix of state and federal grants,

and the Native American-themed children's play area,

which was funded primarily through the use of state grants and other city funds.

The estimated bond funding for Phase 1 at that time was $25 million.

Phase 2, which would have been primarily for the construction of the public market buildings,

was estimated to be $15 million.

At that time, Council authorized the City Treasurer's Office to initiate the issuance of transient occupancy tax or TOT revenue bonds

and to bring a separate report to Council to obtain the formal authorization to issue those bonds.

Working with the Treasurer's Office to initiate the issuance of the bonds,

it came to light that three of the projects on the west side of the flood wall are on property that the city leases from the state,

a lease set to expire in 2035.

With less than 10 years left on the lease and typical bond amortization of 30 years,

we wouldn't be able to use the bond funding for the docks, for the barge, or for the restaurant deck.

Until we had a new lease with the state, a process that itself has the potential to take over a year.

Staff had to pivot to keep things moving.

The state funding originally allocated for the docks was moved to work on the restaurant deck, which was identified as a priority project.

That became an opportunity to reevaluate how we would approach the projects as well, reframing phase one and phase two to phase A and phase B, with phase A being those projects that are not contingent upon the renewal of the state lands lease and phase B being those projects that are.

In the end, it's all the same projects that Council had supported a year ago.

Current estimates, although early in the process, are still at approximately $40 million total

for the entire waterfront reinvestment program.

With Council's support, we will work to develop a program further focusing on the Phase A projects.

We will refine the cost and estimates where necessary and return to Council in the coming months

with a request to authorize the issuance of the bonds to align with the program.

That's where the reimbursement resolution comes in.

The resolution is the city declaring its official intent to reimburse certain expenditures

from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds once they are issued.

The resolution does not commit the council to issue any bonds or to incur any indebtedness.

Each project will still come back to council for approval and we will make it clear that

there is an intent to reimburse from the funds when those proceeds are issued.

We anticipate using reimbursable funds to start the design of the boardwalk replacement

project allowing the project to be completed in a timely manner.

Reimbursable funds will also be used to cover a gap in the children's play area to keep

it moving forward.

Essentially reimbursement is a tool that we can use to continue to move some of these

projects forward while we refine the program's bonding needs.

We were able to keep some of the projects going in spite of our challenges with the

state lands lease.

We were able to redirect funding from the state grant of the docks to move forward with the repair of the restaurant deck, as I said earlier.

That work should actually be done by the end of the calendar year.

We were also able to put out a request for expression of interest for both the restaurant as well as the adjacent steamers building.

Staff is currently working with interested businesses to find the right operators for those buildings.

The Native American-themed children's play area has been moving along as well.

The design was a collaboration with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and Wilton Rancheria.

It reflects indigenous life along the river with natural play features and themed structures.

The play area will be named Montem Chatnandi, which is Nisanan for along the river.

Staff will bring a construction contract and request for authorization of purchase of playground equipment to council on December 9th.

with construction beginning in the spring of 2026 and anticipated to be completed in the summer.

Work has also progressed on the public market buildings.

As design began, in order to ensure a successful and viable project,

our architects at Stantec brought in Agora Partners, experts in creating vibrant public spaces.

Agora conducted a market analysis of the old Sacramento waterfront.

They looked at the waterfront restaurant site, the public market buildings,

the district as a whole, and conducted careholder outreach to understand the ecosystem that these

important city assets are operating in and how they can be optimized. They developed a program

with financial projections and recommendations to help guide the projects. Per Gore's assessment,

the public market buildings can bring value to Sacramento in three different ways,

through economic development, by attracting tourism, and by providing retail opportunities.

But they do feel that currently those opportunities are not being optimized.

AGORE's perspectives and recommendations align with city council's.

They believe that in your recent priority setting, acknowledging the importance of economic development.

They indicate that the public market site is critical to any successful transformative change on the old Sacramento waterfront

that aligns with several other analysis that have occurred over the years.

They recommend the following strategies when considering design and approach to the market sites.

They advised that in order to be successful, the site had to extend dwell times for visitors to extend connections throughout the district, bringing people from the Railroad Museum all the way down to the Embarcadero to the Children's Play Area.

Other key strategy is to strengthen the old Sacramento retail through the use of data, partnerships, education, and marketing, thinking of the market buildings as an anchor tenant within a mall to draw people into the area so they'll spend longer time there.

Physically, the public market sites needed to be designed for activity to be visible while integrating indoor and outdoor spaces.

The building needed to attract the right tenants, and they believe that the new plaza between the market buildings is needed as a focal point for activation and experience.

When considering how to implement these strategies, either to move forward with new construction or to renovate the existing buildings,

it became clear that new construction would be the best path forward.

While the renovating would provide the quicker return on investment and lower upfront costs,

it would not have the same effect as new construction would, elevating the district and the city as a whole.

The concept for this new construction is framed around six jewel box commercial buildings,

totaling 9,000 square feet plus additional outdoor space available for leasing.

The suggested leasing strategy would focus on a mix of quick serve and casual dining.

The openness of the space delivers connection between Front Street and the Embarcadero,

which is currently obscured by the market buildings.

To the north side of K Street features two jewel boxes and enhanced waiting and boarding area.

You can see how this design opens it up so you can see the trains across Front Street

The layout really draws you to those trains rather than hiding them behind the monolithic buildings.

This area also features a great lawn, which will be a necessary amenity when state parks move forward with building a hotel at the 1849 scene.

There's a flex space that's intentionally designed for event pop-ups and seasonal vendors.

Front and K makes up one of the most iconic intersections in Sacramento, with a historic Delta King serving as a backdrop.

It's also home to a 60-foot Christmas tree and theater of lights during the holidays.

The proposed design leverages that distinction by opening up the space and providing more room for activation.

South of K Street, there are four more jewel boxes, with two of them having the potential to be subdivided.

Seating is available throughout, making the connection between indoor and outdoor,

and really promoting those longer dwell times in the district,

imagining parents going from this area just to the south to the children's play area and then off to the Embarcadero.

A few more conceptual designs.

And appropriate for the time of year, the Christmas tree.

So what are our next steps?

On December 9th, next week, staff will bring the children's play area contract and authorization to purchase play equipment before council.

In September, staff submitted an application to terminate the existing state lands lease and to reissue a new 49-year lease.

The process has the potential to take a year or more, but as the process wraps up, we will restore efforts towards the waterside projects impacted by those lease negotiations.

Over the next several months, staff expects contracts for the boardwalk project to come to council, as well as a contract to continue design on the public market buildings.

During that same time frame, we staff will be working on refining cost estimates and project timelines for the waterfront program projects phase A, allowing the city treasurer's office to return to council with a specific request for TOT bond issuance.

With that, we have members of the treasurer's office, Office of Innovation and Economic Development, our architect Stantec, and Convention and Cultural Services all available for questions and feedback.

Okay.

Public comments?

I have one speaker on this item.

Should we take that now?

Chelsea Evans.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.

My name is Chelsea Evans.

I'm the District Manager of Old Sacramento Waterfront,

part of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership.

Downtown Sacramento is a property-based improvement district

that has been bringing vibrancy to our downtown core for over 30 years.

I'm here today to voice support for advancing Phase A of the Waterfront Reinvestment Program,

which is essential for the success of our historic district and its over 150 small businesses.

These improvements are critical because they will enhance the safety and accessibility

by replacing the boardwalks that welcome more than 4 million visitors a year,

increased dwell time and visitor engagement through the redesigned public market buildings

and the flexible plaza space, support families with the Native American-themed children's

play area, strengthen our small business ecosystem by drawing locals and tourists into the district,

encouraging new exploration with the recent updates, and align with the city's long-term

priorities in the 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento Riverfront Master Plan.

Old Sacramento is one of the city's most important destinations, and these investments are both

timely and foundational to preserve our historic district.

We appreciate the city's thoughtful approach to phasing and financing,

and we stand ready to support the work ahead.

Thank you for your continued leadership and commitment to our waterfront.

Thank you.

Council members.

So Mayor Pro Temgata.

Thank you very much, Mayor and Council.

So this is, you know, one I want to appreciate in all the work that's been done here,

and I know that there are issues with the timing and why we need to change the phasing here.

Obviously, you know, the docks is something that we have had a lot of conversation about,

and we aren't ready at that position to move them forward.

But one thing that while this item here doesn't commit TOT dollars right off the bat,

I do have an issue of how the phasing is put together.

And I was willing to support the original phasing, Phase 1 and 2, now we're calling it Phase A and Phase B, before because it clearly delineated what were the significant important factors in Old Sacramento.

Our docks, accessibility, and also the children's playground that came with state funding.

But by moving now the public market, which is totaled around $17 million of TOT dollars into phase A, and while we're not committing it, I've seen the song and dance before where we put it in a plan.

It's blessed by the council, and then this train kind of keeps moving.

And this $17 million project, which I don't think is a bad project, it's not one that needs to be done, but when it gets done, I think is important.

And I could see the $17 million TOT project all of a sudden being a $24 million project by the time we get going to it.

And then the question becomes, what do we do and how are we using all the TOT dollars that we have?

And are we going to use the credit card and fill it all up in one time and have a 30-year obligation for this?

When we don't know, and frankly, I don't want to be pejorative here, but I don't know of anyone who says,

I'm going to go to Old Sacramento for tourism or stay the night to go visit a public market.

And so to me, I have an issue with the way that the phasing is set up.

because of it. And I do want to thank, you know, Council Member Tailemantos' approach that we

haven't had the discussion yet on how do we prioritize our limited TOT dollars that are

one-time dollars. And I think we need to have that discussion here, particularly because when we

approved for phase one and two, we did it with what is the most essential. Yes, I think the

children's playground, which comes from state funds, I think is important. Yes, I do think we

should get the boardwalk and accessibility done. Councilmember Jennings and I were just talking

about the challenges with our parents and our grandparents when we take places and while I

was critical at first I see the benefit of changing that boardwalk that we have now in front of the

Delta King and we could benefit from that improvement all around old Sacramento but I do

think that we need to maintain the public market in phase B until we decide where our real intent

is. And our real interest at the council was getting the docks done, getting Rio City Cafe,

the old Rio City Cafe done and back in action. And I do understand there are timeframes,

but I do think that's a concern in moving this forward. And while I hear the staff saying,

well, you're not committing the TOT dollars, but you are asking us to move a project forward

early on. So that's my concern here. I would only support a motion that keeps the public market

because it is such an expensive and a big chunk of the TOT dollars that's used in measure in

section B until we have a better plan on what to use it for. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor

Talamantes. Thank you. And like Council Member or Mayor Pro Tem Guerra said, I, TOT dollars,

our special dollars that we passed Measure N for

so that we can invest $1 and get $2, $3, $4 back.

And last year when we moved on this item,

I did direct staff to create a two-year plan,

a five-year plan, a 10-year plan and framework

of how we're gonna spend these dollars

and to work with Visit Sacramento

and Downtown Partnership, our nonprofits, unions,

and business groups so we can create

a really real cohesive plan and direction

for the city of Sacramento

and how we're gonna be able to move forward

to attract more people here.

So just direction, maybe like a workshop for next year

to our mayor, our city manager,

to have a conversation about all our priorities.

You know, we're looking at soccer fields.

We're looking at more soccer fields.

We're looking at the waterfront on the Garden Highway.

We're looking at Old Sac.

We're looking at Meadowview, also soccer fields

or mountain bikes or whatever it may be.

There's a lot of ideas floating about what we can do

to attract more people to come to Sacramento,

to come spend their dollars here,

and TOT is our only way of doing so.

So we need to be very strategic.

Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you.

I hear my colleagues, but I think we're forgetting that a conversation that happened a year ago at Council where we discussed that use of tourism and where tourism comes in, a majority is in old Sacramento.

and we do need to upgrade it and we do need to refresh it

because one of our agreed upon priorities is economic development.

This is economic development, and I think it's a we have to separate and not confuse.

TOT priority where Old Sacramento, while I would love to see Old Sacramento refurbished

such that more Sacramentans want to go down there on a regular basis,

but it is one of our number one tourist draws.

And you look at what Boston did to their waterfront

and how it has changed the nature of the city.

I think we would be doing a disservice to one,

what we agreed as a priority in economic development

if we did not move this forward.

I think the conversation can be is if we move this forward

that the staff come back and talk to us about the plan

for the financing, but we did have this conversation last year about the return on investment,

and I don't think it's a bad idea to look at smaller spaces with more green space as the city

is proposing, but I don't want to stop this because we're worried about where our TOT dollars may or

may not go because overarching we have to look at what is for the best of the city and this has

been a work in progress and a lot of time and effort has been put in and I understand the

concerns and the need for a greater discussion on TOT but this is our tourist destination this is

how we connect DOCO this is how we take Sacramento to the next step I think the biggest tamper right

now is I was really upset that the governor and the state put a delay on the hotel. We need a

hotel in old Sacramento and that's where we need to push our assembly member and our senator and

the governor because a hotel would be amazing there but for it to be amazing there we have to

do these upgrades and I understand staff switching it and I appreciate when they ran into all of

these problems with state lands commission who knew what this needs to do but maybe the the

question is as we move this forward and the next step is it comes back again for a conversation of

where is the funding coming from in a greater breakdown but I would like to make a motion to

move the the staff proposal and the suggested changes. I'll second that. I support old SAC.

I just wanted to make sure that the TOT conversation happened.

Thanks Mayor. Notwithstanding a good bit of involvement in Old Sacramento from different

perches over the years, this is my first bite at the apple from this side of the dais.

My impression is that for nine people there are probably at least ten opinions up here.

But beyond that, you know, it strikes me that we often just seem to be in conflict with

ourselves over what old Sacramento ought to be.

And I've not been quite sure over the years whether it's really intended to be a preservation

and replication of a certain era or whether it's supposed to be something that's more

modern or something that's supposed to combine a set of different points in time.

To wit, we're going to replace boardwalks but we're going to leave paved streets.

You know, I know this is an old, old debate about the streets.

But as an example, when I think about places like old San Diego or Williamsburg or Sturbridge,

Those are places that really capture the essence of the era that they're trying to frame, both

through maintenance of original structures and replication of previous structures.

Speaking only for myself, I don't have that sense about old Sacramento.

I thought it was striking to me when we were there for the tree lighting last weekend to

have the spotlight on the Ebner and with a crowd there you really could get the sense

that this was a place that represented a historic era

in Sacramento's history.

But you take that crowd away and all of a sudden

it's cars and trucks in a place that's supposed to be

the 1850s or the 1860s.

And by the way, I think the children,

I just want to make it clear,

I think the children's playground is great.

I think that that is certainly an appropriate

acknowledgement and asset

that fits.

But somewhere along the line,

I hope there's a conversation

about what it is we're trying to achieve

in old Sacramento thematically.

And I don't get the sense from this approach

that's before us that that issue

is really being addressed,

at least certainly not head on.

I do think the public market buildings

need to be restructured.

I think the conceptual design or layout,

I guess I should say layout, not so much design,

does make sense.

It does make sense to open up the eastern portion

of Old Sacramento much more to the waterfront

than is the case today.

But what those structures ought to look like,

I think ought to be something subject

to further conversation, further discussion as an example.

I'm going to support the motion this evening,

but I am going to do it with those reservations

that I hope there will be a point in time

before it's a fait accompli

that we do talk about what is it

that we want Old Sacramento to be

and what's it going to take

to make it that ultimate destination that we hope it will become.

It is a major driver of visitors.

There really is no question about that.

But could it be a better driver of that if we made some different decisions about what we expect of it,

how we fashion it, how we administer it,

I think that potential exists, but I don't think we will realize it unless we come to a unified concept of what that theme is ultimately for this part of our, this very, very important part of our city.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Council Member Maple.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, maybe this is a little too philosophical, but, you know, when I think about Sacramento and what I love about this city,

it's the point being at the convergence of two rivers is such an important part of who we are

our who we are as a city what's important to us our history and beyond and so when I traveled

other places especially cities that are similarly situated with these wonderful resources like

rivers what do they do they build up their waterfronts right if you go and visit great

cities along rivers and other waterways they have spaces for folks to gather to to shop to go to

restaurants and beyond in their community spaces and that does drive tourism and it drives our

economy and I've always wondered to myself before being in this position what what can we do more

here because I've always felt that we need to do more to make our waterfront a place that's more

of a destination for folks not just for tourism of course that but also for the residents here

make it more accessible so I think this is a step in the right direction and so I'm excited to support

that and that vision, especially as we see this connected to, you know, it's not happening in a

vacuum. We have so many other things that are taking place right now, including the rail yards

project and how this all connects together is going to be wonderful. And I can't wait to see

that future, but we have to start making these investments now. I do hear the concerns of some

of my colleagues and I think that we do need to have a bigger conversation, especially, you know,

around TOT. I agree with the vice mayor and the mayor pro tem that, you know, I think there's a

lot of competing interests and there's a lot of vision that people have for TOT but it's not

entirely clear what our city-wide strategy is with TOT. With that said I think that we move this

forward and we continue to have that conversation maybe in a workshop as was mentioned because I

think having a strategic plan moving forward is the right idea so that we know that we're spending

our dollars wisely but for this in particular I'm excited. I think it's the right thing to do and

I'm looking forward to supporting the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Guerra. Great.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate the conversation here.

And I do want to thank Council Member Dickinson for your articulation in this.

And to your point, you know, if we don't want this to become, what do you call it, the fiat complete?

You know, and we don't want just a policy to just move on its own.

And I think that is my concern because, as Council Member Talamantes mentioned,

for every dollar we put in two of t we should get two more back so we can have another project

to move forward so this this uh this item today um is is a mechanical item it's a reimbursement

item now we're slowly creating a phase and a shift uh and um and i don't want to stop the

mechanics of what we have to do to actually get reimbursed for this process so moving the item

forward is appropriate but for this reason it's why i brought up the issue about the phasing

because if we don't discuss, yes, I believe that this is important as well,

but I didn't hear Visit Sacramento come here and say,

hey, this is going to bring $3 for every $1 we put in.

When we use the type of dollars for TOT, they should be able to generate that.

And for now, I mean, people come to visit Old Sacramento a lot.

It's our number one place that is visited.

But is it why they come to Sacramento and spend their money on a hotel that gives us those two or three?

We need to make sure that we make that informed decision before we spend $17, $20, $25, a quarter of a million, $100 million onto a project to fix a public shed.

So that would be my say.

So I'm going to vote for this to move forward as to your point with that reservation that we make sure that does this fit in what we're all going to, what all of our needs are?

Because I've got a lot, like all of us, we've got a lot of fixes to do this in our home.

It's about when and how much it costs and when's the right time to do it.

So I don't think anyone questions that we need to fix it.

In fact, I said that we need to fix it, but the question is, is the TOT dollars the right time now?

And how we use it is important.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Mervang.

Thanks, Mayor.

I appreciate the conversation.

I will also be supporting the motion on the table, but just wanted to use this moment to kind of give some history for those that, just because I think it's really important.

And I know I've been in conversation with vice mayor Talamantes on working with her to submit a high level proposal regarding a framework around TOT.

And that's really important.

Just a reminder for folks in 2000 and in 2022, Sacramento voters voted on measure end and they passed that measure.

And I just want to share a little bit context of why that measure even happened in the first place.

One, it was because before the new measure that we now have, TOT, the way that the language was written, was incredibly limited.

And we were limited in how and where we could use those dollars.

Most of the time, it could only be used in downtown or the safe credit union.

But we couldn't spend those dollars in other parts, like in Meadowview, in South Sacramento, in underserved communities.

and the mayor, the former mayor and I had a conversation around 102 acres and if we wanted

to build, whether it's a sports complex, some kind of economic engine, right, where would we get the

dollars from and that is actually how we went to the voters because we wanted to ensure that those

TOT dollars was not only spent in downtown, it was also spent in other parts of the neighborhood

where we could generate economic development and yes, it does have to generate more TOT, right,

And so I just want to remind my colleagues and for the public, when we have this conversation about TOT, it does need to be a citywide strategy effort.

Yes, lots of love for downtown, absolutely.

But the intent of why the voters passed it was because we talked about making sure that we invested in underserved communities and that economic development and tourism also needs to happen, not just in downtown, but in low-income communities as well.

And so I look forward to that conversation when we have a workshop around TOT and coming up with a strategy on how we're going to spend those dollars to generate more TOT.

And so just wanted to put that on record.

But I do support.

I do believe that we have to also invest in downtown and in Sacramento as well, even though I don't represent that area.

But I do go to Sacramento with my kids and my family.

And when people, when I have family members that visit our family, we take them to Sacramento, right?

And so I think that's important.

What is good for OSAC will uplift all of us because it's also about generating revenue for the city of Sacramento.

And economic development was one of our top priorities.

That said, though, we have to remember why the voters voted for Measure N-T-O-T.

And it was to make sure we invest in neighborhoods that are often neglected and underserved.

And so just wanted to put that on record.

Thank you.

Thank you. We do have a motion and a second. I just want to give some perspective on this as well.

I'm a big supporter of Old Sacramento. I was touched by the number that 4 million people visited Old Sacramento last year.

We know there were 160 professional baseball games there last year between MLB and AAA.

and with the kings and concerts there, people flow out of Old Sac in greater numbers than we've seen in years before.

But look, I have two teenage kids now.

They loved going Old Sac, roaming around.

When I was a teenage kid, I loved going Old Sac.

I don't think they're always interested in gold rush and history.

I wasn't always.

But, Roger, two things can be true.

You can appreciate the history and appreciate what else it has to offer there.

They like going out by the Delta King, taking pictures out there, their Instagram pictures, looking at the seals.

They don't know the history of the Delta King always, but we can always remind young people about that.

So I think that we need to focus on continuing to make this, as I heard earlier, this is the confluence of our two rivers, this is our city,

but it's also a huge place where people are drawn to the core of Sacramento.

So I know that this item came up the week before I was elected.

I know our prior mayor ran for mayor.

And when you look at his platform, it wasn't downtown, the arena, or this and that.

It was old Sacramento, the waterfront.

That was one of the things that he wanted to drill in on.

And this was the last action that he took.

And it was non-binding.

And people said, would you support that?

I was like, yeah, it was an action.

We could always undo it.

But I'm here to say that I support that action that we took that last hearing in November of 24.

So I'm in full support of this.

Just on the TOT tax in general, I somewhat disagree.

This is not a slush fund to reinvest in neighborhoods.

This has called and calculated

our economic development in dollars.

We need to invest every dollar here

that brings back a solid return on investment.

If it doesn't bring back a solid ROI,

we have general fund or other opportunities,

the state grants, but this is solely focused

on bringing back more revenue to our city.

that's what TOT is all about. So I support this project but I do think we

have a worthy debate as far as what other projects should be zeroed in on

with our TOT dollars and that's certainly for another day. But with that we have a

motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any no's or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes. Mayor we're gonna now move to item number 22 which is a

the Rail Yards Special Sign District and Sub-District 3 Digital Billboards.

And at this time, I will open the public hearing.

I'm going to use my favorite gadget again, please, the overhead projector.

All right.

Good enough.

Mayor, City Manager, members of the Council, Marco Gonzalez, Office of Innovation and Economic Development.

The rail yards item before you today represents another significant step in executing the three-party deal framework

for transforming the rail yards that was unanimously adopted by Council at the end of 2024

and unanimously approved in the definitive agreements in June of this year.

This three-party transaction since the beginning was focused on activation of three key projects in the rail yards.

The Republic Stadium, Sacramento Valley Station, and the historic Central Shops.

As part of staff's due diligence to determine project feasibility with our partners, Downtown Rail Yard Venture and Indomitable,

we examined the capital stacks of each project to verify how signage revenue plays into the project's deal structures.

Without signage revenue, the Republic Stadium and rehabilitation of the central shops will not happen in the near term,

and our vision of bringing the three catalytic projects to our central city is put in jeopardy.

With that, I will turn it over to Matt Seitz with our Community Development Department.

Good evening, Mayor, interim city manager, and council members.

My name is Matt Seitzman, senior architect with community development.

As Marco discussed, the economic conditions tied to signage in the rail yards,

I'm going to speak to staff's work to fulfill our term sheet obligations

and City Council's request for the rail yard special sign ordinance through a very simple consolidated presentation.

Tonight, the presentation covers two elements.

Here we go.

Two elements for the rail yard sign district.

The first one is the overall sign district boundary, which is shown here.

each sub district

it will be broken down to five sub districts

each sub district regulations will move forward

to city council

as on separate timelines to align with the development potential

and the needs for each sub district

so just to briefly summarize

there are five sub districts

and as you can see on the screen

the sub district one which is the purple area

that is the Sacramento Valley Station sub district

Then we have Sub-District 2, which is the Sacramento Historic Shops, which is in green, followed by Sub-District 3, which is in the tan or orange for all of downtown rail yard ventures properties.

And then Sub-District 4 includes all indomitable properties, which is the red area.

And then finally, Sub-District 5 in the blue, which includes all Kaiser's properties.

Sub-District 3.

This is the first sub-district that has development needs at this point, which is why we're bringing it to you this evening.

This sub-district allows for the maximum of five digital signs, digital billboards.

and the areas shown in light purple on the screen,

those indicate potential billboard locations.

All billboards must be on city-owned or leased properties.

In closing, staff is requesting that Council pass a motion

to determine that the ordinance is exempt

from the California Environmental Quality Act

pursuant to CEQA 15060C3 and 15378B2,

and then also adopt the ordinance deleting and adding section 15148.193 of the Sacramento City Code relating to signs in the rail yards.

I am here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Public comments?

I have three speakers.

The first is Grace Silva.

Following Grace is John Starnes, then Amos Dean.

Amir Dean.

Pardon me, Amir Dean.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Grace Silva and I am a current resident at the AJ in the rail yards district.

These billboards are a part of a sweetheart deal that will give away millions to the rail

yards developers.

And no, we shouldn't have any more giveaways to the developers while the affordable housing is still just at 6%.

The $120 million from the billboards should go to fund more affordable housing to help get us to 25%,

as well as rent stabilization fund to help people stay house.

And while I hear the council claim to want to invest in the city of Sacramento,

and while the development of the rail yards may be the investment that you hope it will be,

The real investment is in the people who provide the workforce in the city, and that means ensuring that they have a place to call home at the end of the workday.

Invest in affordable housing means investing in the people of Sacramento, which is investing in the city itself.

On a personal note, while I am not someone who takes a use of the affordable housing, there might be come a day where I might.

But with the current state of the economy, we are seeing less housing and the threshold of who will need affordable housing rising and rising.

So we need to ensure that we are providing the proper care and consideration for our citizens.

because if we care about this city,

that means providing housing for the people

who are going to live and work here

and ensuring that they're not going to have to commute

one to two hours outside of the city,

that we are going to keep them here and invest in the city.

So invest in the people who will provide the workforce

that you want in this development,

and you can do that with the billboards.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

John Starnes.

Following John is Amir.

I've been sitting too long. I'm sorry.

Those old folks in the Wong Center.

John Starnes, I'm from the Wong Center.

I'm a resident there.

And I'm one of the first to thank the city for cleaning up all the tents across the overpasses there.

That was the first comment.

A 90-year-old mother asked me, who lives up there?

and I told her that that was the penthouse

and you had to have a special, you know, they're gone now.

So it's easier for her to go, wow, that's probably better.

The rail yards interest, just to piggyback on what was already said,

affordable housing at 6%, that's 600 units of 10,000.

That's not going to keep those tents off the streets for very long.

They'll be back.

And so that, as you develop that area, we're not here to tell you what works,

but developers being served or the tenant of the people,

the residents of Sacramento being served by housing,

additional housing in the units that are there or proposed to be built.

Other than that, being a retired musician, the issue downtown,

I used to play downtown.

There is no music happening in Sacramento.

Nobody goes down there to have a dinner and hear a band or hear live music.

That might be something to offer the bar restaurant owners.

Give them a break some kind of way to get live entertainment in there.

It just doesn't happen here.

That would be the first place to look for bringing life back into old Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Amir Dean.

Good evening, all.

I'm Amos Dean.

Just kidding.

I'm Amos.

So I'm here with Unite Here Local 49 and rail yards for all.

We're here for the same reason that we have been speaking up about the rail yards development since the end of 2024.

There's not enough being done about the housing crisis.

Today, Council is voting to make special exception for Republic and DRV to be allowed to build digital billboards.

We're not absolutely opposed to more billboards, but we do think that they should be used to help fund community benefits.

Though this is not being voted on today, we are opposed to the plan to give DRV and the Republic free leases on city land for those digital billboards.

The deal passed last June included draft $0 leases for up to 12 billboards for 35 years in the rail yards area.

Based on other recent billboard leases, the market value for those 12 leases is about $120 million.

$120 million is a lot of money.

It could be put to much better use.

We've been advocating for 25% affordable housing at the rail yards.

There are thousands of people, including local 49 members, as well as people currently living on the street who need affordable housing.

Their agreement to require just 6% affordable housing in the rail yard was made back in 2016.

If Sacramento is going to give more benefits to developers in the rail yards, like this billboard deal or a future EIFD,

there should also be more benefits to the people of Sacramento,

such as affordable housing and rent stabilization funds.

$120 million could go a long way toward funding more affordable housing,

as well as rent stabilization funds.

Thank you.

I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you.

Council Member Plucky Baum.

Move to have recommendation.

Second.

Council Member Talamantes.

And council member Pluckybaum does that include closing the public hearing?

Thank you.

Council member Pluckybaum you're so long winded.

We can learn something from council member Pluckybaum.

Just remind everybody up here.

Sounds good.

All right.

So, you know, when you go visit cities, New York, large cities,

you see billboards everywhere.

You see lights everywhere.

It's what makes it like a city.

It gives you that city feeling.

So happy to support this.

With that being said, when we passed the term sheet, Councilmember Vang did ask about the dollar amount identified with each billboard and the city's contribution because we're giving 100% back to the project.

So I would like some numbers for the public to understand and to know.

You know, as we move forward with this EIFD, accountability, transparency to the taxpayer dollars is so important to me.

So if you can share some light on that, and I know I asked this question in my briefing, so if you can highlight that, that'd be great.

Absolutely.

And I do want to reiterate that we're not voting on the leases today, but we do have Josh Leachman with Downtown Rail Yard Venture who can give some insight into how the billboard revenue will play into redevelopment of the shops and catalyzing the build out of the rail yards.

So Marco, so just to make sure when the time comes on the dollar amount, that will be available to the public.

It is a private transaction, so we're really trying to navigate what information can be shared versus what we can speak about anecdotally.

So I think maybe Josh can come up and maybe give some more insight into that topic.

Okay.

Thank you, Josh.

Good evening, members of the council.

Josh Leachman, Downtown Rail Yard Venture.

As Marco noted, this is a private transaction between private parties, and I'm actually not at liberty to disclose that amount.

But I also wanted to, one, address the gentleman's comment.

This is going into a live entertainment venue in the restoration of the historic central shops.

100% of this signage revenue is going back into the rehabilitation of the central shops.

So thank you very much.

Thanks, Mayor.

Yeah, I appreciate Vice Mayor Talamante's asking that question.

I know if mayor and council so choose later on based on the timeline to move forward with this, those projections we may not have because it's a private transaction.

So that means that as a city, we may never know how much is actually generated from that revenue.

Is that correct, Marco?

I just stating it for the record.

That is correct.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I just, you know, again, just want to share, you know, I support the Rail Yards Project.

I think it's incredibly important.

Economic development is key so that we can have more revenues in our budget to be able to provide services.

That also includes making sure that we can also have a community where people can actually live here and be housed as well.

And so just wanted to remind all of you that my understanding is that, you know, one of the leverages in our city negotiation to move forward with the rail yards project was this term sheet in the old and expended, expanded EIFD.

I know that there was because there was a residential protest vote.

We weren't able to expand the EIFD.

I believe it's on a pause for like a year.

but I do know that that was a leveraging point for the city of Sacramento

because I think the argument oftentimes is that the city is not doing anything

we're just approving this EIFD and we don't have anything to offer really and

so this is like something we should just take what I just want to share with

folks is that there was several items on the term sheet one is that that was

security for three years with PD extending that to 35 years which is 3

million and one of the key leveraging negotiation was

the billboards in particular and that as the expansion grows and if we move forward on the

billboards that the developers would basically take that money of the billboards but what I'm

hearing is that 100% of it will go into central shops as well so I appreciate you sharing that

hopefully when we move further down the timeline I think for public transparency I think it's going

to be important to know how much those billboards are generating because I think that's important

for the public to know because that is something we are giving up as a city if we so choose

to do that.

I do just want to state for the record that this item again as Marco share is to establish

the boundaries for the rail yards special sign district right I see staff nodding their

head and it would authorize up to five digital billboards in sub district three correct okay

So I just want to ask the question again, what is the timeline for the item to actually come back for Mayor and Council to actually discuss the regulation of leases and revenues in the larger context?

context.

We hope to be back with the final item on the central shops signage early next year.

So we're targeting January for coming back with the leases and for council to make the

findings on all of those digital signs.

Okay, great.

Looking forward to that conversation.

I think for me to be able to vote on this item and vote a yes is I want to see what

those projections are.

I think that's really important.

As someone who is a council member, a policy decision maker,

I don't think that we should be approving, you know,

billboards in terms of giving revenue to developers.

If as a city, we don't even know how much they're generating.

I think that's really important for the public to know.

And so for me to be able to vote on this,

I'm going to vote yes,

because this is just about establishing the billboards district.

But in order to actually move forward in January, Marco,

while I'm looking at you is that as a city councilwoman,

if I'm gonna take a vote on this,

I wanna know what the projected revenues are.

And I think that we owe that to our constituents

and our community.

And so just wanted to make that request.

I know it is a private transaction if we so move forward,

but I think in good faith efforts, right?

I, as a councilwoman, want to know what those numbers are.

So yeah, that's the only comment I have.

And with that, I'll also be voting yes on this item.

but it's just to establish the boundaries.

It's not to actually approve the amount or the leases.

Yeah, okay, sounds great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kaplan.

Thanks, Mayor.

It's never been a secret I'm not a fan of billboards.

I believe, you know, some of these lights can be a hazard.

So I know this is just establishing the signage district,

but are we also working with wind and I'm assuming signs and electric,

they go up.

What about light pollution with the residents down there?

And what does that look like and what guarantees are there to mitigate?

So it isn't creating light pollution.

Thank you,

council member for the question.

So built into this,

we all,

we already have our light standards built into this specific ordinance.

So this follows all the other light provisions we have for all other digital

signs, i.e. like the ESC,

what we do with the standard standard billboards along freeways.

All of that has to meet the minimum or the maximum light limit allowed during

those different times within the day.

So I guess I want to parse it a little bit.

Freeway?

Yes.

Next to residential, because if you look at where the signage district is,

it is actually going to be somewhat close to future residential.

Do we have a higher standard of light pollution or mitigating light pollution when it is next to residential?

So the light pollution, as an LED comes up, it's no different than a standard billboard or the lighting within the area.

the two locations or the three internal locations,

one being directly adjacent to the central shops.

While there is residential being built around that area,

we've already taken that into consideration

with the ultimate light levels

and the light that will be provided

within that section or that district.

On what would be on the north side of Sub-District 3,

we have required only a single sign,

not two-faced, as it's pointing out.

And so that's more towards the Richards Boulevard,

that specific location.

And then the final kind of general location

being on the south side between 5th and 6th

and kind of right around the rail tracks.

Those signs are actually going to be a little bit smaller

than normal, and it will still meet the same light,

the light quality that we have within that area.

And of course Marco's got something else to say too.

I always do.

I just want to mention that every sign needs to go through site plan and design review.

So Matt and Bruce will review each sign location as the details are finalized to determine context sensitivity.

So all of that will be taken into consideration on a sign-by-sign basis.

So then my next is I hear that, but there's always changes in advancement and technology and lighting.

do we have potentially written into it if there are better, more light reducing, you know, light pollution, you know, LEDs or whatever version of light that they're using that best practices be put in and maybe it's looked at, you know, every five years or something like that to make sure that, you know, we are mitigating as much light pollution as possible.

So we've generally pegged all of our light standards based off of the IES, the Illumination Society.

So all that's based off of that.

As that changes, if it becomes more restrictive, we can always come back and update that.

Is there a provision that's going to be put in that says that we have that authority?

Because if that's not in the term sheet, they can tell us, well, it's not in the term sheet.

too bad so sad well to the point all these all these signs can automatically be dimmed based off

of whatever is in place could the existing be quote-unquote grandfathered into the old lighting

sure but these the signs themselves the technology generally runs about 10 years between seven and

10 years and then it's updated and will still meet the same standard so if we're asking or if

you are asking for a lower level of light that is fundamentally pushes it down?

Well, if let's say they need to replace it, modernize it, seven years, but new lighting

standards have come out, are they required to meet those new lighting standards?

Generally, no, because all the lighting standards are already meeting what the federal...

Which I completely understand.

Law changes, leadership changes.

Sure.

So why wouldn't we consider potentially a provision that requires if they modernize or update that they meet the the latest

standards for

energy efficiency and light pollution

All right. Sorry sidebar.

No, I appreciate the sidebar. Absolutely.

So we can come back at a later date and require lower light standards if we're finding that there's a problem.

This is a very similar problem that we have in general within the city with just regular lighting,

not just digital billboards, but lighting itself, the glare, those type of issues that we work through with constituents as well.

Perfect. I really appreciate this because I think it's also not something we deal with every day, but also educating everybody and knowing that light pollution is an issue.

And then kind of switching my last item, I really appreciate knowing that the funds generated are going back into the central shops.

Is there anything at writing, I like trust but verify.

Is there anything in writing that says that that is mandatory,

that the revenue must be invested back into the central shops?

Because anybody can say anything.

So my part is the ordinance, and we don't have anything in the ordinance.

Marco or city manager?

So when we bring back the leases which we're finalizing currently we can take a fresh look at this

We did you know in the process of putting together this deal look at the capital stacks for

Indomitable and for DRV and so we verified that this revenue is needed for these projects

But we'll make sure that we verify you know one last time before we bring these leases forward

Yeah, I mean it was said publicly. I want to believe them. So if we can put it in writing. Why wouldn't we sounds great? Thank you

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Council Member, Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Marco, I think I need you back.

We've been having a lot of conversations about signage restrictions

and how different leases work with the various providers of signage

and supply and demand and the cost of doing ads.

So I know you're doing a study,

so can you please report to the full council

on what that study timeline looks like?

Yes.

Can we share out who the consultant is?

Hi, Council Member.

So, yes, we are engaging with the consultant to go through and verify all signage within the city,

whether it's digital or it's static billboards.

We're getting the contract in place and we're getting the study taken care of.

We're hoping to have that by the beginning of February.

That was where we were shooting for.

There was a small delay in there.

so we're still trying to maintain that same point.

So the consultant is going to look at the city as a whole for all of us

and not only just give us the response of whether or not the market's been saturated,

if there are specific areas within the city proper,

that there's other benefits to putting signage there instead of in other locations.

So it's a very comprehensive study,

and I think that answers most of your question.

Yeah, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Councilor Bang.

Thank you, Mayor.

Marco, can you come up real quick?

I just, sorry, my apologies,

just because I know you're going to be prepping for the January.

I actually, yeah, I actually have to go now, so.

Oh, okay, okay.

Just because I know you're going to be coming back in January

and so you just made a statement that as city staff,

you verify that those revenue dollars was needed to fulfill to do this project.

So if you verify that it was needed to fulfill this project, when you say verified, does that

mean that you have access to those numbers of like what those projections are?

So we did have access to preliminary numbers.

And so we were just discussing ways that we can make, because it is a private transaction,

there's obviously sensitivities, but we're going to look at what information we can make

public in terms of their closing documents, in terms of final transaction documents, so it can

become a public record. So something that will work with our partners on to see what we can

bring forward to satisfy what you're requesting here. Okay, that's great because it sounds like

we have the numbers then. Oh yeah. We have seen the numbers. Or some what? Some projections. Yes, we have seen the numbers. It's just a matter of how we can work with our partners to see what we can share externally. Got it. Thank you so much. Thank you.

That's it. Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second. All's in favor please say aye. Aye.

Any nos or abstentions? Hearing none, item passes. Next item.

Mayor, we now move to item number 25, which is resolution pertaining to military equipment use timeline.

Following that is our final item 23, Airport South Industrial Annexation.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Clay Buchanan, Sacramento Police Department.

I'm here tonight to ask you to pass a resolution,

a change in our military equipment use annual report and policy timeline.

This came at the request of the community, the council,

and just feedback we received.

Our timeline right now is becoming shorter every year,

and therefore there's no time for community input or council input

or other individuals' input into the policy.

The change will we work directly with the city attorney's office to get this completed

We came up with a timeline that puts the final approval date at the end of the calendar year every year

So that gives us our timeline our inspection period won't change

We have some milestones in between the the final inspection period timeline

But that won't change it just puts the calendar timeline calendar into the calendar year is our final date to get approved

And I think that is what what has been asked of us. I know I ran it by the police commission

I presented to them.

I spoke with the chair today and she said I could quote her and say she was good with

the timeline and the changes that we made.

I keep it brief because I know you have a long night.

So that's all I have.

Thank you for following the council member Plucky-Bomway.

City clerk, is there any public comment on this item?

I have no speakers on this item.

Oh, we do.

Hang on one second.

We do, sorry.

You can have a seat.

Thank you.

I have two items, two speakers, Skylar Henry and Kion Bliss.

welcome hey all i am here i i understand that the police review commission a year ago in 2024

put forth a timeline that they were pretty convinced it's it's not the same

as this one that actually would allow a lot more time and consideration of military equipment.

It would put it in a better time period regarding budget discussions and community input.

Keon can speak to it better than I can,

but my understanding is the proposed timeline does not leave adequate time for careful review and consideration

and in fact feels deliberately written to limit transparency and duck as much accountability as possible.

If the idea is to honor the intent behind AB 481, this proposed timeline should be rejected in favor of one that leaves ample time for oversight.

And I will cede the rest of my time to Keon.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Hi there, counsel.

As the former chair of the Community Police Review Commission, I'm really urging that this council reject the proposed timeline for SACPD's annual military equipment use.

The current resolution entrents a pattern that undermines meaningful civilian oversight, weakens transparency, and actually sidelines the very community voices that Assembly Bill 481 was meant to elevate.

Since it took effect in 2022, SACPD has consistently compressed the MEU review process into a schedule that deprives independent oversight bodies of the time needed to review and evaluate how military equipment is acquired, deployed, and impacting our neighborhoods across the city.

This new resolution does little more than extend the reauthorization deadline for you to the end of the calendar year while cementing the same flawed structure that both SEPRC members and city council members yourselves have criticized for years.

This approach does not correct the longstanding timing problems.

It actually formalizes them.

And maintaining this rush timeline is more than just an inconvenience for volunteers and staff.

It actually strips you all, as our elected members, of the time and context needed to weigh community concerns, fiscal tradeoffs, and citywide safety priorities before voting on complex MEU policy changes as well as substantial equipment purchases.

In December 2024, the commission proposed a clear workable alternative to this resolution, setting SAC PD's annual reporting period from December 1st through November 30th, then aligning all mandated steps to ensure each party has sufficient time to fulfill its responsibilities.

That framework provides two months for SAC PD to complete its annual inventory and identify equipment needs as well as estimate the cost and prepare a draft annual report.

Two months for the commission to review and discuss this draft as well as coordinate logistics and outreach for the community engagement meeting.

And then three months for both parties to conduct and hold a formal public gathering and analyze community input as well as.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Please take your seat.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is complete. Please take your seat.

Thank you, Kayon.

Mr. Bliss, you're in violation of council rules or procedure. If you do not take your seat, we'll be asked to leave the chambers.

Your time is complete. Please take your seat.

Mr. Bliss, you're in violation of the council rules of procedure.

All right.

Keon, please, your time is up.

You know the two minutes.

Thank you.

All right.

Mayor Pro Temgara?

Mayor Pro Temgara?

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Please take your seat.

Thank you very much, Vice Mayor.

I appreciate the time here with our captain,

and I do appreciate the work with the police commission to get to where we are.

I think that it's evolved significantly.

And I do believe that the way that the timeline is now, after our first year of using that timeline,

it's going to help us get into a practice of actually being able to have these conversations and engage with our commissioners.

So with that, I'll make a motion to approve this timeline moving forward.

And then I want to encourage the continued work with the commission.

and this is a much better improvement

than where we have been in the past

where we have a meeting before,

we have to hear everything

before the state timeline comes into effect.

So I'll move the item, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

A motion to second, Council Member Maple.

Yeah, I just wanted to agree with Council Member Guerra

and just say that I know that this has been a tough battle

trying to figure out what the timing

and it's not for lack of effort.

It's been working with the city attorney's office,

working with our commission and beyond.

And so I just really want to thank you for your work and say that my police review commissioner who happens to be the chair this year sent me a message just to let me let us all know that she is in strong support and they've been working in partnership.

And so I'm looking forward to that. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Vang.

Thanks, Mayor.

Just wanted to add a direction if possible.

I think that we've been working incredibly hard over the past couple of years to try to get this timeline right in a way that it is inclusive and allow ample opportunity for the community to provide feedback on the MEU in particular.

So as we move forward with this timeline, I would actually like just a report back on the process.

Like, was it helpful?

Did it actually, you know, did it allow for more opportunity for community engagement?

What were some of the lessons learned?

because if the timeline didn't work well,

I think it's important for us to revisit that.

And so that would be my direction

that we implement this timeline,

but with the caveat that we bring back

kind of lessons learned.

And if we need to re-pivot this,

just because I heard two speakers on this item

and want to make sure that as council,

we're just not like rubber stamping this,

but also being thoughtful on follow-up

to make sure that we learn

that this is about continuous improvement.

So yeah, I'd like to provide that direction if we can report back.

Yeah, thank you.

Request is heard.

Council Member, I mean, City Manager Laney will say.

Thank you.

I think that's a great idea.

I think it's going to happen on the natural as we have that first year of the process to see how it works.

And if there are any tweaks we need to make to adjust the timeline, I think that the police department and myself as the assistant city manager who will be working with police at the same time next year, we'll make sure that happens.

Yeah, I would request that it be included at the end because I know that at the end of the year it's submitted to the full council for final discussion and approval.

So perhaps during that time the lessons learned can be applied there.

Noted. Thank you.

I just, we have a motion and a second.

Just want to focus.

Is that a yes?

I just want to know because it provided direction.

I wanted to know if that is.

I concur with that.

That was the maker of the motion.

So that, okay, thank you so much.

We have a motion and a second.

And I just want to say the big picture here is that years ago, these decisions were made in the shadows.

And legislation was passed.

The governor vetoed it.

Governor Brown at the time vetoed it.

And said, no, we want to let the police departments do this on their own.

And now there is a public process.

I know some people aren't 100% in accord with the public process.

But the big picture is now this is something that is debated and presented to the city council and the public on an annual basis.

And that's a good thing.

So therefore, full support.

We have a motion to second.

All's in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

He knows or abstentions.

Hearing none, item passes.

Next item.

May I move back to item number 23,

which is Airport South Industrial Annexation.

Okay, as we bring everybody back,

just a reminder, we had a week off, Thanksgiving break.

Yes, okay, yes.

Before this conversation happens, pursuant to government code regulation 18702.2, state law requires me to leave and recuse myself from a vote on this because my property is too close to the proximity of Airport South.

It is not for my desire not to represent my community, but state law says I cannot have an opinion on the dais, so I will be leaving the room but listening to the conversation.

Yes.

We have one more abstention as well.

So as they leave the room, we'll get our staff ready to go.

And for the record, that was both Council Members Maple and Kaplan recusing from this item.

Okay.

Okay.

Again, this is a continuation from our item two weeks ago.

We heard the proposal from the applicant two weeks ago.

We heard from our city staff.

We heard plenty of public comment.

I think there was 60 speakers last week,

a couple hours of public comments.

We continued that until tonight

because we wanted further council deliberation.

So we're going to do that.

And let me just set the stage

of how this next part of the evening is going to work.

We laid out a number of ideas and scenarios,

questions for city staff and they were going to do some homework and come back

and present to us so we'll start with that city staff will present to us the

the findings and report backs on some of the ideas we put out there we will not

have council deliberation right after that we will then go to public comment

we're gonna let the public speak on this again I know some of you spoke two weeks

ago and may want to say the same thing but we'd ask you to add something new if

if you can, to the debate,

as well as brevity would be appreciated as well.

There won't be an applicant presentation.

If the applicant wishes to participate,

they can speak during public comments,

as well as any council member can bring up the applicant

and ask further questions directly.

So we will begin now.

Staff, please present.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members.

My name is Matthew Ayala, Assistant Planner.

I will be providing an update on what was requested of staff at the November 18th hearing

staff have separated the various questions that were presented into four categories

land use restrictions state laws AB 98 and SB 415 and buffers community engagement and economic and absorption analysis

we would like to begin with a discussion of land use restrictions that staff has proposed on

parcel five as a reminder parcel five is the northeast portion of the project at the request

to limit the ability of large logistics facilities from occupying the buildings on parcel five

staff is proposing to impose a restriction in the pud guidelines that prohibits any warehouse

distribution centers on parcels 5d 5e and 5f which are the three small buildings closest to

the Westlake residential neighborhood.

Warehouse distribution is defined in the city code,

meaning a building primarily used for the long-term

or short-term storage of goods and materials

awaiting transportation or distribution

and not generally accessible to the public.

Additionally, staff is proposing that on parcel eight,

which is the non-participating parcel

at the southeast corner of the annexation area,

the agricultural open space buffer double

from 125 to 250 feet the remainder of the parcel would still receive a zoning designation of m1

light industrial. Several council members were interested in the project's compliance with state

laws ab98 and sb415. Staff have taken a further look at the restrictions of these bills beginning

with setbacks. As previously mentioned parcels 5d 5e and 5f will be prohibited from warehouse

distribution center uses and thus would not be subject to AB 98 and SB 415.

Ignoring this however AB 98 requires a 300 foot setback between loading bays

and sensitive receptors on buildings that are under 250,000 square feet. This

project provides at least 325 feet in that regard meeting the AB 98 setback

requirement. AB 98 also requires a 50 foot landscaping and screening buffer

between the building and sensitive receptors

for buildings that are within 900 feet

of a sensitive receptor.

This buffer is allowed to include parking.

Since the applicant has proposed a 125-foot setback

with parking and landscaping

between the building and the city-owned buffer,

the project is compliant

with the AB98 landscaping screening requirement.

AB98 also requires that truck bays

be oriented away from the sensitive receptors,

which parcels 5C, 5D, 5E, and 5F comply with

and is required as part of the PUD.

Parcels 5A and 5B, which are the two larger buildings

on parcel five, just to the left of the smaller ones,

are over 900 feet from a sensitive receptor

and would not be subject to the AB98 restrictions.

should logistics uses occupy parcels 5c or on parcel 8 in the future they would be subject

to all applicable state law there are also several electrification requirements as part of these

state laws to our knowledge the project is compliant with the following title 24 compliance

regarding solar and battery there will be a posting of anti-idling signage a provision of

EV charging readiness for cars and trucks to the Cal Green standards. Forklift and small off-road

engines must be zero emissions by January 1st of 2030 so long as they are commercially available

and there will be a requirement for electrical hookups and conduit at 100% of loading bays that

serve cold storage. At this point in the project staff is comfortable stating that the project

despite not being subject to AB 98 would comply with the bill.

In areas where there isn't a clear answer,

ultimately the project will need to comply with state law.

Another request asked of city staff was to condition the applicant

to meet with community members throughout this process.

Staff is proposing adding a condition of approval

that requires the applicant or a project representative

to reach out at a minimum quarterly basis

to the Westlake Master Association Board of Directors,

North Natomas Community Coalition, or other interested groups to provide updates and address

community concerns related to the project as the process moves on. Finally, planning staff has been

in contact with the city's Office of Innovation and Economic Development, as well as the city's

Department of Finance to discuss questions regarding the absorption and economic demand

for Warehouse in the Greater Sacramento region.

Those departments figured it would be best delivered

by the Greater Sacramento Economic Council.

It's our understanding that in attendance

is Mr. Chwell's Adrian,

Executive Vice President of GSEC,

who has a short presentation on this topic.

Thank you.

Mayor McCarty, members of council.

Again, Charles Adrian, the executive vice president of the greater Sacramento Economic Council.

I'm sorry?

Okay.

Yes, this is at the request of City of Sacramento staff.

Yes, I am providing a presentation of an analysis that was requested regarding not only the regional conditions

on industrial real estate, which I'll briefly touch upon,

but really also how this pertains to the decision

before you all tonight around the policy conditions

for the City of Sacramento and what a development like this

really means in the context of the priorities

set by City Council two weeks ago.

If you can just focus on, I know you can have two hats.

Yes.

I want you to focus on the technical question

of capacity, warehouse, vacancies and that.

And then if you can lead your kind of analysis on the need,

if you want to come back or have somebody else do a public comment,

we're just focusing on the questions of technical issues right now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sure.

Absolutely.

Yes.

I think I will begin with this.

This is the regional piece.

We have, there is ample reason to believe that a development such as Airport South

is going to meet with significant demand in the market.

I'm just going to give you four brief points on this.

We were, Collier's Sacramento's research team

and the CBRE industrial team were kind enough

to provide some really helpful data for us on this.

If you look at Metro Air Park, it's almost 80% built out

with about 3 million square feet remaining,

very likely to be absorbed over the next few quarters.

If you look at some of the larger industrial spaces in the market, we have a 1.6% vacancy for half a million or more square feet buildings region-wide, which is extraordinarily low.

Collier's produced an analysis that estimates we have about one year of built inventory available region-wide, which is in line with, in fact, slightly below the long-run average since 2019.

and if you look at build to suit sites,

there are only two fully entitled sites left in the region

that can currently accommodate a one million square foot user

and there are active deals in the market that are looking at this

so there are expectations that this may be reduced further within the coming months.

So I can leave it here or I can produce the further analysis that was requested

which was really around the market position of the city of Sacramento

regarding this type of product relative to the rest of the region.

So if you look at the rest of the region, we did an analysis using CoStar,

which is the most used real estate database for commercial and industrial real estate.

There you have a rating system of up to one to five for buildings that are out there,

basically denoting the kind of quality that you see in an industrial building or an office building.

For the rest of the market, this is vacant, properties with vacant or vacancy.

There is, you can see here the numbers around 2.62 for an average rating, about 40,000 average square foot availability.

In the rest of the region, 40 properties that meet the pipeline that GSEG works,

about two-thirds of the pipeline that we work as industrial projects with about an average of 107,000 square feet of a required square footage.

So this is essentially a snapshot of,

if you look at the rest of the region,

there are 40 properties in the market right now

that meet the criteria that we would need

to locate a project in Greater Sacramento.

25 of those are graded four or five by CoStar,

so high-quality real estate

like what you would see at Airport South.

For the city of Sacramento,

we are, generally speaking,

available properties are of slightly lower quality

rated by CoStar in the city of Sacramento

and a much smaller size,

which leads to the current condition

of having only four properties

that meet the requirements of our average pipeline

and one of those properties graded as four to five star

by CoStar.

So this basically gives you the overview.

In summary, what I think is important to understand here

is that the city of Sacramento currently does have

a need for additional high quality industrial inventory,

such as would potentially be delivered by Airport South

and enhancing that industrial inventory for the city

will enhance competitiveness in the market

for the city of Sacramento for GSAC projects

in areas like advanced manufacturing and R&D,

which is of course corresponding with city priorities.

So that is the very brief version of our analysis.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you.

We're gonna do public comment first

and then do it all at the end.

Does that complete the city presentation?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

We will now proceed with public comment and then allow council to further deliberate.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have 30 speakers, so I will call a couple names if you'll line up in the aisle.

Lisa Tremonte, Doyle Radford, Lionel Berrigan, Alan Green, Josh Garcia.

Please proceed.

Hello, I'm Lisa Tremonte.

Good evening, everybody.

I just wanted to say obviously I'm here as one of the members of the NorCal Carpenters Union

asking for you guys to approve this project, but I'm also here as a member of the community.

I grew up in Rio Linda and I even currently now live in Natomas.

So even as a member of the community, I'm asking that you guys approve this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Doyle Radford.

Good evening, Mayor McCarty, respected council.

I'm here tonight to speak in favor of this project.

We were here two weeks ago, so I'll try not to repeat myself.

It was an interesting meeting, right?

The Lorax was here, and I was intrigued by that.

Stayed in character, so I went back and I read the book to try to wrap my brain around it.

It took me longer than it probably should have.

Luckily, there was pictures that kind of helped me along.

But it was about the trees, and if you haven't visited that project, that field is not full of trees.

it's primarily an open field I get it I've heard that it's farmland some of

you up there come from a farm ranching background as my family has very limited

access you can't have a productive agricultural product out there so I mean

that negates that but this is prime for what our folks do right I have the honor

and the privilege to serve roughly 6,000 men and women that build this community

and we've done so for almost 100 years, this is a good project for it, not only for us, for the city.

There's cities in the Oakland, for instance.

It's gone, and it's not coming back.

You have businesses that want to help this community grow,

businesses that want to bring annual property taxes and business taxes to grow the city and be an economic engine.

And so we support that.

this is a good developer that's built with us in the past.

They keep their word.

They build with integrity.

And more importantly, they build with Lyuna men and women.

And we can thank them for that.

And we ask you that you approve this project.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Lionel?

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is Lionel Bergen.

I'm a longtime resident of North Natomas,

Gateway West

that's where that's my community

which is about give or take

about a mile from where this project is

I'm in strong support of this project

because it will bring local construction

jobs to the community

also will give an opportunity

to any apprentices

who are looking for a career in the

construction industry

also projects like this

will strengthen our local economy and ensure

that jobs stay here in our community

thank you for your time

and your consideration.

Thank you.

Alan.

Good to see everyone, Mayor, District Council members.

My name is Alan Green, proud Labor's Local 185 member

with all my fellow members here,

and also a trade instructor

at Northern California Construction Training.

You've heard me brag and cheer

and be the number one cheerleader for that program.

It's been around for 30 years,

making a difference and helping folks

that have been formerly incarcerated

or in rehab, homeless,

helping them get into the construction trade to start their career and, you know, build that wonderful union pension.

Projects like this, I support with open arms because it creates more employment here in our city.

And after that project's built, it's going to create lots of jobs.

So thank you for your time.

I support this project.

Let's make it happen.

Thank you.

Josh Garcia, then Matt Kelly.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and Council Members.

The NorCal Carpenters Union is comprised of tens of thousands of skilled workers, working brothers and sisters, many of who live right here in our state's capital across 11 trades.

In each one of these trades, our military veterans learn to make their mark in building our communities.

Seeing that the NorCal Carpenters Union leads the country and incoming members from helmets to hard hats, we created the Valor Committee,

which mentors and helps lead these veterans in their transition to civilian life

and help them acquire jobs with livable wages in their local areas

where they can once again serve their country and their communities.

My name is Josh Garcia, chairman of the Valor Committee for the NorCal Carpenters Union.

Valor and its veterans are in support of the Airport South Industrial Indexation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt Kelly, then Doug Orr, then Matt Newton Boom.

uh good evening mayor and council members uh my name is matt kelly i'm here with carboners local

46 in sacramento um we represent thousands of workers that live in the general vicinity of this

area and uh we are in overwhelming support of this airport south project for a few reasons

first local hire so you're going to have a because what's been talked about a lot is the carbon

footprint of this project but at least while while it's built you're going to have a small

carbon footprint. It's like the developer said, if this project doesn't get built, one will in the

future. At least this one has things in place where it will be make sure that local hires on the job

reducing that carbon footprint. If it's another contractor doing it, who knows where those workers

might be coming from. Also, the local hire would allow the people that are working on these projects

that have children to be able to make sporting events, dance recitals, parent-teacher conferences,

things like that. And it's just simple. If, you know, the projects in your neighborhood,

you're going to take more pride when building it. Also money that will stay in the community.

If the people who are working on this project are local to the community,

they'll spend that money in the community going out to eat, shopping, things like that.

It also makes it so we all know how expensive the housing market is. Maybe they're going to be able

to own a house in the area.

That even is more tax revenue in the end.

And it makes it so the community benefit of the project

happens at the groundbreaking,

not waiting until it's up and running and operational.

And then there will be local apprenticeship on the job.

Many construction projects will get people off of Craigslist,

point, do this, do that,

and then fire them when the job's all over.

They have no experience and nowhere to go after that.

with this job apprentices will get a chance you know the young emerging workforce will have a

chance to learn a craft that can lead to a fruitful career and with the aging construction workforce

thank you for your comments your time is complete our next speaker is Doug Orr then Matt Newtonboom

good evening mayor and council I'm Doug Orr I'm associate superintendent with Natomas

Unified School District. I'm really happy to come back tonight. Appreciate the opportunity to comment

again. I've had the honor of growing up in North Natomas on Garden Highway and then serving now

for a quarter century in Natomas Unified. I lead facilities and strategic planning as well as

health, which sounds odd to a lot of people, but for this project, it actually came in

a good juxtaposition. So I really want to thank the staff, the council for taking the comments

into consideration.

I really appreciate Mayor McCarty's comments

about what's gonna happen with the vacant parcel

that is not participating.

The school district is very pleased to see

that the buffer next to the school will double.

And then tonight, we learned from the development team,

appreciate very much that they are agreeing

to plant trees along the edge

of our school district boundary,

right at the edge of the property

that's gonna be annexed.

So this is a good example of people listening to the concerns.

There are a thousand students and staff

that attend that school every day.

We do still have concerns about air quality and things,

but I think some of the things that were mentioned tonight

about potentially electric facilities

and things coming to place helps with that.

We would of course like to see a larger buffer,

but we are pleased with the action that was taken

or the proposal.

So on behalf of the Thomas Unified,

I just wanna thank you guys again.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Matt, then Will McKee, then Christian Barrett.

Good evening, Mayor McCarty and council members. My name is Matt Newtonboom. I am the assistant business manager of IVW Local 340.

We're representing 2,500 members across Northern California. And like many of the other construction workers in this room, we support this project.

Jobs. Jobs is the talk of the town. It's the talk of the country.

Every day we're getting more and more media reports about unemployment, college kids that don't have jobs to go to for the first time that anybody can remember.

This project not only is going to create jobs in the construction sector, but it's going to create jobs afterwards, good ones.

To me, this is a no-brainer.

And if we were going to pick a spot that we were going to put a logistics center in our city, why would you not put it adjacent to the airport with interstate access?

So I hope that you all consider this and support this project with us.

Thank you very much for the time.

Thank you.

Will and Christian.

Hi, my name is Will McKee.

I'm with IBW Local 340.

Thank you very much for your time.

I'm an instructor, and so I get to teach students a lot about how to run

electrical work, and facilities like this one are instrumental in teaching

them how to do industrial projects.

This kind of education is so important to have them do hands-on work.

And it provides a lot of that opportunity to make them into that workforce that's going to be able to build this next generation,

especially as we electrify and go into these kind of things.

So strong support.

Thank you very much.

Christian, then Jamie Rogers.

Hello, Council.

My name is Christian Barrett.

I'm with IBW Local 340.

I'm a first-year apprentice, and I'm just starting out in the field.

and I would like to say I think we should support this project as I would like to be able to travel to this project in a short-term manner.

And I live in the city and as someone that's working here and living here,

I would like to be able to have a short travel distance, you know.

I've worked in fields as far as Galt, Slow House, and Woodland, but I would like to work in our city.

So I think this would be a great project for going forward for us.

Thank you.

Jamie the Noah Painter. Good evening council my name is Jamie Rogers and I am

a second year apprentice with IBEW 340. I have a family I have a wife and three

kids and I used to have an entirely different career that in hindsight

fortunately ended because with the opportunities the IBEW and the

apprenticeship program provided I was able to transition into a new career becoming skilled

and trained while working full time and being able to support my family.

Developments like the airport south project help local unions and support the working

men and women in Sacramento like myself.

Thank you.

Noah Painter, then Corinne Garthur.

Good afternoon, Mayor.

Good afternoon.

Wow, it's been a long day.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

Noah Painter on behalf of IPW and NECA Sacramento.

Here in support of the project, you know, I think the overall conversation we've had, you know,

this hearing and the previous hearing is, you know, the City of Sacramento needs to have a conversation about what their economic priorities are.

This project is going to generate hopefully $30 million in sales tax revenue.

I know that there's a long conversation that's going to happen about how we generate more money for affordable housing.

This is how you do it.

If you could do two or three of these, you fix your structural budget deficit.

Ultimately, what we're trying to do here is create innovative projects.

We understand that there are concerns that I think have been adequately addressed by the developer for the community in Westlake and also the environmental concerns.

Ultimately, these are the types of projects we need to adapt and shift to how people are buying goods and being able to grow our economy in this city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Corinne, then John Hershey, then Judith Lamar.

Good evening.

First person talking in opposition.

I'm a resident of Westlake.

I live on Lanfranco Circle.

So if this project moves forward, the vista for my house is going to change from open space and farmland to warehouses as far as the eye can see.

And I would just like to say, make no mistake, it is farmland.

And I know that both city staff and somebody tonight, you know, was diminishing the value of that farmland.

But on parcel five, it has actively been farmed for at least two years.

I can see it from my house.

So I don't know about you, but personally, I would rather have Sacramento continue to be known as the farm to fork capital and not as the warehouse capital of California.

A couple other points I wanted to make in my limited time.

both city staff and the developer have talked about how this project has been years in the making.

I would just like to comment that to me, it's a bad project.

And a lot of us in the local community don't support it and don't want it.

And years of work being done doesn't change that.

Not to mention the fact that the last two meetings are the first time that in all those years

that the council has had the opportunity to review this project, which I think points to the flawed process.

I also just want to point out that comparing Westlake and this project to Northlake and Metro Air Park

is not an apples-to-apples comparison because Northlake was built after Metro Air Park went in,

so people that bought there knew that they were buying their homes next to a warehouse development,

whereas Westlake was built over 20 years ago without any such expectation and in fact many

of us that bought there were under the impression that that was protected land that was not going

to be developed in the future. I also just want to say on the community engagement that a requirement

for the developer meeting with us doesn't equate to them taking our concerns into account so while

I appreciate that concession more needs to be done and also thank you for your comments your

time is complete. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is John Hershey, then Judith Lamar,

then David Ingram. John, Judith, then David. Good evening, council members and mayor. My name is

John Hershey. I'm here on behalf of UA Local 447 Plumbers and Pipe Fitters here in Sacramento.

I just wanted to kind of touch on the fact that, you know, like we have a federal government that's

contriving ways to hurt states like California and by extension Sacramento.

And while the federal government is cutting monies for various projects and programs that would have otherwise sustained these types of career pathways,

private investment in projects like this where there is labor on board with it are really important,

especially for our apprentices that are going to be coming up and building out the next generation of hospitals or other infrastructure for our region.

and so just ask that you support this project and to help keep those classrooms open for our apprentices.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Judith, then David Ingram.

Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I'm Judith Lamar.

I'm here on behalf of Friends of the Swainson's Hawk,

that is on behalf of the species that's most threatened by this development.

And I came back to talk a little bit about the EIR and how it treats habitat mitigation

because this is really a critical point.

I think staff and consultants certainly tried to do their best,

but there's a depth to this Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan

that has been missed in the EIR.

Its core principles and guarantees have been skipped.

And so the EIR fails to mitigate to less than significant.

We've already talked to the council about the fact that the NBHCP agreement

the city promised that they would go to the wildlife agencies before zoning to get the wildlife permit for any land to be added to the Natomas Basin HCP.

That hasn't happened.

It's important because you can't come along and mitigate for all the impacts if you're just going to do it at the building permit stage for a warehouse.

It has to be done on the large scale.

There are significant gaps that can be addressed in the permit process.

The council deserves to have a scientific, biological opinion that the mitigation program that they adopt is going to be adequate to fully mitigate the impacts of this project on their beloved Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

The city put this in play.

The general plan supports the NBHCP.

Now this project promises to diminish and take away from those guarantees.

So I urge you, don't approve the zoning until you have the wildlife permit.

It's important.

Thank you.

Next speaker is David Ingram, Heather Fargo, then Ralph Proper.

Good evening, David Ingram.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I live on Garden Highway.

I've lived there for about 30 years.

I looked through the e-comments this afternoon.

Everyone in favor?

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Everyone opposed?

A multitude of reasons.

Quality of life, traffic, pollution, endangered species, prior environmental agreements that

this city council agreed to.

urban services boundaries, unnecessary development.

There is a lot more to the picture than just the jobs.

And no one denies that Sacramento needs good quality, high-paying jobs.

But when did those only become available when we start paving over farmland, valuable farmland?

When did this happen? I don't get it.

This is like the fourth meeting I've been to in the same context, with the same sides.

I don't understand.

I don't understand why we can't have responsible infill development that provides the same benefit that these folks are fighting for.

Why are we sacrificing valuable agricultural farmland and open space to get jobs when we don't have to do that?

If you drive around some of the underprivileged neighborhoods in Sacramento, where we go and we go clean the creeks, because they're so trashed in these underserved areas, there are boarded up warehouses all over Sacramento.

Was that in the report that we heard about earlier?

Let's get some money coming in from these out-of-state developers to put some money back into the community.

And where's the airport tonight?

Do they want all this development right around them?

I don't think so.

They moved out there for a reason.

The traffic is already horrific.

Who's going to, is there a plan to expand I-5?

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Heather Fargo.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thanks for having two meetings on this gigantic project

that probably should need at least a dozen.

I certainly want to, first of all, my name is Heather Fargo,

former mayor of Sacramento,

mayor when the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan

was approved as a mechanism to balance the development of Natomas

with the need to preserve the open space, farmland, and habitat of the area.

And the city signed a contract, which you're ignoring,

and I think that's unfortunate, if not illegal.

And I'm here on behalf of the Environmental Council of Sacramento

to ask you once again to vote no on this project

or at the very least postpone it until you get your answers in writing.

I heard a lot more questions at the last meeting than I heard answers today.

And of course none of them were in writing

so that you don't get to see the answers nor does the public.

you're going to need to do conditions of approval

which are not yet in writing

some of the neighbors are going to stand up and ask you

and I know that Vice Mayor Talamantes has been involved

in talking with the neighbors about possible mitigation

you really shouldn't be approving this until you see it in writing

until you agree to it, until the public gets to see it in writing

and we agree to it

so we think that your action tonight if you are going to take action is premature

we think you need to wait until you hear

as Jude has said, from the wildlife agencies.

Personally, that little report on warehousing was pretty inadequate to me.

Hopefully some of you could read it and understand it.

But you do have a lot of warehousing already in the city and in the region

that hasn't been taken into account.

I know we don't have a lot of time today and never get time to rebut the other side.

But as David Ingram said, this is not about jobs versus the environment.

We have enough room in this county and in this city to do both.

So please honor your agreement, respect the habitat, and respect the...

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Ralph Proper.

Ralph, then Lynn Lindsey.

Hello, everyone.

Once again, I'm Ralph Proper.

I'm a board member of Breathe Sacramento, as I'm my cap.

I was an air pollution research specialist at the Air Resources Board and led the effort

to identify diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant, which is the number one cause

of cancer from airborne emissions in California.

Diesel exhaust is also a major source of ultrafine particles, which have major impacts on children

that I described last time.

And I recently learned that the Sacramento Metro Air District is planning to monitor for

these tiny particles in our county based upon the increasing evidence of their significant

health impacts, especially on children. The proponents suggest that space between

porcelain and the school, but a national conference that we've put on in Sacramento 10 years ago

shows that we need evergreen trees to capture these particles, especially redwood trees

are especially useful. But of course, these take many years to grow to the effective height.

The EIR calculates a risk of over 9.5 excess cancer risks per million based on the diesel

truck emissions just under the threshold of 10.1 million.

But it assumes no development in parcel 8 closest to the elementary school, which is

not included in this project.

The EIR does mention the possibility that parcel 8 could be developed with airhouses

and over 100 trucks a day, which would make the health risk, of course, far exceed what's

required for mitigation.

But of course the Air District can't ask for mitigation because right now that's not included.

So therefore I suggest that you either exclude partial 8 from the annexation proposal or

call for a subsequent or supplemental EIR that will consider those additional truck

emissions.

That's required by the California Code of Regulations section 15162.

So please protect the health of our neighbors and atonement.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Lynn Lindsay and Edith Thatcher.

Lynn Lindsay.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Lynn Lindsay, 23-year resident of Westlake,

president of the North Natomas Community Coalition.

First, I would like to clarify for the record,

since it was brought up at the last hearing,

The last time the applicant came to NNCC was in 2023 and very conceptual.

Mr. Atvis last attended NNCC June 2025 only as a member, no discussion of Airport South.

I come before you again to express opposition as opposed.

In your resolution for approval, reasons set forth that it is in the best interest of the city to enact 450 acres to construct 6 million square feet of warehouses.

stated in background eight, the annexation will provide greater protection from inappropriate land uses

adjacent to existing land uses that otherwise would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community.

Well, I can't think of anything more inappropriate than a massive warehouse project at the front doors of a community and a school.

Although NNCC opposes the project, we have asked numerous times for the opportunity to collaborate before your final vote

in order to find mitigations that would reduce the most egregious project impacts.

Our December 1st letter submitted conditions for approval, which included, but not limited to,

a setback of 1,000 feet of developer land from sensitive receptors, the neighborhoods, parks, and schools,

zone parcel five for highway commercial, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, retail,

as amenities for the community and as transition buffer to the large industrial warehouse complex.

We also request parcel 8 be pre-zoned as commercial to remove adverse effects that a warehouse complex would bring to Paso Verde School.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Edith Thatcher, then Harriet Steiner, then Karen O'Hare.

Edith Thatcher, Harriet Steiner, Karen O'Hare.

Hi.

I'm Edith Thatcher, and I am also a neighbor of the Airport South Industrial Project.

And as a neighbor, I would like to see this project not happen.

However, also, I recognize that there is an enormous amount of force moving towards it becoming in place.

And as a neighbor, we would like to have some say, additional say, in what happens on that land.

As the project design goes from conceptual, which it is now, to reality, we would like representatives of North Point to hold work meetings with the NNCC to gather community input and to answer questions and to find solutions to mitigate detrimental effects to the residents.

We would like us to have some teeth in this process going forward, which we have not had so far.

The other thing I'd like to bring to your attention was that on November 21st, the SAC Business Journal gave some statistics in an article that is at odds with the information provided from the GSEC.

It's stated, as Sac County officials have said, Metro Air Park has 9 million square feet of built industrial space out of 22 million expected at full build out.

That's 13 million missing.

And I just, I don't have the access to the information that they do.

But I certainly ask you to please keep that in mind as you consider whether or not Airport South is truly needed.

Thank you for your time.

Carrie?

Good evening, Council.

Council, I am a resident of Heritage Park in North Natomas.

I've been before you before.

I still oppose the project, and I would, like others, ask that you deny it

because you can never get open space and farmland back again

once you decide to line our highways with tilt-up buildings and warehouse spaces.

But today I just wanted to talk for a moment about air quality warehouses, buffers, and the like.

I think it's really important to have more than just discussion.

It's really important to have mitigation measures that you have written and have put into the resolutions

that approve the environmental documents

that say exactly what the requirements are

and that those are put into conditions of approval

and that they are firm and they are easy to understand

and that they're enforceable

and that there's an enforceable mechanism

so that if it doesn't really happen that way,

you have the ability to go in and make it happen that way.

And I'm talking about air quality and the buffers

and the size of trees and how long it's gonna take

for trees to grow to a size that actually block the particulates from children and workers and neighbors who are going to be living in that development.

This project is a poster child for why we have SB 415 and AB 98 now, because we have lots of pollution right next to housing and schools.

schools and so I would ask you to exclude parcel eight because we don't know what's going on and

to make the buffers bigger and to actually get everything in writing so that we can read it and

you can read it and you can edit it if you want to before you take any action on this project

if you should be inclined to approve which I hope that you are not. Thank you for your comments. Karen O'Hare.

Following Karen is Pat Ferris, then Sally Calligan.

Good evening. I'm Karen O'Hare, and as a former SACOD land use planner, environmental attorney, and 30-year-plus Natomas resident, I urge you to deny this project.

More information is needed for you to act in the best interest of the city and its residents.

You have heard comments on the negative impacts from this project on air quality, habitat, noise, traffic, and health of our children and neighbors, as well as comments that the project will have positive benefits in job creation for the construction trade.

These are temporary construction jobs and are short-term.

They would also be created if the proposed workshop was located somewhere else in the city

or working on rehabbing the abandoned warehouses that already exist.

You each received my questions on the emergency planning, preparedness, and response activities

that will be required if this project is built.

The city is responsible for emergency response and protection within the city limits.

You need this information so that you can do the best decision for our city and its residents.

I am also deeply disturbed by the developers' dismissive attitude toward any modifications to this project.

At your last meeting, when we were all here, when asked if a bus for a zone could be extended,

the developers' attorneys cavalierly and currently said no.

Not that we can consider it or not that we would be willing to meet with staff or the community.

Simply no.

Like this project approval is a fait to complete.

I hope it is not.

We, your constituents, are counting on you, all of you, to protect us and our city.

I am counting on you as civic leaders to do the best decision for this city and the Natomas community

and deny this project as proposed.

Thank you.

The speaker is Pat Harris.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm Pat Harris, co-founder of Third Act Sacramento,

a 23-year resident of Sacramento.

I'm an avid naturalist, Californian certified naturalist.

I'm also a business owner.

I'm appalled and, frankly, really curious.

My understanding is that the project is sited in a place that is not in compliance with the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan,

the city general plan, the county general plan, certainly not fully within the urban services boundary,

the air quality plan, the metropolitan transportation plan.

Now, there's a lot that I have to learn about land use and about civic government.

I'm 77 years old, and hopefully I have more time to learn about it.

But what I understand is that services boundaries are created after a lot of consideration of multiple needs.

To go against the agreements that have been made with due consideration has to be because of a highly compelling need.

I'm a progressive politically.

I'm fully committed to working class blue collar jobs and there's a dearth of such jobs and careers in this society and this city.

Those jobs need to be in areas that are sited properly, that have a compelling need within the community and that are in compliance with habitat and farm.

Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Sally Calligan and Andy Sawyer.

Sally, then Andy Sawyer, then Oscar Belogger, then Timothy Hughes.

Hi, Sally Calligan from Folsom. Thank you for the jobs that you've taken on.

I'm wondering if council members, Maple and Kaplan, I'm wondering what the process is

for them to be removed.

I understand it has something to do with where they live and I would think that that would

be a pretty pivotal reason for why they should be involved.

So I was wondering if that can be explored in any way.

I'm in support of carpenters having jobs. I agree with what other people have said around

here. We want the jobs to be appropriate. The American River Parkway is known as the

crown jewel of Sacramento. I'm quoting, it's the only wild and scenic river corridor within

urban area in the United States. And as such, it's the nation's largest urban park. This

This past year I've been looking at numerous projects and we have to, I'm not telling you

anything new, but this American River Parkway is a continuum.

It isn't just in Sacramento, it's in Folsom, it continues down, you know, north and south,

but it's also a worldwide habitat.

So I would like us to really consider how important it is.

So Coyote Creek, we're losing 3,000 mature oaks.

We're looking at Rancho Cordova's project

and we're looking at the Levy's project.

So, and that's just in this past year.

I'm sure there are other things

that I'm not even aware of that I've been in,

but I've been involved with these projects

that I've mentioned.

So please think about this,

not just for Sacramento, but worldwide.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Andy Sawyer.

Andy Sawyer, City Council Members, I'm Andy Sawyer speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club

in opposition to this annexation.

Major concern is the effects on habitat for listed species.

The report back you heard today offered nothing to address that issue.

So I won't speak further to it except to emphasize our opposition on those grounds.

We did hear a report back on the 21st century warehouse standards under AB 98 of 2024.

But those standards are extensive, not just buffers.

They deal with insulation, they deal with lighting, they deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

It wasn't clear in the short amount of the presentation how much compliance with those

standards was being required or explained away by saying it will probably be applied

by other factors.

Given the severe air pollution consequences of a warehouse project of this size, you should

be doing every mitigation measure possible to reduce those impacts and specifically require

full compliance as a condition of the approval, not just assume that it will occur as a result

of other applicable standards.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Oscar.

Calling Oscar is Timothy Hughes, then Terry Burns.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers.

Thank you so much for your attentiveness and endurance.

So we've been hearing a lot about whether this project is needed or not, and I've heard

conflicting information on both sides.

I went on Buzz Oates' website today for Metro Airpark, and according to that, as of this

afternoon there's over half a million square feet of warehouse space, quote, available

for occupancy. There's over 2.5 million square feet, 2.5 million, quote, coming soon, close

The information seems to be that there's plenty of additional room on the site for additional

warehouse space beyond what this, beyond what's indicated is already planned.

The construction trade jobs that ASI would bring and the opportunities for workforce

development will occur wherever needed warehouses are built. It doesn't have to be on the ASI

site. You can always approve this project when, as, and if it's actually needed. Until

you have that information, I suggest you not take action on it now. Thank you.

Timothy Hughes.

I have five more speakers.

Timothy, then Terry Burns.

Good evening, Mayor McCarthy.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Timothy Hughes, and I stand at the podium today with an interesting background

of having spent four years in China, working in the sustainable freight and sustainable

energy sectors.

And so I speak, read, and write high-level Chinese.

For the past number of years, I have been providing intelligence to California state agencies and state principals on developments in the zero emission freight sector.

And so I've worked with our California State Transportation Agency, our CEC, our SACOG, our SACHMD, and most recently, Mayor Pro Tem, Eric Gara's office,

on how to actually bring some of these innovative and very advanced sustainable freight and sustainable energy technologies here to the Sacramento region.

And so you should have in front of you a diagram and photos of a couple trucks, and these are known as battery swappable trucks.

And so last year, just for an understanding, China deployed 100, or this year, China has deployed so far 120,000 heavy-duty zero-emission trucks,

over one-third of which were battery swappable.

That is in comparison to out of the 240 trucks, zero-emission heavy-duty trucks we've deployed in the U.S. so far this year,

none of which uses technology.

And so this technology actually really emerged battery swapping,

came out of response to address local air pollutants.

And China has significantly reduced these

in the past number of years.

And so the reason I stand here before you today

is I have been working and leading what has now become known

as the California Battery Swap Truck Pilot.

And we are looking for a home.

And this may or may not be a potential opportunity

for us to be here.

I've been in touch, as I said, with multiple state agencies

on how to actually make this a reality here.

And so this may be an opportunity for us

to bring this advanced technology here

that can help subsequently to reduce air pollution

throughout our state.

So thank you so much.

And if you have any more questions,

please reach out to me.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Terry Burns, then Melissa Braum,

then Tim Mathalda.

Thank you for your time on this.

I'm Terry Burns.

former member of the Nizama School Board.

And I've mentioned before that when we cited the Paso Verde School,

it was intended that the campus utilize the adjoining open space

to educate our students about science and the value of maintaining natural habitat.

Last Saturday morning, I had the pleasure of joining a bird-washing walk

through parcels five and eight.

We saw lots of animals.

It reminded me of the importance of teaching our students about the value of habitat, about the value of respecting animals and nature.

They're going to be our future council members and community leaders.

This is our chance to educate them about it while it still exists.

I encourage you to do what you can to maintain the open space in Natomas.

I will associate myself with the remarks of those who spoke before about any mitigation matters, that you get them in writing and that there be enforceable provisions as part of that.

It's just way too easy to let that all go by the way as time passes.

Thank you for your attention.

Melissa?

I have three more speakers.

Melissa Bromham, Tim Mathalda, and then James Thurwachter.

Hello again. I'm here on behalf of the Cuyoca and Scalora families. We're the owners of

Parcel 8 since 1960. It was farmed for over 50 years and then came homes to our east and

a school to our south. We are the non-participating property owners of the North Point Development

plan which means that our parcel is not a committed participant in the North Point development

project nor do we have any development plan before you at this time. However, do not forget

that the environmental evaluation and recommended mitigation for the potential future North

Point development includes calculations that attribute maximum amounts of traffic and pollution

to our property yet we do not have any planned development for parcel eight. As for the habitat

concerns our property is already covered by the Natomas HCP which the opponents of the

annexation chose to ignore when arguing against any development plan in annexation. As for

the suggested traffic and pollution problems, again, we don't have any development plans

before you. We have not proposed any roadways or anything that creates or emits pollution

on or from our property towards the Westlake or school properties. It cannot be overstated

that without any plans to develop parcel 8 at this time to attach any conditions to bring

parcel 8 into the city is premature. How can you condition a property with restrictions

when you don't have any facts before you to show what the property development will consist

of? We should wait to place conditions on parcel 8 until a development plan is actually

presented because there's no project currently before us. Any mandates created now are premature

and it might be irrelevant to the land's future use. By prematurely conditionalizing our property,

you would prevent us from being able to exercise our development rights that you afford to

other property owners. So please allow the annexation and the uses and conditions to

be applied through the appropriate agency at the appropriate time, but not at this point.

Thank you very much.

Kim Matalka.

Following Tim is James Thurwachter.

Hello everyone.

I was here last time.

I'm a resident of the Westlake community.

My name is Tim Metalka.

And last time I got a chance to listen to the developers speak, to the city speak.

and at that time I was very much against the project after hearing what they had to say

and since then I've kind of put it on myself to try and understand as much as I can

about the kinds of things that are involved with a project like this and I got to say

you guys aren't doing this right I mean if you were following best practices for city planning

and zoning. You would have transitional zones in between a residential, a school zone, and then

something like a light industrial zone. You wouldn't just put them adjacent to each other. I know that

the developers have put some lipstick on the pig there, but it's not really following

best practices. What it really is doing is trying to find, get as close to what the legal limit

is requiring. So 300 feet, yeah, you might be within the legal limits, but you're not

looking at the 500 to 1,000 feet that would be actually of actual transitional zoning.

The Westlake Master Community proposed having commercial zoning in between. That would actually

follow best practices because in that case then you would have maybe maybe a

thousand feet of transitional zoning in between that project and the developers

at a site and at that point you start considering mitigation on top of it

right the setbacks the walls the the tree lines that's that's where the

concessions start thank you for your comments your time is complete and

And James will be our final speaker on this item.

Mayor McCarty and esteemed council,

thank you very much for the ongoing dialogue on this very critical project.

My name is James Thorewactor.

I'm with the California State Council of Laborers.

And I represent in my capacity about 80,000 men and women

who build and maintain our state's critical infrastructure.

And I'm also a proud member of Laborers Local 185.

I'll keep my comments pretty brief.

I did submit a written comment that was pretty thorough today.

But I just want to stress something that I think is reflective of many of the comments that were made this evening.

And that is that our members aren't, and the members of the other crafts in the room as well, our members aren't just construction workers, right?

We are community members.

We are your neighbors.

Our kids go to the same schools as the other folks in here.

We shop at the same places.

We dine at the same restaurants.

We are invested in this community.

So do we want these jobs?

Absolutely, we do.

But these are not short-term gains.

These are long-term investments into the infrastructure, into the city, and into our families and future.

So I respectfully ask that you support this project, and we look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Mayor, I have no more speakers on this item, so I will close the public comment period.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the participation.

We appreciate it.

Some new perspectives added, some new issues.

I know Council Member Dickinson had some questions.

I just want to start off with the issues that you presented first

because those are the questions that I put before you today.

So can you go back to the map that you had up there?

Can I see it here?

Yeah.

Okay.

So before we focus on the actual buildings,

just to clarify,

from the city buffer and the city vacant land,

it's equivalent of about 250 feet, right?

So there's the buffer that the applicant is putting in

and there's the existing city stretch, correct?

The city stretch is 200 feet

and then the applicant is adding a 125 foot setback.

So 325 feet from the residential area

to the nearest building.

Yeah, so 325.

And then I know this doesn't satisfy everybody,

but if you look as far as some of the concerns

as far as individuals not wanting to have to live next to a warehouse where there's logistics

and e-commerce all hours of the day which is why I heard hours and hours among testimony

in my prior job in the legislature about this. You know if individuals are living in a residential

area in Land Park, Town Park, wherever, Pocket, Natomas next to an office, a medical, a dental

supply different type of issues than we're hearing about here with this massive industrial efforts with the warehouse facilities.

So if we had the warehouse, where the warehouse would start if we included the suggestion you have here,

what's the distance between those buildings and the homes? Isn't it roughly about a thousand feet?

Are you referring to parcels 5A and B? Those are the larger ones?

that would larger ones yeah uh you're looking at i believe i measured it at a thousand and 44 feet

something like that so i just think that's an important perspective i know it's not what people

are asking but somebody heard said earlier that maybe a thousand feet which should be a minimum

between logistics operation or residential dwelling units and that's what de facto would be

if there was a motion, which we don't have here tonight just yet,

and you incorporated what you're outlining right here.

So just, you know, I think we should hold that for a second.

And then the other question I just wanted to focus on

is you have the circle of those three parcels,

and we don't have the parcel just to the north.

So I guess it's the northeast corner of the whole lot.

So what's going on there?

Yeah, the thought process there was that northeast building abuts an existing light industrial storage facility.

There's no residences directly east of it.

And so in order to eliminate the large logistics near residences,

we believe that those three parcels would be the most appropriate place to do that.

Gotcha.

But is that such a parcel based upon its potential footprint that it wouldn't likely be that type of use anyway?

Because it's clearly much smaller than the rest of the big buildings throughout the map.

Right.

In terms of a very large logistics facility with lots of heavy trucking activity compared to those parcels one and two and three and four,

you wouldn't be looking at the same kind of users at all.

Okay.

And then, you know, we heard from the individual who represents the family or is the family for the parcel that's not in question here.

What's that parcel?

Parcel 8?

Parcel 8, correct.

Parcel 8.

So you're proposing, or we are proposing to increase the buffer there, which would be the buffer from the residences and as well as the school, which were from the school individual, to how many feet?

Is that again?

So that would be a 250-foot ag open space buffer in addition to the city-owned buffer.

or so if you're looking at the total from a residence

all the way across the buffer, 450 feet.

450, and we're not proposing at this time

to have the use type basically restrictions

in that lot as well,

because there's not a project here today, is that why?

Correct, yeah.

The rest of the lot would be receiving pre-zoning

for light industrial.

but as there's no development application at the time,

there would be a separate process to determine what goes there.

But if there was, we conceivably could come back

and have the same type of conversation we're having right here.

Absolutely.

And why is it that you included the additional buffer

to the land that doesn't have an application before us today?

I don't see it.

I don't have an objection to that,

but just curious, how does that come in to the conversation today?

The thought process was just to further screen

from the school as well as the residences.

And by doubling that,

we can stick with our available tools of pre-zoning

and still make that accommodation.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

That's all my questions for now,

but I'll come back a bit later.

Thank you.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

I just had a few questions I wanted to follow up on.

The last time we met,

I asked whether this had been considered or incorporated

in the update of the blueprint.

I don't know.

I was out of the room for a moment when you started,

and I don't know if you addressed that or not,

but did you check that?

I'm sorry.

Could you repeat the question?

Sure.

The SACOG blueprint has just been updated.

And the question I had was whether or not this location was addressed or included in that update of the blueprint.

Hi, I'm Cheryl Hodge, Principal Planner with the Community Development Department.

SACOG was very much aware of this project, but because it was in the planning process, it was not included in the blueprint.

So it would be in the next cycle if this project were to be approved.

Okay, so they didn't choose to include it

despite being aware of it.

Right, they don't, yeah.

Okay.

I also was curious, and I didn't have a chance

to look at this personally, I asked questions

about what the traffic analysis showed on,

particularly on I-5 as a result of this project.

was there a significant impact on traffic with respect to I-5 or anywhere

else as a result of this project in terms of what the EIR analyzed?

So we received word from our Public Works Department that while the project does

contribute to traffic, the applicant is required to improve both freeway

facilities and local roadways per the development agreement and the conditions

of approval to account for any increased capacity requirements.

So local roads, I understand.

And what was the first part of that?

That the project generally contributes to traffic.

Yes.

Yes.

And then, oh, I'm sorry.

And then the improvements include local roads and?

Freeway facilities and local roadways.

So it contemplates improvements to I-5?

The interchange, yes.

Cheryl, any elaboration you can give us?

Sure.

The project contemplates and is conditioned to provide improvements to the Metro Air Park interchange

and also Bayou Way is going to be improved in the future as well.

Oh, okay.

So there's no proposed requirement to actually improve I-5 itself?

There's not that I'm aware of.

Just the interchange.

It was basically shown that the interchange currently is not built to its ultimate width

and that this project would be participating and seeing that completed in the future.

Okay.

So did the traffic analysis show that congestion was not increased to the level of significance?

It was an increase to a level that would trigger any additional

improvements on Interstate 5.

Okay.

And then there is requirements to implement VMT reductions as well.

Right.

Right.

Okay.

On the AB 98 compliance issue, you mentioned a few things in particular

that by your judgment would comport with AB 98

and you said at the tail end if I caught this correctly,

there are other things undoubtedly

that would come up over time that would require compliance.

I'm paraphrasing what you said

but I think I got the gist of that right.

Did you have some specific things in mind

and did they include the entirety

of what you believe would be required under AB 98?

So looking specifically at electrification requirements, at this stage of the development,

the project isn't at the level of detail to discern those kind of things.

They would be required to get building permits and go through a design review process,

at which point that information would be more available.

Is one of the proposed conditions on the project to comply with AB 98?

Not directly, no.

So only in specific elements that also fall under AB 98 coincidentally is that is that the case?

Yes, and

would there be

anything that would prevent

maybe this is a question for you prevent a condition that would require with

compliance with AB 90 since its effective date as a as January 1st, I believe

Would prevent compliance with AB 98? No, you could add that as a condition

Okay.

Okay.

I have a question on absorption.

Thank you for the work you gave us.

Of course.

And we could have quite a discussion about this, but what caught my eye was the bullet

that Metro Airpark is almost 80 percent built out.

We obviously heard some contrary testimony to that point,

but visually, the eyes when you go out there

don't tell you that it's 80% built out.

Now, I recognize there's a dedicated area of Metro Air Park,

but can you tell me what the basis was for the conclusion

that 80% of Metro Air Park is built out?

Correct. Let me get you the numbers.

This was based on analysis that Collier's research produced.

which is essentially based on what you would call the core area of Metro

Air Park that is industrial in nature, right?

There are other parts of Metro Air Park.

That would be hotel, freeway, retail, et cetera.

We're looking at about 10 million square feet that has been constructed to

date.

There's about a million square feet that's currently under construction,

which is a Costco distribution center that constitutes about 78% of the

entire RBA that has been approved for Metro Air Park, the core.

It does exclude two properties or properties that are owned by Schnitzer Properties and the existing North Point Holdings there.

But this would be what you would call the core Metro Park district.

And I also want to just emphasize that that also constitutes the vast majority of the large parcels available there.

So the competition, if you will, from Metro Park will be very diminished by the time this project would kick off,

especially when you consider the vacancy rate that I also cited for 500,000 square foot plus buildings in the overall regional market.

Although if demand was such, Metro Air Park could have land that's vacant rezoned.

I mean, if you look, possibly, I mean, you would have to go and ask Sacramento County about that.

But if you also look at the original...

I used to be able to answer that, but I can't anymore.

The original plan for Metro Air Park was obviously a build out on the order of decades,

and we've seen it go to almost 80% now in less than a decade, right?

Which I think shows a little bit about the demand and the market for this kind of product.

Yeah, thank you.

You heard reference to the Business Journal article that said $9 million,

which is pretty close to yours, $9 million built and $13 million out of $22 million.

and I don't know if you happen to see that article,

but would you have a comment on that characterization?

Well, I think that may include some of those things

that I've previously mentioned excluded, right?

So there's a 7 million square foot delta there,

but that includes a couple of other uses

that are out there, including hotels and retail,

which is not currently really built out at all.

All space?

Yes.

Yeah, okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, back to you all.

We heard a number of speakers address the question

of conditions and enforceability.

And I'd be interested in your comment.

There's a mitigation monitoring and reporting program

that's attached to this.

That requires a number of, a host of mitigation measures

addressing VMT, addressing air quality,

a range of issues, biological resources. I'm assuming that those mitigation measures required

under the mitigation monitoring and reporting program are both incorporated, if not specifically,

but at least by incorporated in the conditions of the project and are enforceable by the city.

Is my understanding in that regard correct?

You are absolutely correct.

Our staff, we have environmental services section, monitors and tracks all of those mitigations in the MMRP.

So when a project does come forward and is advancing into the various phases,

you can't even get a building permit, grading permit or anything until it's verified that those requirements have been met.

So we actually track every single mitigation measure, document it, and ensure that they're complied with.

And is there, does the city conduct some sort of periodic review of compliance with conditions by major projects?

Just as a matter of course or as?

I don't think that's come up actually as an issue that I'm aware of.

I've been with the city now a little over eight years, and my background's environmental.

I was directly involved with tracking the mitigation measures for North Lake, the Greenbrier project.

That's why I know we're very good about, you know, and it's tough on the developers

because they can't pull a permit or do anything until we're checking and making sure and requesting verification.

So I just haven't known it to come up as an issue because if anything is stalled, you don't get a permit.

that can't move forward.

Well, I've known in my experience to be an issue

that can come up over time,

whether conditions continue to be complied with or not.

That's why I was just wondering if the city had any.

I think we're just really good.

Sort of routine.

That may be the case.

I wanted to drill down on one particular aspect

of the mitigation requirements.

and the MMRP goes into 100% electrical

and concludes not feasible,

or actually was looking at it as an alternative, I think,

and said not feasible, basically.

Didn't do much more analysis,

or any more analysis of that,

but looked at a 20% requirement,

and then included some specific items.

I'm not looking at the moment,

but things like electric forklifts

and other sorts of elements.

And I'm curious the extent to which those kinds of elements

would be required as opposed to voluntary,

if required at all under the mitigation, under the MMRP.

Can you comment on that?

To my understanding, in terms of electric forklifts,

there are Cal Green standards

and standards enforced by Title 24

of the State of California

that the applicant would be in compliance with.

So it would really be a function

of whatever the state standards or requirements are?

Is that right?

To my knowledge.

Okay, okay.

Thanks, Mayor.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Council Member Guerra.

Thank you, Mayor.

Actually, let me continue on that

because as I understood it here

on the air mitigation impacts,

It would require all tenants to have electric forklifts.

And that's in looking here at,

where we go here?

We're at page 410 of the EIR.

It seems to me that, and then as well as requirements

of heavy duty vehicle fleet build out infrastructure as well.

But particularly Section 3, I wanted to ask about the forklift requirement.

Because that's one of the vehicles that are used almost all day.

Right.

I suspect that's part of the reduction plan as part of their air quality plan for the overall project.

And that would be required if included in that and a mitigation measure or condition of approval.

So, yes.

That's the condition.

Okay.

And then I also see here in the MMRP related to parcel eight in the school, and to paraphrase it here, if parcel eight is developed as a distribution center,

then a health risk assessment shall be conducted for cancer risk associated with the diesel truck particulate matter.

And that would be enforceable then by the local air district as well.

Am I understanding that right?

That's correct.

So regardless of zoning it today, when that occurs, you would still require a health risk assessment for anything that's proposed at that time.

And the Air District would still have to review and analyze that and respond to that.

Yes.

Okay.

And then, so when it comes to, let me go back to AB 98 again, because this was, I think, the state in its infinite wisdom basically said that in AB 98, how do we coexist?

How do we look at cities and counties that are growing at the same time addressing the health impacts?

The applicant isn't required to follow AB 98.

But as I understand how the parcels break out, how much in compliance would they be to all those standards?

Can you maybe discuss how far they're moving in that approach and the steps taken that would require?

Some of this is required in the EIR as part of the mitigation efforts that are almost verbatim from AB-98.

Right, I'll speak mostly to the setback and buffer requirements of AB98.

So as mentioned previously, those parcels 5D, 5E, and 5F would be prohibited from a warehouse distribution center.

They would no longer be allowed to host a logistics facility.

So AB98 wouldn't apply there, but even still, AB98 requires a 300-foot setback for buildings that are less than 250 square feet, which those ones are that are within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor.

Those buildings are at a minimum,

the loading bays are at a minimum 325 feet

from any sensitive receptor.

So that exceeds what would be required of AB98

with the 300 feet.

AB98 also requires a 50-foot landscaping buffer

for any of those buildings that are within 900 feet

of a sensitive receptor.

And so the buffer that's provided by the applicant

currently exists, or excuse me, the setback is 125 feet,

which more than doubles the 50-foot requirement.

Now, those two larger buildings, would they, one of the requirements are,

is EV-ready parking facilities, is that also within part of the mitigation?

So those ones are more than 900 feet from a sensitive receptor.

In any case, AB98 wouldn't apply.

Even if they were

even if they were

if they waited until next year.

Right. They would still be EV ready.

Okay. And then

parcel eight

because they

unless they miraculously have an application

in the next month

that parcel will be subject

to AB 98.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Good. Those are all the questions

for right now. Okay. Thank you.

Council Member Talamante.

Thank you, Mayor.

Let's see.

So we have 193 comments for today's e-comments on the city website

and obviously the testimony from today and two weeks ago

and then the Planning Commission and then the LAFCO Commission hearing.

and you know this this project has gotten a lot of attention from Sacramentans not just from

Natomas but from other areas you know we had people from the pocket emailing us ESAC emailing

us saying hey we're Sacramento and we care about this project and here are my two cents whether

they support it or oppose it and I have known about this project since 2022 when I was a chief

staff and I've been following it for quite some time and it wasn't until a

few months ago that I learned that my colleague who currently represents

district 1 had to recuse herself because she lives in the neighboring

jurisdiction that I stepped in to hear from residents and to hold a community

meeting because my colleague is conflicted out and you know in I guess

my personal reflection, I wish I could have stepped in sooner.

Because now, like, from summertime when we had that first Westlake Community Association meeting

where I was listening to residents to today, I just feel like time has gone by so fast.

And I've been on a search to get answers for the community, to, you know,

work with the applicant and the project developers to also find those answers

and move this conversation along

as someone that represents Natomas,

someone that sees my labor brothers and sisters

at Target or at the grocery store

or at Cordy Brothers the day before Thanksgiving, Karen.

And this project, I mean,

it has a lot of support and opposition.

And I feel, I've thought about this

for quite some time throughout Thanksgiving break.

It's all I thought about, to be honest, because it's such a huge project.

And I understand the demand for warehouses, and it is next to the airport, and it is between two freeways.

At the same time, I did ask city staff, you know, last week for the analysis, the economic analysis of the demand or the need for warehouses.

And I, and respectfully, you know, Greater Sacramento Economic Council provided us with the data.

but they support the project.

And so for me, it kind of felt wrong.