All right, I'd like to call this meeting in order at 2 03 p.m.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Councilmember Plucky Bomb is expected momentarily.

Councilmember Maple.

Mayor Potem Gera is expected momentarily.

Councilmember Jennings.

Councilmember Vang.

Mayor McCarty's expected momentarily.

And Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Here.

Thank you.

You have a quorum.

All right.

Um, acknowledgement.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nissanam people, Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Valley and Plains Mewak, Pat Women to Peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgment and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous People's History, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Salute, pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, invisible liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

And city attorney, is there a closed session report out?

You're on.

In closed session regarding public employee discipline dismissal release, the city council voted to terminate the employment of the interim director of the Office of Public Safety and Accountability.

Effective immediately.

Thank you so much.

All right, and now we will have special presentations.

The by Councilmember Jennings' 50th anniversary of Green Haven Soccer.

Vice Mayor, we're gonna move that to 5 p.m.

this evening.

Oh, for request of the council member.

Got it.

Okay.

I do not see any soccer players in the crowd, so that makes sense.

All right.

So uh consent calendar.

Do we have members that would like to speak on any items?

Councilmember Maple.

Um comment on item four, please.

Okay.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Yes, comment on item four.

And 13.

Okay.

Seeing no other member signed up to speak.

We will start with Councilmember Maple on item four.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I just want to say that you know, I'm very excited about this the Calvip grant.

This is something that um we're glad to see it's uh about over five million dollars coming into the city, um going towards violence prevention programs.

We know that's really necessary.

Um and I I'm really glad that myself, Councilmember Jennings, Councilmember Vang worked with uh the police department and other stakeholders on helping to develop this uh idea and move it along, and really excited that that's uh where we landed.

I do want to say just a note on this that um as also as a part of those meetings that we held, one of the things that came out of them is that we really think that there needs to be a comprehensive violence prevention strategy as a city.

Um we do obviously have the Office of Violence Prevention that does a lot of really great work.

We have a lot of organizations that are doing that work every day on the ground.

Um, but I do think you know that it's it's time for us to also have a more comprehensive discussion.

So I just want to say that on this item and hope that we can agendize something in the future around that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kaplan on item four.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Maple, I will absolutely agree.

I've brought up before, I think even to break it down where I think we need a comprehensive youth violence prevention report.

If you look at what Baltimore did in their programming and saw the big change, I think, and that's something I've talked with about uh with OVP and had in my round tables of meeting with individuals talking about youth violence prevention.

I think having something tangible written down, I would be incredibly supportive of.

And on this this CalVIP item, not right now, uh Chief, but you know, I'm really interested because this kind of changes the process and does referrals through school districts.

Um school districts are a little hazy on how that will work.

So I would love to hear always the devil's in the details on the implementation.

And I think school districts need a little bit more guidance.

What exactly does this mean since this is an added extra um step that they need to take that I'm not sure they understand they actually need to take it.

So while these uh implementing CalVIP is good, I don't see success right now because there's a gap between how do school districts let the CBOs know and how does that work because right now it's directly it's a different process.

So I think we need to maybe take our time on on what is that look like and and uh city manager maybe meeting with the superintendents or their their security um student safety team might might be in order uh before this this fully gets implemented because I wouldn't I don't want I don't want to see gaps uh in the implementation uh for this and as of course I will always continue uh in this when we talk about youth violence Notomas Unified still wants a uh school resource officer and I think this is incredibly uh timing uh as we've seen a spike in youth violence occur in our city that uh we see how we can implement things um because we really do need to address uh youth violence that appears to be on the rise in the number of guns in youth hands uh under 24 uh how do we address that so I am I am very supportive of this I will uh move consent and hope that we can get a report back whether from you uh madam city manager or our uh chief on how the implementation is with schools and I also want to echo uh councilmember Kaplan's comments just on the SRO for Natumis Unified especially with these dollars working directly with each other to make sure we have better outcomes for our kids um over the weekend I did have a 16 year old um young person that passed away in my district um and I always think well what are we doing and what can we do better um because at the rate that we're going it's just extremely unacceptable and we have to work together to help our community so I'm happy to second it um and appreciate the direction from my council colleagues and then item number 13 Councilmember Kaplan.

Thank you vice mayor just I really want to appreciate staff and everything that they're doing as this is uh implement implementation as part of uh the river arc and getting more capacity and one of the things I just want to clearly say that I had asked staff and gotten um clarification on because when we talk about water um and increasing our capacity some look at it oh that means uh there's more capacity for growth outside the city I just want to make sure it's stated on the record that the county is not participating in this is only the city and it's not for purposes for any other development uh that is outside the city boundaries but really just helping manage water flood control um but I just wanted to state that for the record good okay all right thank you and are there sorry is there a public comment on I have no speakers on the consent calendar.

Okay all right thank you so all in favor please say aye.

Aye no's abstentions two abstentions or two absent yeah two absence Gara and McCarty are absent.

Okay sounds good all right so we will move along to public hearings and we have item number 16 2025 urban management plan update.

Do I need to open the public hearing okay I like to open the public hearing welcome okay okay.

Well, good afternoon uh madam vice Mayor and members of city council uh my name is Brett Ewart with your department of Utilities uh water supply supervising engineer, and today we'll be conducting oh what I would say is a somewhat regular hearing.

We do this every five years uh it's procedural.

We are going to be considering our urban water management plan and then our water shortage contingency plan.

We last updated this in 2020, and this council heard it in 2021, June, right around this about five years ago.

So high level, just for the audience and for city council, you know, what is an urban water management plan?

It really is, it's one of our long-range water supply planning documents, probably the most public facing.

It's really, while we may slice and dice all the water information and projections on demand and water supply into all sorts of categories, in its essence, we are simply comparing what is our water supply portfolio versus what are the demands for water over a significant period of time.

We're looking to 2050 in this particular one.

You will identify, I mean, we do get into the granularity identifying some of the water supply practices.

You know, where is water predominantly used in the city, for what purposes, but in essence, it is to the state and to our to our you know entities of our public to ensure that we can say we have an adequate supply of water for our drinking water resources.

Into some of the details, it is also where publicly we will identify our water efficiency practices.

We will report specifically in this document.

Five years ago, we hit an important milestone, which is what we called 20 by 2020, where we needed to show that we had met a 20% reduction by 2020, and we hit that with flying, you know, with sailing through it.

And you'll see that we've continued that practice through this presentation.

Um it is required to be updated every five years by the water code.

It also requires this public hearing and adoption by city council before we can deliver it to DWR for their consideration.

It is a key component, a foundational document of our water supply assessments, and is mated very tightly with our general plan.

So developments of any material size here in the city will be required to prepare a water supply assessment.

That water supply assessment relies upon this urban water management plan before you can move forward.

So important document.

If we look back to 2020, I would offer to this to this council not many changes in the statute, frankly, none at all.

Minor tweaks in the guidance.

The team that helped us put it together actually worked with the state of California to develop the guidebook on how to prepare and submit these urban water management plans.

We, you know, there are details within here.

Um I mentioned our water supply demand and uh demand and supply.

We include a water shortage contingency plan that also needs to be updated.

Uh, it needs to be aligned with the groundwater sustainability plans and Sigma, which it is, and again, we provide updates on our water conservation targets.

Just some high-level takeaways for this council and for the public.

Um we are seeing a minor increase in our water supply portfolio.

This rests on agreements that the city entered into in the 1950s.

It's a slight ramp up of our portfolio, which is good news.

We continue to be below our targets and meeting the state's not only past water efficiency targets but its current ones as well.

Right now we're about 29% below our 2020 targets.

So the community continues to respond to calls for water efficiency and wise practices.

We are well positioned within our water supply portfolio, our water rights, to meet all the demands identified within our general plan through 2050.

So that's another good takeaway.

I will acknowledge though, and the nuances within this plan, is that we recognize openly, you know, climate pressure on water supplies throughout the state of California.

Absolutely.

Um I'll discuss it near the end a little bit, some of the things we're thinking about as we adapt to climate change, warming temperatures, and impacts on our on our snow reservoir.

Um I thought this whole presentation could probably just look at this, you know, particular illustration.

So you see on the bottom, it's unitless, frankly, on the vertical axis.

You've got two different couple different things going on here.

You've got your rainfall over a significant period of time back to the early 1900s, identifying some of the significant droughts, the pandemic, economic downturn.

You see for a significant period, the vast period of time for the city of Sacramento, the rise in the demand for water was roughly paired with the rising population.

Not a surprise.

Though I will say, you know, in the early 2000s, right, we things have changed progressively since 2000.

We've been increasing our water meters, right?

That is, you know, universally deployed throughout the city.

Public awareness has risen, some of the statutes have been passed looking at water conservation.

So you see in around say 2008, really sort of a divergence of the demand for water that coincided with the economic downturn in those periods of years.

You know, you see a mild increase.

This would be the green line.

Of course, population stabilizing a bit in 2009 and then starting to rise again.

Then we hit the 2014-2015 drought period.

But ever since then, you have seen the public continue to hold on its water efficiency practices, and that's where you see that disconnect.

So the community has responded to that call to be careful with our supplies.

The other item that council we asked consider today is the adoption of our water shortage contingency plan, also required by statute.

Um that is something the state of California insists upon.

This plan is aligned with the requirements of the state.

City Council has actually enacted this water shortage plan a couple of times in our prior droughts.

Examples.

The previous couple of droughts, City Council has enacted a stage two water shortage plan.

That would be increased patrols, the aforementioned increase in public information.

We might also, we would find folks for water misuse.

When you get out to say, you know, the stage five, stage sticks, that's that's where something dramatic probably occurred.

You know, an earthquake, for instance, may have demolished a water treatment plan, and you'd be looking at health and safety water.

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

Overall, I would say this water shortage contingency plan is really just an extension of the past.

Our past one was also aligned with the state requirements, this one is as well.

Public outreach is a key component of this urban water management plan.

As I mentioned, this is one of our most public-facing documents.

This just gives you a sense of the requirements that the state laid out for us.

We followed that.

What you don't see on here is some of our outreach within the waterform community.

This council may recall.

Uh we passed, we adopted the water forum agreement, as did all of the other agencies and stakeholders of the water forum.

One of the areas of interest in the water forum and the stakeholders was an earlier look at this document, more time to think about it, consider it, evaluate the contents.

So we provided a 30-day draft to the entire Water Forum membership for their consideration.

At this point, though, we've received no no comments at present.

So moving forward, um, this is really about our last slide before we move to the public to the hearing.

Um, I can look with a degree of uh confidence, all I like, at a broad water portfolio from a water rights perspective.

We have entitlements on the Sacramento River, we have entitlements on the American River, we have groundwater resources, but we can't make it rain.

We can't make it snow.

And so your staff continues to lean into evaluations and considerations moving forward.

Um I've mentioned the water efficiency measures.

Those are tightening over time.

That will take continued outreach and effort, rebate programs, engagement with our community to meet those targets.

Um we the jury is out, I would say, and you may have recalled this from the water forum discussion on whether it will be wetter or drier in the future.

This plan looks out to 2050, but we have climate models looking out to the end of the century.

The one area they agree on, though, is that our snowpack is in peril.

That is our largest reservoir in this region.

By mid-century, probably a 60% decline in snowpack water equivalent.

By the end of the century, perhaps 70%.

One of my colleagues, and this gets to this point of groundwater banking.

One of my colleagues likes to say if you can't store it white, you need to store it wet and underground to that point.

So we look to diversifying our resources and the timing of how we operate our system to maximize the banking and storage of groundwater for those days ahead when surface water is scarce.

You've heard about the River Ark project as well, as well as our own water plus project.

Those both of those projects not only enhance the supply and the infrastructure deliverable water, but they also consider how you're treating water with rising temperatures, treating water only gets harder, right?

So we're looking at more advanced techniques to treat our water supply.

All of those would be embedded within the Water Plus and the River Arc project, as well as a more focus, a greater focus on the Sacramento River as opposed to the American.

We know the American River and Folsom is a pretty small reservoir for a pretty large drainage system.

So it's flashy.

The other term we've often used amongst my colleagues is weather whiplash.

You've got flood and then you've got drought.

And so that is the nature of the American River.

So both River Arc and the Water Plus program renew our focus on the Sacramento River.

We are thinking about our just our role in the region.

The one thing that water does is it transects every boundary we have, whether it's groundwater, whether it's a surface water or a reservoir, Sacramento River or the American River, right?

It moves past our boundaries.

So partnerships are vital.

We have partnerships with our local water agencies.

We also do that through some of our groundwater sustainability agencies, the regional water authority.

We see benefits of that continuing moving forward.

That last bullet point, again, this council had heard about our water forum agreement previously.

I mean, that's something we're leaning into.

That's something in implied within all of this.

Greater resiliency with a focus on harmony with our river.

So this would be my last real slide.

The recommendation from staff is that council conduct a public hearing for this urban water management plan and then consider adoption of the urban water management plan as well as our water shortage contingency plan.

And with that, that concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

And there are no members of the public signed up to speak on this item, so we've a move to Councilmember Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a couple quick questions.

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

To a degree, yes.

Within our water rights portfolio, we have something called the American River Place of Use.

So that's an area where the city of Sacramento can serve water under the rules of the State Water Resources Control Board.

That is how we partner with, say, Saxon Bourbon Water District or Sacramento County over in the Power Inn area, some of the small other water districts.

So we can wholesale water under the basis of that expanded boundary that goes beyond.

So this plan not only includes the contemplation of growth within the city in alignment with our general plan, but it also considers the need to to move that water into those wholesale areas within the existing place of use, not an expanded place of use within an existing.

The request to move our place of use and grow that would be an entirely different matter for city council to consider.

Which thank you, because that was like is it aligned?

How is it aligned when that comes in?

Also, you know, and I've asked you this question because it is a bit of a conundrum that projects come to us and we approve it, but part of it is well, do we have enough sustainable resources?

So, you know, we plan 10,000 housing units.

Where does the water come from?

Um, how do those two tie together if they even tie together?

So, our I'm understanding the question is, you know, how are we considering the growth in housing units and that relates to our water supply?

We, you know, and we when we look at the general plan, we're extrapolating along with that general plan a demand for water that also considers the water efficiency targets that we're thinking about, right?

So, you know, if you told me 10,000 units 20 years ago and how much water they would need, I'd give you a different answer.

Uh, today that would be a smaller volume of water.

We've got requirements for landscape now, so there would be a reduction.

Those projections are included in this plan.

Um at present, if you were to look at our portfolio, again, setting aside the availability of water, right?

When we think about climate change and droughts, I recognizing that is different than your legal portfolio.

Um, our portfolio right now is about three times the amount of water that the city of Sacramento is using on an annual basis.

That is good to know.

So now switching over to the water shortage contingency plan.

Um, you brought up something that then I think we're also somewhat missing here, is what happens with the catastrophic.

What happens if there is a break and we can no longer filter the water quality and we have a flint Michigan?

What happens if there is a flood and it shuts down or there's an attack on some of our infrastructure, which then makes it so that we don't know about where's our water and the water quality, do we have, because that's not something I would want public, but do we and have we prepared uh for what it that would look like if something catastrophic was to occur?

Yeah, I can sense my operations teams somewhere behind me, just eager to jump up and answer those questions.

Uh, we certainly have an array of emergency response plans, certainly.

Um, one of the the benefits of being in the city of Sacramento is that we are at the convergence of two rivers.

It is so we have two different water treatment plants, right?

If one goes down, we have another.

That's not a common benefit for a lot of water agencies to have those multiple sources.

Each of those facilities can operate, you know, we there is no public feed into the telemetry to operate these things, so you know, things like cybersecurity are of vital interest to members of our team.

In fact, that's their sole focus in working for the department.

Uh, the diversification including groundwater, that is also something not only as we move forward to constructing wells, we're also thinking about where they go.

So when the water treatment plant maybe is turned off, it's still distributed in such a way that we can serve our community that kind of emergency supply.

That is one of the additional benefits of a river arc type of project.

It is now a third point of diversion for surface water.

And so, if for some reason you had some catastrophic failure on the American River or a Folsom Dam failure, you've now got a facility that is north of the confluence of those rivers, and so that's adds to the robustness.

Robustness in my mind, you know, you can either build a really nice widget or you can build a couple of them, right, to get the kind of redundancy.

So River Arc provides redundancy.

Perfect, thank you.

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

Wonderful.

All right, and I think those are really good questions just because I mean, water rights, it will continue to be one of the most controversial political issues of our lifetime.

I recently read the Sacramento B, and they talked about Sacramento Area districts clashing over water supply, right?

The Citrus Water District and San Juan Unified.

Um, and then I saw Cap Radio, I forgot about the New York Times when I was reading about Arizona and Nevada having their own water issues and water fights, and so um it's good to see that the city of Sacramento is proactively planning our direction and our future here in the city of Sacramento limits to protect our residents and be able to provide safe drinking clean water.

So thank you and your team for your good work.

Vice Mayor, if I could add, I'll just go back one.

Oops, I'm not going to go any farther here.

Okay.

Maybe the clerk can help me with going backwards here.

You know, the finishing slide where we talked about, you know, some maybe testing some of our vulnerabilities and moving forward.

Um we do anticipate so our water rights are up for review within the next handful of years.

By the time we come back for our next urban water management plan, the city will have come to this council with some thoughts on how to engage with the water board on you know the nature of our water rights moving forward.

Um I mentioned the climate concerns that we have.

It has been easy historically to take this for granted that we are now testing the vulnerability tributary by tributary.

You know, we have water that not only is coming in through the river, but it's stored in some of those reservoirs up in the smud facilities up in the upper American River project.

So, you know, are you vulnerable from this tributary or that tributary or that tributary?

That's an element that we are thinking about uh within our water rights and also to be ensuring the reliability supply for our customers.

And I do have a question on that with climate change and the rise of AI data centers, database centers.

Um, I mean, these database centers require so much water to keep it cool and to keep it going, and what you're seeing across the country is cities facing water supply shortages and the amount of water it takes to anytime you put a question into your chat to be tea, it takes like a water bottle, I believe I read.

What is do we have a plan as a city of Sacramento on what that looks like for us if a project of that magnitude were to come into our area?

Well uh certainly, you know, a project of of I mentioned material size would have to go through its own water supply assessment.

Um, you know, the Department of Utilities doesn't necessarily pick the balls and strikes on you know what the business is, right?

I mean, we're here to serve water subject to the policy direction of this city council.

Um we are certainly aware of the controversy around water and the data centers, and I think it's I will just offer from my own personal perspective, it brings up some interesting social questions.

Um, do we have a robust supply?

Yes.

Any customer that comes in though, if they need a fair degree of water, the amount of impact fees they need to support that infrastructure is commensurate with that need.

So they would need there would be no subsidy of that water uh to provide to a large user.

Um so um, you know, our portfolio is good, but I'm not sure that's always the best use, and that's what this council will eventually have to decide if such a center were to come in.

I will offer I think um the the community that is developing these sorts of projects is also I am of the understanding that they are looking at different technologies to cool these centers, maybe just not through the use of water, maybe more of a recyculation loop, things like that.

So, you know, things ebb and flow with the technology, right?

Yeah.

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

So, I agree, Vice Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

And next up we have Councilmember Dickinson.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, since I have something of a proprietary interest in in Sigma, uh I just wanted to uh confirm because I think it's I think it's uh articulated the plan that that the management plan is consistent with the groundwater system sustainability plans, both north of the American River and south of the American River.

Yes.

So we, the City of Sacramento is is a signatory, a founding member of both the Sacramento Groundwater Authority, which Councilmember Kaplan sits upon, as well as the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority.

Um we uh we engage in both our our water demands or our extractions are you know, we we embedded in those plans what our vision was for groundwater resources for the city of Sacramento.

Some years back, we went through a groundwater master planning process, we went through a CEQA process.

This council saw to approve an EIR, articulating that interest in groundwater for reliability for the city.

Those demands were embedded within the groundwater sustainability plans of both agencies.

So they are included as well.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And then with respect to the uh the water shortage contingency plan.

Can you can you expand a bit about uh how that's stepping up or stepping down process of reducing uh water consumption uh uh if there's a if there's a shortage uh also uh aligns with with the GSPs, if it does so when whenever we enact these water shortage contingency plans, in my experience the two times in my personal experience, um both of those have included the decision of this body.

Um in some cases there was uh the state of California, I'll say insisted upon it, at least some level, maybe a stage two.

Um and this council uh agreed with that and saw fit to press that forward.

We have uh enacted water shortage plans or um at times when it wasn't insisted upon, though, as well again a decision of this body.

The without having to think specifically about let me back up.

We have enough operational flexibility within our system that during the middle of summer we have enough capacity in our surface water treatment plants to turn off almost almost every groundwater well in the city if we needed to.

We need to make sure there's enough pressure, right?

So you continue to have levels of service for your community, but nearly every well could be turned off operationally, and so we we are keenly aware of the the thresholds for how much water we can extract to maintain groundwater sustainability.

Um if I had uh another hour here in front of you, I would probably bring in some of the state's mapping on the groundwater resources in this area.

I think the council member Kaplan is probably aware, sitting on SGA, that we are one of the few areas in the state of California where groundwater levels are rising.

We are banking water as quickly as we can, and I see more of that in the future.

Okay, that's um thank you.

That's good to know that we're actually um banking water, you know.

Uh, Sigma is actually inspired uh uh significantly by SGA when it was originally created.

So I appreciate that.

And and obviously we need to maintain we meet flow standards on the American uh uh water temperature requirement.

I mean, there's a lot of factors to balance, and so those uh I can imagine that those can be challenging in a water shortage or a drought period, and so the uh my question really was just whether I was focusing on the groundwater side, but on the surface water side too, since you said you could almost stop drawing groundwater if you needed to.

That the those are all elements of uh the calculation uh of what water you would use uh as well as implementing uh reductions in in demand.

This was a rich conversation in the waterform negotiations.

All I would say um all stakeholders within the water forum appreciated that the core mandate for the the department of utilities, if you will, and frankly any water agency is making sure that residents have clean, safe drinking water.

Nobody had issue with that.

So if one were to pull up the city's uh water forum specific plan, our particular agreement, um there's acknowledgement by all parties that we need to meet a level of service for our customers.

But what we also openly offer to all the stakeholders is to the degree that we have the flexibility.

Um probably not well known by everyone in the in the community, but it the hundred square miles of the city of Sacramento is essentially one big pressure zone.

A drop of water can move from north to south, east to west, and so to a degree, um operationally, we can shift from one river to the other river, and we have done so in the past.

When conditions on the American River are stressed, even if we are below some of our regulatory diversion guidelines, uh, we have the ability to shift some over to the Sacramento River preferentially.

Sometimes we work in collaboration with our federal partners to align with some of their statewide requirements for their drought plans if we can shift from one facility to the other.

So not only different sources, but different facilities as well.

Right.

Well, uh you have to have that flexibility, obviously.

So I appreciate that.

Uh did you move the item?

I did.

Oh.

Do you want to close the public hearing?

And uh the item.

Move the item, and I'll second.

All right.

Well, um, we will have to continue this item in a second.

We do need eight.

No, oh, not this one.

Oh, okay, never mind.

Just kidding.

I thought we needed eight votes on this one.

It's the next item.

Okay, so uh we have a motion, a second.

All in favor, please say aye.

No's abstentions, and three absent.

Yes, you have um Maple, Gera, and McCarty absent.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

City Council.

Okay, thank you so much for your presentation.

All right.

Uh next item is number 17.

I'd like to open the public hearing on the citywide landscaping and lighting assessment district.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor Tolamantes and um City Council members.

I'm Mary Jean Rodriguez from the Finance Department.

The item before you is the public hearing for the citywide landscaping and lighting assessment district, annual proceedings.

Annual assessments are levied in this district to finance the maintenance of city parks and other public landscape areas, street tree maintenance, graffiti abatement, as well as the energy and maintenance cost of street lights throughout the city.

Stops recommendation is for council to conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a resolution confirming the budget and levying the assessment for the upcoming fiscal year 2026-27.

Thank you.

And I available to answer any question you may have.

Are there any public comments on this item?

I have no speakers on this agenda item.

Councilmember Kaplan.

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

So thank you for maximizing the output and minimizing the amount of the increase.

Okay.

Councilmember Dickinson.

I just have a question.

You um you've got a uh fund balance of a little under six million dollars.

You're proposing if I understand what you're presenting to use uh about four hundred sixteen thousand of uh of that.

Is there is there a longer term strategy?

Obviously, we're very constrained in funding versus desire or demand uh with the lighting landscaping uh districts and this one in particular.

Is there is there something about that you see over the years in terms of uh using the fund balance?

Uh or are you just trying to maintain year to year?

What is tell me what what is the plan?

It's technically um it's a combination because the fund balance can be used to future um funding of those unfunded um you know maintenance that's you know that's it's not a priority, so that could be used, but the the initial decision making is actually the department actually managing this budget.

So we establish the budget for them, and they're the one who actually control the spending um for the year, okay.

Okay, so so you're just looking at from the budget standpoint, not the operating standpoint.

Yes.

Uh okay, I got it.

Um, so uh is there is there anyone here who can answer the the question I've raised?

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

Okay, let's see.

Yeah, got the mats.

All right, we're going to the mats.

Welcome.

Have until November.

Uh September.

September.

Retirement's near.

Uh good afternoon, Vice Mayor Matt Armin, Director of Public Works.

Um, so it really depends on on the pricing and the level of service, right?

So we are taking a huge initiative to uh reduce our medians uh at this point in time to take out the grass areas and refocus our our funding towards uh actual um giving the level of service that we want, right?

Because uh during some years we went from monthly service to uh back down to uh bi-weekly service.

So we're in an operating uh situation, we we only have the limited amount of funds that that we have, and we need to put all that that work into that that money.

I appreciate that, Matt, absolutely, but oh here comes Pete.

Okay, good afternoon, everyone.

Uh so one of the other things I just want to point out is we have been drawing down this balance every year, so you know, part of it is trying to uh maintain that level of service like like Matt had been talking about.

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

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

Uh uh uh okay so uh um because it looked like if I recall last year used a lot more of the of the fund balance than you are proposing for this this year.

Is it is that is it is that right, Pete?

Um I believe so I just don't have the number from last year in front of me, but it's a couple million last year, and it's like yeah, as I said, 416 for the this budget that we're looking at.

Yes.

Um but you're you're up you're trying to make operational improvements, I get that, and efficiencies.

Correct, because otherwise we'll run out of out of money, right?

Um at our current pace.

I mean, and eventually you're gonna run out, right?

I mean, you you're using up the fund balance.

Oh, so it's we are, but I think what Matt's saying is they're looking at ways to um reduce our ongoing.

Correct.

Yeah, uh-huh.

Um, so one thing that that uh uh interests me is is and I think we've talked a little bit about this is look at solar lighting as opposed to hooking up to smud uh much less expensive that may have other uh other considerations, but thinking on the lighting side, that was one.

But but the other is whether or not we're thinking about uh so uh uh approaching, I mean it's a tax measure.

Uh, it's got to go to the voters, uh I believe to uh uh get a bigger bigger contribution, but whether at some point we're looking at that.

Yes.

Yeah, I mean, uh that would definitely help.

Um, but it would it would be on the the policy side of it, really, rather than the operational side of it.

Well, yes, you're you're right about that that that decision.

Uh I I just know that I mean one of the one of the things that's that is clearly very deficient in North Sacramento is street lighting.

Uh and and that, you know, looking at this, we're not gonna expand street lighting by any unless we do some different things, which is either get a lot more efficient with the money we've got or get some more money or both.

Yeah, currently we we have 40,000 street lights that that we maintain, and there is no plan to add more outside of development, right?

So it it does become uh an issue.

And and we're very restricted on the lighting and landscaping uh funding that we can use uh towards new infrastructure.

So we're always we're always in the market to work with our partners and our our uh our districts to to try to help increase the lighting, whether it's working with SMUD or it's um you know, trying to figure out how we can get this level of service to our constituents.

Yeah, maybe maybe it's a longer conversation about about both those things, both the operational and the policy side.

So thank you, Matt.

And Pete, thank you.

Councilmember Plecky Bomb.

I'll be supporting the item and uh also supporting Councilmember Dickinson's request for a longer conversation.

I think it's time that we look at some of the areas of the city in addition to North Sacramento.

There are whole spots in the city that are underlit and in that conversation would also request that we do a discussion about the lumens and the Kelvin, the color and the brightness of the lights that we're using, and how that aligns to national transportation safety standards and and also aesthetic goals for the city.

Thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

No abstains.

Two absent McCarty and Gera.

Okay.

Moving along to item 18, an ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 for cannabis land uses.

I like to open the public hearing.

All right.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council members.

My name is Kevin Collin.

I'm the zoning administrator for the city of Sacramento.

I'm joined today with Kurt Skirski and Matt Hurdle, our director.

I'll be giving our presentation.

By way of overview, I'll first touch on the background for this work, summarize secondly the ordinance for consideration this afternoon, and then conclude the staff recommendation.

For just over four years, and over more than two dozen meetings, the city staff, including the finance department and community development department, have been working on various policy questions directed by council related to the regulation of cannabis from a business perspective and a zoning perspective.

I'm today presenting an ordinance that pertains to the zoning aspects of cannabis.

And more recently, back in September, we were before you seeking direction on what should an ordinance contain for the zoning aspects.

We received your feedback at that meeting and then subsequently returned with an ordinance in November.

And at that meeting, we received further direction from the council, which I will summarize and which we have strived to incorporate into an ordinance for your consideration this afternoon.

I could distill the conversation that the discussion and direction at that November meeting into two topics.

First being sensitive uses and the buffers, and secondly, being the permit type.

Those are included within the ordinance today, and there's a few changes in terms of additions that are also in the ordinance.

These are buffers from which cannabis businesses are 600 feet, which I'll address the distance in a moment, provided different permit levels of review.

So we have K-12 schools, parks, community centers, libraries, museums, rehabilitation centers, youth-oriented facilities, and with the additions of other dispensary and church and faith congregations being added to the ordinance.

You may recall at the November meeting, we did have a significant number of speakers on those last two topics.

Staff subsequently met with groups from both of those topic areas and received additional input, which we have addressed in the staff report to explain the rationale while we felt including those was appropriate within the recommendation today.

To summarize what this means for business types, the zoning aspects of cannabis apply to different business types, all of the sensitive uses that I just described would be applicable to dispensaries, so these are storefront dispensaries.

We have many other business types.

Production is an umbrella for the manufacturing aspects of cannabis as well as testing, is applicable to a K-12 school.

Schools are a mandatory prohibitive buffer across the board.

Additionally, at our November meeting, there was discussion on a motion that pertained to uh a proposal to differentiate between the sensitive use buffers for schools to add a subcategory of high school and increase that distance from 600 to a thousand feet.

We've addressed this in the staff report.

Should there be a motion to include this in the ordinance?

At the time, however, we didn't sense that there was a majority opinion for this council, so we did not include it in the ordinance, but it is uh it is teed up and prepared should it be included in a motion today.

The second topic we heard from the council was a desire to retain the status quo conditional use permit.

This is code today in the ordinance, it would remain.

This is a discretionary permit which requires public notice and a hearing before a decision is rendered, either approval or denial.

And how it works today is how it would work under the current under the proposed ordinance.

If you are a dispensary, you are either more than 600 feet and subject to a zoning administrator conditional use permit hearing.

If you are closer than 600 feet, you require the planning and design commission's review.

All businesses, including production and testing, would need that conditional use permit.

We presented a graphic like this previously to help the community and our decision makers understand geographically what that means.

The map on display here shows properties that we have identified that are located either within the 600 foot buffer or outside of that, so being either subject to the zoning administrator level of review or the commissions.

With that, I'll keep it short.

I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

We are recommending that you pass a motion adopting the ordinance, including the sequel determination.

Okay, and how many members of the public do we have signed up to speak?

Vice Mayor, I have 27 speakers.

I believe you've already opened the public hearing cards.

I think you okay.

We will do public comment first and then we'll take it back to the council members.

Thank you.

As I mentioned, I have 27 speakers.

Feel free to line up in the aisle beat in the middle.

Nick Caras, Dale A.

Burney, Tillman Whale Jr., Natalie Price, Pastor Ronnie Walton.

Um you have two minutes to address the council, and the timers on this display behind me.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, council.

I'd like to uh say that I represent the Karas Family Trust.

I've watched our tenant uh Crystal Nuggs be the template of what the core program has determined that is necessary for the success of cannabis.

We all know that uh the cannabis market is supplying 8,000 jobs here locally in Sacramento.

That's something that we can't deny.

Um, we also have to keep in mind what is fair, what's just the Sacramento City Council was the ones that had the guts to go with the core program to put aside the stigma.

We're we just really don't want uh anything further to uh slow down the process, slow down the permitting.

Uh we're definitely uh in support of uh the city council, and uh the guts they've had in order to uh bring this matter uh to the front, and um I hope to see uh a positive vote.

Thank you.

Dale, Dale Burney and Tillman Whale.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council members.

As I stated a few weeks ago, faith-based organizations of all persuasions, meaning Protestants and Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, among many, many other faith traditions of every ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status would be adversely, detrimentally and negatively impacted if we are not allowed to remain on the sensitive use zone list.

Faith based organizations provide ministry and service to the same demographic or the same people groups.

And in some cases, we provide more services than other protective service providers that are on and that will remain on the sensitive use zone lists.

As faith-based organizations, we are not asking for special treatment.

We are simply asking for equal and fair treatment.

Our value and worth cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents.

However, our value and worth are incalculable to our respective communities in particular, as well as to the city of Sacramento in general.

The fact that we are currently on the sensitive use zone list strongly suggests that previous city councils appreciated, respected, and understood that value and that worth.

The real question before us this afternoon is does the current city council likewise appreciate, respect, and understand the value and worth of faith-based organizations.

If so, then please vote to allow faith-based organizations to remain on the sensitive zone use list.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Jennings, Miss Maples, Mr.

Dickerson, who knew my father.

My name is Tillman Wayne.

I'm the senior pastor of the Unity Baptist Church of Sacramento Park.

I'm here today in support of the proposed cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provision that recognizes church and faith-based congregations are a sensitive issue.

The ordinance protects schools, parks, libraries, community centers, museums, youth-oriented facilities, and substance abuse rehabilitation centers because they are they serve families, children, and vulnerable populations.

Faith-based organizations serve these same people every day.

Thank you.

Natalie Price.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council members.

The cannabis ordinance amendments before you create a false safety net.

They ignore the realities of after hours crime and they contradict the very spirit of Measure L.

When you took office, you accepted the responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of every neighborhood represented in this chamber.

Today you are not simply regulating an industry.

You are exercising the public trust placed in you by the residents of Sacramento and serving as guardians to the next generation.

First, that false safety net.

To planners, this may look like lines on a zoning map, but to parents, they are the invisible boundaries that separate places of childhood from places of adult commerce.

In 2026, children do not only learn in traditional school campuses, they learn in our churches, our libraries, community centers, museums, homeschool cooperatives, and parks.

Yet under this ordinance, those children lose protection simply because their classroom does not fit a narrow government definition of a school.

No parent should be forced to choose between uprooting their family, sacrificing their values, or accepting a dispensary next to their child's learning environment.

Proponents argue that neighborhood buffers must be reduced to create more opportunities, but I'm sure we all agree that safety cannot become the variable we sacrifice when convenience is difficult.

The 430 a.m.

raid last month ending in a death shows us that conditional use permits don't come with a crystal ball.

And when you move dispensaries closer to homes, daycares, churches, and youth serving facilities, those risks come closer as well.

Measure L dedicates nearly 10 million annually to childhood education and youth drug prevention, yet today you are considering allowing dispensaries next to the very centers receiving those funds.

On one hand, this council invests in children, but with the other, you may reduce their protections.

I ask you today to vote no.

It is the responsibility of the council and not responsible.

Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker is Pastor Ronnie Walton and Deanna Garcia.

City Council, City Manager.

My name is Pastor Ronnie Wall, the pastor of Jubilee Evangelistic Ministry, and I'm here today to support the proposed cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provisions that recognize churches and faith-based congregation as sensitive uses.

I want to thank the city staff, the council for listening to the concerns raised by faith-based organizations throughout this process.

The ordinance protects schools, parks, libraries, etc.

Faith-based organizations serve those same purposes.

We provide youth programs, mentoring, counseling, food distribution, recovery support, and community outreach.

In many neighborhoods, faith-based organizations are among the most trusted and impactful community institutions.

The question is simple.

If we protect other communities serving organizations because the people they serve, we would treat faith-based organizations definitely the same.

Point is I feel like I'm preaching now for a minute.

We are not requesting special treatment.

We're not requesting special treatment.

We are requesting equal treatment.

We are calling on the council to adopt the ordinance as drafted and retain these protections.

Thank you.

Following Deanna is Mahisha Bahati, then Kaylee Olgerson, then Aaron Cardozo.

Good afternoon.

Mayor's missing, but all city councils.

Moving some good regulations forward, like the 600 feet buffer between dispensaries.

That's really great.

And I appreciate the grandfather clause for pre-existing cannabis operators.

So if we're already operating and a sensitive use moves in near us, then that's their decision.

So I appreciate that.

And I appreciate the fairness of the CUP application.

The CUP application is very rigorous.

Across the city landscape.

And I believe in the process, and I believe the city believes in the process, and I thank you for leaving it in.

Good afternoon, City Manager Smith and Council.

My name is Maesha Bahadi, and I'm the owner of Crystal Nuggs.

We are a cannabis delivery and dispensary, and we're located here in District 4.

First off, I would like to thank staff for including protections for existing dispensaries when a new sensitive use moves in.

I also appreciate Councilmember Guerra for helping to elevate that issue during council conversations because businesses should not lose out on future opportunities based on circumstances that have changed after we were lawfully established.

Also, want to recognize that protecting youth is a priority for the council, and I agree that not every community is appropriate for cannabis business.

I believe there is room to strengthen protections around youth while still preserving a meaningful CEP pathway.

Four years ago, I went through the CEP process.

It took us six months, cost us nearly 40,000, required extensive public notice, community outreach, and we also had a planning and design hearing.

It also involved multiple layers of city departments.

I've heard that the CEP process described as not as a loophole, but as someone went through it, I respectfully disagree.

CUP is not something that we actually look forward to doing.

It's long, it's expensive, it's heavily scrutinized, it involves multiple layers of review, but it works.

Today, my business stands as factual evidence that a highly visible cannabis dispensary can reside and coexist next to a sensitive use.

During our public hearing, we had 33 letters of support and seven opposition.

Opposition included, we were gonna bring crime, homelessness, a nuisance to the area.

Guess what?

Three years later, none of that has materialized.

So I'm just here to ask.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Kaylee Olgerson.

Aaron Cardoza.

Halloween Aaron is Daryl Collins.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor, City Manager Smith, and members of the city council.

My name is Kayleigh Olgerson, and I'm here on behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber and our coalition of licensed cannabis operators throughout the city of Sacramento to offer our comments on the proposed Title 17 amendments.

We want to begin by thanking staff and the council for working collaboratively with our coalition during this process.

We support several key elements of this proposal, including the restoration of dispensary to dispensary buffers, the streamlined permitting process, and the first-time protections for existing operators.

Our primary concern, however, is the proposed addition of churches and faith-based congregations as a sensitive use.

This staff report acknowledges that this change would have the greatest impacts on districts four and five, significantly reducing the number of viable C3 zoned locations available to licensed cannabis businesses.

The stated goal of these amendments is to create a more streamlined and predictable permitting process.

The addition, this addition, however, would work against that outcome.

Operators who would otherwise qualify for more efficient zoning administrative review would instead be directed into a lengthy and costly CUP process requiring planning and design commission review.

That means longer timelines, higher costs, and greater uncertainty for businesses.

Sacramento's licensed cannabis operators are already navigating a highly regulated marketplace while competing in with an illicit market that does not follow the same rules.

The city should focus on strengthening the regulated industry by supporting businesses that create jobs, pay local taxes, and invest in our communities, while ensuring the permitting framework remains workable and predictable.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the council to revert preserve the 600-foot dispensary buffer, maintain first-time provisions, support the streamlined permitting framework, and reconsider the addition of churches and faith-based congregations as a sensitive use group.

Thank you for your time and consideration today.

I've worked with three different sets of kids, three different groups.

One, I'm a youth minister.

That means I'm at a church.

Okay.

Two, community center.

I'm with the youth, right?

Three, I'm at a school also with youth.

The kids you see behind me, gang of gun violence.

We have a problem with gang of gun violence in the city of Sacramento.

How do we stop that?

Not by putting drugs in our neighborhood, not by putting cannabis right by our schools, parks, and churches.

You can't do that.

There's no way.

There's no way.

We think about I heard a ladies say, Oh, we don't have any crime.

Well, where are you at?

Where you where's your cannabis club at?

Well, then that's why you don't have no crime.

But if we talk about a few to a few months ago, a kid got killed trying to break in a cannabis.

It's gonna bring this to our neighborhoods.

I live in Del Paso Heights.

District 2 Dickerson, you know, because you do our castlemen, right?

I want to appreciate those that help the youth and always looking out for the youth.

If you want to look out for the youth, you guys want to be there for the youth, it's not putting cannabis in Del Paso Heights around schools, churches, parks, or even uh community centers, resource centers that I work from.

And that and that's gonna happen.

If that happens, what is our kids gonna do?

They're gonna smell it, they're gonna go find it.

And that's what we're trying to stop.

We can't put drugs around uh uh schools, we can't put drugs around can uh uh parks and community centers.

What are we thinking here?

We gotta make it make sense.

We wanna stop violence, we're gonna stop gun violence.

Drugs cause gun violence.

That's the problem with our city right now.

Kids are on drugs.

So put that around Del Paso Heights, Oak Park, Meadow View, Fruit Ridge, and them areas, and guess what?

Them kids is gonna get more crime, more violence is gonna happen, and it's just gonna be more that we have to work on.

I'm already working on stopping them from gang and gun violence, please.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Daryl Collins, following Daryl is Tyson.

Can see.

Well, thank you for this opportunity.

Um, Mr.

Aaron has said quite a bit.

But I like to ask, I know all y'all got kids, grandkids, family members, babies.

How many of y'all want drug uh uh uh selling and activity around your babies at your schools?

I doubt it.

You know, we look at their uh drug abuse resistant education there, and that was established in 1983 by Los Angeles police department to keep drugs away from our babies.

Now it'll be uh quite interesting to see how this goes, but I'm not gonna be long.

We think about the root of all evil, the love of money.

So this is about money.

We're not thinking about our babies, we're thinking about money.

Nah, don't work.

We need to think about our babies.

That was your baby.

Mm-mm.

Cannabis store down the street.

You ain't gonna allow that.

So don't bring it to us.

Come on, please don't bring it to us, how dare you?

Thank you, God.

Next speaker is Taizen, then Eric.

Y'all lose next speaker is Ty Zen, then Eric.

Then Pastor Terry McLean.

It's Tizen here.

It's Tizen.

Yeah.

Um good afternoon.

Uh I'm gonna just keep this real short and uh simple.

Um I recently got baptized.

You know, I gave my life to the Lord.

Um, and it just breaks my heart that um you could just go to the park with your kids down the street, uh, go to a church and and just have to worry about marijuana.

Having to worry about having to smell that uh that toxins in the air.

Um and shouldn't no family or no parent have to worry about walking outside with their kids and having to smell that outside.

Um it not only affect affects the little ones, everybody that's around it.

Um, it affects and it it sorry, I'm I'm kind of nervous.

Um you're doing great.

It brings it like Mr.

Aaron said, it brings more gun violence because people be out here trying to rob people just because of the simple fact that, oh, you got this amount of weed, or you got this or that.

I want that.

Now, now somebody's life is took just over marijuana.

And um, yeah, that's all I had to say.

No loopholes.

Okay, good.

Next speaker is Eric Dosti, then Pastor Terry McLean.

Close enough.

It's actually those TV, it'll work.

No, I was just gonna be brief, because like I said, they really said what I was gonna say.

I was just gonna put it a different way.

I just think that we talked about earlier about how we can do things to help the youth in the violence of Sacramento.

Well, this is one the way.

But I want to also make it clear, we're not asking that you close down cannabis shops, which really would be my purpose.

But I'm just gonna say that we understand that there's a business and there's employees.

We're not asking that you close them down.

We're just saying, man, consider that those same people that you're protecting at the schools and the parks and things, they're the same people to come to church.

So, and and Facebook's organizations.

And let me just say this lastly, I don't know if any of you attend faith-based uh organizations, but would you like to come out there and you just counsel a child about, you know, uh being careful about the things that they do and walk right up and see your cannabis shop right there looking at you.

We're not asking you to move it out the city, just stay away from where it is.

That's all.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terry McLean, then John Johnson.

And if I can ask members of the audience, I do need you to take your seats per fire code.

We can't have you standing in the aisles.

Thank you.

Good evening to everyone on the councilman.

My name is Terry McClang.

I'm the pastor of Pearlie Gate Baptist Church, district, district three.

I'm just up here just asking you to look.

You opened up, you opened up your talk when you was talking about the violence have been risen.

Think about why the violence has been risen.

When you have drugs in your body, it alters your mind.

Weed alters the mind.

That's the first step to to removing to what you guys were talking about when you opened up your talk.

The only way that's gonna happen is to allow us to do our job, you do your job, allow them to do their job.

You said this is you opened up and you talked about uh you said um the pledge of allegiance.

We are all one nation under God.

And as we stand here today, we stand here today as one nation under God.

And we are standing here because God allows us to stand here.

We're not asking, as everyone said, we're not asking for no special treatment.

We're just asking for a fair treatment, not to take nothing away from nobody, not to add nothing to nobody, just to be treated fair.

That's all we ask.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, counsel and vice mayor, and good to see you all again.

I'm Pastor John Johnson of the New Life Christian Fellowship Church of God in Christ here in Sacramento in District 2, and Roger is my councilman.

Um we stand here today, because you had heard, um, many have come before you.

Just to let you know to reiterate that um in district two in our area, we're not going back.

We're not going back.

Um what has been done to progress ourselves away from our um the drugs and uh the robberies and uh and uh the mistreatment of people within the neighborhood, the communities, we have moved away from that and have come together more as a core of neighborhood working together and living together, and especially when it comes down to supporting you as the council and supporting you as a city of Sacramento.

Um our areas have been cleaned up.

Um the drugs and selling of drugs have dropped over 75% in the last 13 years that I've been pastoring this particular church in this area.

Um again, we need the buffer zone for over 50 plus churches, and we need it now.

And now's the time for you to act upon it, and now it's the time for you not to stand back and say we could do it later, but now's the time for you to be responsible.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker is John Windham, then Helica Sanchez.

Greetings, counsel.

My name is John Winham, formerly incarcerated of 28 years, 11 months.

I am what it is to have drugs in your community.

I am what it is to have drugs and commit violence because of your mind state being altered in your community.

I am now a community activist and community leader, and no child should have to decide whether they're gonna use drugs or not, because it's in their community.

If it's not in Elk Grove, if it's not in Carmichael, if it's not in El Dorado Hills, it shouldn't be in our communities either.

So I asked, did y'all think about that?

Think about these babies.

I don't want none of them to do their day because they wasn't thinking because they was high on drugs.

Exposure is everything.

We must be careful about what we're exposing our children to.

They should not have to be exposed to drugs.

At churches, in schools, and at parks.

And now they can get them legally up the street.

It won't be just one job, it'll be hundreds and thousands of jobs.

And we don't need that.

I say won't for our community what you want for yours.

Thank you.

Speaker is Anhelica Sanchez and Mindy Galloway.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor, City Council members and staff.

My name is Anhelica Sanchez, and I am here representing Perfect Union.

We are a cannabis retailer that has operated in the city of Sacramento for the last 15 years.

First, I'd like to thank council and staff for all the work that has gone into these Title 17 amendments.

I know that cannabis can be a very divisive topic.

As staff noted, this process started over four years ago as an effort to review, update, and modernize Sacramento's cannabis regulations based on the findings of the EPS study.

The EPS study that found that cannabis businesses did not have a negative negative impact on the community.

In fact, they were stated just to have the same impacts as other regular businesses.

The study was commissioned to evaluate Sacramento's cannabis regulatory framework and guide future policy development.

The Title 17 amendments before you today are intended to modernize the code and streamline opportunities for licensed cannabis businesses while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

For that reason, we support moving these amendments forward.

However, we strongly oppose adding faith-based congregations as a sensitive use.

Throughout this process, discussions have been guided by data, and we are not aware of any documented evidence demonstrating that licensed cannabis businesses negatively impact places of worship.

Adding this new buffer is inconsistent with the goals that initiated this process and would significantly reduce the already limited areas available for cannabis businesses, potentially eliminating approximately 25% of the available relocation area in the city of Sacramento.

We respectfully ask the council to approve the amendments while removing faith-based congregations from the sensitive use requirements.

Thank you for your time.

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

Hi, good afternoon, Council.

Um, my name is Mindy Galloway.

I am the CEO and owner of the Pocket Dispensary.

I appreciate the council and city staff's efforts to help streamline processes for licensing.

Having a cannabis business can face many challenges and difficulties.

We have very strict regulations, elaborate compliance, high tax rates, and a stigma that hurts our businesses and reduces our profits.

Any streamline of policies would be helpful to us, and I do ask that you keep the dispensary to dispensary buffer in the ordinance.

Having dispensaries too close to each other will create saturation, further reduce profits, and potentially ruin our good standing relationships with our communities.

It is very important to create sustainability in our current businesses so that we can survive in an already drowning industry.

Medical cannabis has recently been rescheduled to Schedule 3, proving medical benefits and the ability to improve daily lives for patients.

Although this is true, cannabis is still viewed as an illegal drug, and community members are still afraid.

We work to be outstanding members of our community and educate where we can on the uses of cannabis and how it can improve your life.

As a small independent business, this is very important to me.

Please keep the dispensary to dispensary buffer.

Thank you for your time.

Next speaker is Daryl Heath, then Richard Willoughby.

I have 10 more speakers.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Council, to uh Roger Dickinson, who I know, and Ms.

Vang, my council member.

Brother Jennings, our good friend.

I stand to ask to support keeping churches in a protected area in a protected situation.

I heard someone say that there is no evidence.

We just had a young man say he went to jail because of use of cannabis.

So I don't know how there could be no evidence.

That makes sense.

And I have a personal.

My church is right down the street on 4th.

And we have a buffer wall between my our church and a house that was a dispensary.

Every Sunday morning, my park, my car against that wall.

I would have to get out of the car and hold my breath to get into the building.

We have a good time in church, high in church, and I'd leave high because of what I smelled outside.

So it does affect, it has an effect.

We have a food pantry at our church.

Every Friday, we feed up to 300 people, and we have people, children there.

Now thank God the dispensary is gone.

Things are better when it was there, we had to harden our church to make sure that things didn't happen because certain things would happen.

So we're not again, we're not asking that you put them away.

We're just asking be fair.

Why and my question is why would you want it next to the church?

Why would that be something you even question?

A place where we're trying to help people overcome, they walk out and they're met with what they're trying to overcome.

It doesn't make sense.

You are sensible people, it doesn't make sense.

Next speaker is Richard Willoughby, then Donnell Riggins.

Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Councilman.

My name is Richard Willoughby.

I am the pastor of More Life Worship Center and More Life Academy.

Um, my church is located in Del Paso Heights.

Um I'm here today to support uh the protection of proposal cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provision to recognize churches and faith organizations as sensitive use.

Uh it is important that we understand the work that we do in our community to protect our children from these elements.

I know there's a lot of studies out there about cannabis, but it affects our community.

And as the gentleman just said, pastor just said, we're helping people that are dealing with issues and drugs, and for them to walk out of our church to smell the thing that they're running from, would be a travesty.

And so we need to be conscious of what we're doing.

Again, it's not always about money, it's about the people.

I know the council here is trying to balance things and try to make sure that you have funds and revenues, but at the end of the day, it's about the people, it's all about the people.

If we don't do it right by the people, then we have problems.

And so I would uh appreciate uh that you would um consider the the cannabis uh issue and make sure the churches are on that sensitive lift.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, speakers.

Donald Reggins, and I think it's Etsy Simmons.

Good morning, mayor, good morning, council members.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Uh, Mr.

Dickinson, our council person for District 2.

My name is Donnell Riggins.

I am the proud pastor of Del Paso Union Baptist Church.

We celebrate 80 years as an institution in that community.

And we've worked diligently to assist individuals who are struggling with drug addiction.

Uh, and so we are here standing and in solidarity with these pastors and faith community leaders who are present today, and a growing list of pastors across the city who are concerned that churches might be eliminated from the sensitive use list.

I'll be brief in saying this.

If we protect other community organizations and entities that are serving the same constituency, the same populations that churches serves.

Why?

What reasonable logical reason would there be to remove them from the sensitive use list?

And so we're calling on you to adopt the ordinance as it is currently as it is currently drafted, which is to include the provisions for churches and faith congregations to continue to be on the sensitive use list.

Thank you so much.

Have a great day.

Mr.

Simmons, then Carla Black.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon to the mayor, uh, vice mayor and to the rest of the council.

My name is Esley Simmons.

Um, I'm the founder and senior senior leader at South Sacramento Christian Center over on the 5th district.

Um, so I've worked with many councils, many mayors uh over the years, and um just want to ask that you allow this ordinance.

I'm here to propose that that I am here today to support the proposed cannabis ordinance as currently drafted, including the provision that recognizes churches and faith congregations as sensitive use.

So many of our relatives and our friends have grown into what's in their view, and when you place a cannabis dispensary in the view of a child or in the view of an adult, I'm concerned about the children as well.

But I ran a drug center for over 23 years in the Bay Area and then here in Sacramento out of our church, and we feed about 1,400 to 2,500 people every weekend.

We own the cow skate with the former cow skate uh, and it's used for kings and queens.

We we are interested in our young people, and so uh I'm just asking you to consider seriously uh this proposal that's before you to include churches and faith-based or faith-based organizations in this ordinance.

The current ordinance gets right, gets it right by including churches and faith-based congregations on the sensitive.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Carla Black, then Zeus, then Horatio.

Carla Black.

Please proceed.

Sorry, I just want to set this up for us.

If children deserve protection at elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, then they deserve protection at daycares, preschools, parks, youth centers, after school programs, community centers, churches, rehabilitation facilities, and residential neighborhoods.

Children are still children no matter where they are.

The new proposal, this proposal creates three classes of sensitive uses.

Schools keep hardline protections while second-class places serving children, families, and vulnerable populations are placed in a conditional use process.

That is a loophole, and the third preschool daycares and in-home child care, in-home child centers and residentials are 100% eliminated.

We have already seen why relying on the CUP process is not enough.

The Diamond Head House rehabilitation facility became one of the most visible examples in this debate.

If the process did not work to protect the rehabilitation center, then why should residents believe that it will protect parks, churches, youth programs, daycare centers, and neighborhoods elsewhere.

We can't ignore public safety.

Sacramento recently experienced an armed robbery at a marijuana business that turned deadly.

And that's what this is.

It looks like the city wants to propose option one, two, and three of 10 more additional storefronts, 20 more, and then a free market.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Zeus, then Horatio, then Stig E.

I have five more speakers.

Zeus.

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

Okay.

Hi city council.

My name is Usa, I'm nine years old.

I like swimming and playing baseball and baseball and playing with my friends at the park.

I know that cannabis is a drugs and drugs make people six.

I'm asking city council to please allow drugs to locate.

Please do not allow drugs to locate next to where me and my friends play.

This council is supposed to protect kids like me, so I don't understand why the city wants to move cannabis business closer to places where me and my friends play baseball and where other kids play.

Please don't allow drugs next to us.

Drugs are harmful for everyone, especially young people because their brains are not fully developed.

And these drug stores have even been involved in robberies and violence.

Please think about my safety and kids first.

I ask you to please protect Sacramento's children and neighborhoods.

Thank you.

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

Hello, my name is Harisha Arden.

Uh hello, uh Vice Mayor and City Council members.

I had this long thing to read, but uh after hearing everybody's testimony and and whatever, I mean it's pretty it's pretty self-explanatory.

You know, drugs, violence, and guns around youth, horrible decision.

And uh right now you guys have all the power to change that.

So why wouldn't you?

I mean it it it's asinine that we're even here standing here doing this.

I I just can't even think of any person in the world that would have the power to make um uh impact as you do and then don't do it, right?

I mean, it just doesn't make sense.

So why?

Why not?

Why are we why are we talking about putting drugs near these places?

It it I it just blows my mind.

Um, and the the lengths that people will will go to to commit crimes, um, just to have something or or to take from someone else is crazy.

I mean, the stuff that I have in here um that I gathered from the internet was um, you know, people are going putting drones on people's cars, following home, tying them up.

I mean, that's that what are you serious?

All because they want something someone else has, and then we're gonna go and put those, put these establishments next to these churches and these youth centers and these schools.

I mean, that's that's a no-brainer.

I I hope that you guys see what you know the repetitive cycle that this will create.

And um, I hope you guys go against this.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Dig E.

J.

Gotta say, Last of Uh.

Alright, first off, I want to start off with this saying let's go to Sacramento A's, right?

Let's get that going.

Sounds awesome.

Tell them these parks and all these other regulations.

Let's do some Saturday stuff.

That being said, I'm gonna represent my homeless and my homeless influence.

So I inform you guys that jerks are already in their parks.

They're there.

And then at the end of the day, what's the difference?

Fenton all drinking, weed smoking, it all smells, it's all there.

So I mean, you might as well just go ahead and put a club right next to it.

I'm all for it.

I mean, me and my wife, we love on Sundays because I'm homeless, she's homeless.

We sleep in a tent every night.

And we go out on Sundays, and that's our thing because we'll never have kids.

You know what I'm saying?

So we go out and watch kids play in the park and they're doing their thing, and while they're drinking to have a great time.

It's awesome.

You know, all I'm trying to say really is I love my wife.

She's amazing.

You guys really shouldn't be a dummy.

Just go ahead and let the loophole go.

I'm all for it.

Let's go sacramento.

And she brought you a little gift, Mayor.

For you, Bubba.

Y'all have a good day.

This is why you stay in the next speaker is Stefan Walton, then Bishop Katie Weldon.

Good afternoon, mayor and council members.

Um my name is Stephen Walton, and I'm here today with the coalition of faith-based organizations from Sacramento.

At its core for us, the discuss discussion about proposed cannabis or ordinance is about how we treat community-serving institutions under city policy.

Our position is grounded in fairness, consistency, and equal treatment.

The ordinance protects schools, parks, libraries, community centers, museums, youth-oriented facilities, substance abuse rehabilitation centers, because they serve families, children, and vulnerable populations.

Faith-based organizations serve those same populations every single day.

Across Sacramento, faith-based organizations provide youth mentoring, counseling, food assistance, recovery support, and community outreach.

In many neighborhoods, they are among the most entrusted, trusted community institutions.

The question is simple.

If we protect other community serving organizations because of the people they serve, why would we treat faith-based organizations any differently?

We're not requesting, as many have said, special treatment.

We're requesting equal treatment.

So the ordinance before you today gets it right.

It includes churches and faith congregations on the sensitive use list and applying the 600-foot buffer afforded to other community serving uses.

We urge you to adopt this ordinance as drafted and retain these protections.

Thank you.

Also have a prepared speech, but before I get into my prepared speech, I would like to rebut um what was said about the lack of statistics.

Give you a little uh not so known history fact about me.

I'm 59 years old.

I've been black for 59 years.

That's long enough to know that statistics follow events.

We don't want any statistics, that's why we're here.

The churches are in um, we want them in the uh buffer zone.

We want them to remain in the buffer zone.

The populations that many of us serve, um, they have come out of prison, they um are low income, they are struggling to make ends meet, and but not only that, they are trying to protect their children.

They're trying to protect their families and keep them away from things that would bring harm.

We don't want those added um things in our community.

Uh we want to make sure that at least there is 600 feet or whatever the buffer zone is.

There's enough space around our churches that we can feel we can feel safe.

Listen, uh I do enough funerals and enough uh memorial services.

I think you ought to include funeral homes as well.

Because I get high going to funerals now.

It's everywhere.

I understand that, but we believe that the churches need to be a safe place.

The buildings that we have, the centers that we worship in are called sanctuaries, and we would like our churches to remain sanctuaries.

Thank you.

Yes, council member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I also want to take the time of everybody coming to have this discussion.

It is always a difficult one because it brings up a lot of emotion, and you know, it's our job of looking at everything and balancing and knowing the conversations we've had with those who are not here today and those who have shown up over the years, as this is not our first time having this discussion, and we we know it's a difficult one that you know wherever the council may end up may leave some upset.

But you know, it's always that striving for the more perfect union, the more perfect good for the city.

Of you know, when information comes up, how can we change it and make things better, but also how can we balance and understand that you know we do have 8,000 individuals who work in this city and work in the industry, and that it does uh do a lot of good when we use those taxpayer dollars for uh student intervention and addressing student violence and mental health.

Um, so I am uh want to thank staff.

Uh this has not been an easy process.

I want to thank Councilmember Maple for her leadership on law and ledge um and shepherding through this and having a lot of the tough conversations.

Um, I uh am 99% there in front of council members.

This is something that I brought up.

It's really important to district one.

It uh is keeping everything the same, but just uh as you see uh subject to the form being approved by our city attorney, expanding the buffer for high schools.

I I'm uniquely situated in my district.

We have a fair amount of high schools as well as charter schools, and some of these are in the commercial areas, and we know, and having been, as you all know, a school board member for two decades.

There's statistics, and then there's the kids that I follow around in the morning.

Uh late start Wednesday is a perfect example of watching them wander around our community, and sometimes it is what's in front of them, how's easy is it to get access?

And in my district, that thousand foot buffer would really help with some of those commercial areas where we have um our charter high schools because there is space that they can be located um in them, but the thousand foot buffer does make it a little bit more difficult specifically there.

So I I appreciate the addition of uh adding in our faith-based uh uh institutions back in as for sensitive use and the balance of what staff did.

I would like to make a motion to move this forward with the amendment of adding the thousand foot buffer for high schools uh as part of what we uh consider.

We have a motion and second, Mayor Pro Tem Gera.

Thank you very much, and uh I'm glad we're at a better spot.

I think when this came before us, the the proposal had a number of uh of um concerns.

Uh one uh eliminating the council call-up.

I think every council uh council member should have the opportunity to work with their uh community, and if things are not working the way that they should, if communication hasn't worked out between the community and an applicant, that a council member should be able to have a de novo hearing at the council and be able to exercise that that ability, you know, and uh and because of it, you know, I I think the the tool itself has never had to be used.

In fact, when there when people have threatened to not communicate with each other, you know, and I would say, hey, look, well then we're gonna have this at the council hearing, and then immediately people start talking to each other and and get to finding a good resolution.

So I think uh bringing back the council call-up provision, it's a safeguard uh for every district is important.

The second I do want to thank you know, Pastor Walton for convening uh a number of our faith-based leaders.

Uh, and uh I think we had about uh 17 or so that showed up uh to represent their congregations and discuss the concerns that they had.

Uh and I think they're right, you know, about making sure that we have, you know, parity, equality, treating the same.

And I think about uh most recently, you know, uh a faith-based uh uh facility um that decided on on Friday nights to be able to host uh you know beginner beginner skate park nights in their in their area now.

You know, uh Trips and Falls that's on their issue, whether they they want to take on that liability, but uh it was to bring kids in, you know, and so there were a number of kids from you know uh four and five year olds to teens all together uh in using a facility that didn't have a lot of use on Friday nights, and so it was a place to create safety.

So I I do think that's uh important.

I was particularly moved by some of the pastors who talked about um how they've used uh you know faith as a way to address the challenges of addiction and to be able to bring community to help those who are suffering through that, and and those places become uh uh a way for the community to help, you know, uh immense challenges that individuals have uh facing with addiction.

So uh I think that it's a uh completely appropriate.

Um I do want to thank you know Miss Sanchez for uh her consistent years of work and helping us craft a policy here and having direct understanding of like what is what the challenges that the uh that the industry is going through.

Um I still think the issue uh right now that it's occurring with uh on the tax policy where you have vertical integration is problematic for a lot of those organizations.

So I think that's a conversation for later day.

But um this is one where I disagree with Ms.

Sanchez, but I do want to thank you for uh consistently providing insight on how um how uh how we can uh move forward.

Um also you know the the I did and then getting to the point about how how we move forward here.

There are folks here who have been involved in this for the last 10 years, and it has been difficult, there has been a challenge, but making sure that we're proceeding with caution.

Uh again, I was one of those early folks who was not supportive of moving uh with uh with uh the cannabis industry.

Uh the voters spoke differently.

Uh but the fact that we've been able to move with the industry, the city and the community to figure out how what is a what's a responsible way to move forward is is uh has benefited the city in that sense and provided protection.

So I appreciate the opportunity to make those changes to making sure that every council district has the ability to use the council call-up provision, uh, if there is a uh a facility that that is uh problematic.

Uh also uh there's a fairness question again, both for faith-based organizations and for the operators.

I think the operators also, you know, they invest a lot of time, energy.

Um they take the precautions about where they decide to locate, uh, and so if uh if a sensitive use chooses to locate next to an operator, well then that's on on that use is concerned.

I think the operators have done a lot to to understand, you know, where where the uh where the boundaries are.

Uh and then finally, um I agree.

I think the uh the distance proximity between um between you know uh dispensaries and and facilit uh is is critical.

That that proliferation, we saw that with smoke shops, where in my district you had smoke shop after smoke shop locating next to each other, and uh and I would not like to repeat that mistake uh with dispensaries uh as well.

So I want to thank my colleague, I'll support the the motion expanding.

Uh I think high schools is an important factor as well.

Um I think that uh thousand feet, particularly with teens, is uh is not too much to ask.

I know that it creates a limited space, but those are spaces that I think need to be particularly after school where kids are hanging out.

They usually hang out around the campus, you know.

That's you know, I remember being a high school kid hanging around with the parking lot after school, uh, a thousand feet is two blocks.

It's not it's not asking a lot.

I think that's appropriate for the high school provision.

So uh appreciate those comments, and I just want to thank staff for uh I know it was a rocky last hearing, but I these are uh essential that we go back to the council call-up provision, even in the other, even in the industrial sector, um, you know, they have to go through the COP process.

Do we need a deeper conversation about how we make the COP process more efficient, more cost effective, whether you're, you know, a uh coffee roaster or a restaurant or a business other type of business.

Yes, I think the COP process needs um you know a better way of executing.

But thank you uh again for staff for uh responding to those concerns.

Thank you, Councilmember Maple.

All right, thank you, Mayor.

Um, and want to echo my colleague here and say thank you to staff for all the work.

I know this has been years in the making now and has had many different iterations.

Um I know that people um have strong feelings on all sides of this issue.

And so I just want to appreciate everyone who showed up today, everyone who's written in, uh, appreciate you being here and hearing from you.

Um I also want to thank the staff for listening.

Um so it's very clear based on the staff report that's here today that we do listen, that they are taking into account um the feedback from different organizations, from people from our faith community, and and so I think that's very clearly reflected here, uh, even though it may not be what everyone agrees on.

Uh, I think it's clear that we listen.

I think there's one one thing that I I didn't hear today as much, but I think it's important to note in this whole context, um, and that is the elephant in the room, which is the illicit market.

So when you say you go to the park and you smell someone smoking, guess what?

Probably from an illegal dealer.

Um when you see someone who's gone and you know, especially a young person who's accessed it, definitely from an illegal dealer.

Um we know because we've done uh the city and the state does regular inspections at all of our cannabis um businesses, we know that the rate of of people under the age of 21 accessing is virtually non-existent in these places that has been studied over and over again.

And so I just want to be clear that I don't think that this is that where that these locations are where the youth are accessing them, but I do understand the concern of seeing it near you.

I really do.

Uh and I do understand the concern of what does this mean if a young person is able to see it across the street or across the street from church or next to my school.

Um and so while you know it was brought up the EPS study that was done um in 2022 now, several years ago, um, was made it clear that there's there is not a direct data connection uh to negative consequences.

We do know that there are still a lot of uh feelings about this and that there are there's very real consequences that do happen.

We know that we see it in the community.

And so I think this really does strike a balance.

You know, for me, um I I wanted it to go further, but I recognize where where everybody else is too, and I think that's what this job is all about.

It's about compromise and working with one another to find um the path forward that that makes sense for us and our communities and all the various districts that we represent.

Uh and the last thing that I'll note is that with the current rules that we had, even besides this, we already go well far above and beyond the state law here in the city of Sacramento.

We have the entire time.

Um the rules that we have in place, the buffers that we have in place go belong beyond state law, and most other communities in the state of California.

So I hope that folks see that that we are able to see that we that there is a lot of investment into making sure that those buffers exist while still uh having an industry that can succeed in our city.

It's important because we know that the only way you can beat out the illicit market is by having a legal market that is following the rules that is following all the state laws and regulations that is being taxed, that has testing, which is something that the illicit market does not have.

Um and so I think this is the balance that we strike.

Um, this was striked after prohibition with alcohol as well.

Um, and you know, I know that we can exist in harmony because we do it every day.

When you walk out of your down the street in the road, and you there's a a gas station that sells alcohol.

You walk into a restaurant, they're selling a glass of wine.

You walk uh down the street, and you're gonna find and yet we have learned learned a coexistence in harmony with alcohol, which is a drug and is something obviously that folks under the age of 21 should not access, and we found a way to do that within our market while while eliminating people who used to create uh and um make alcohol that was killing people in their bathtubs.

This is a long time ago, but this is part of the history.

So, where we're trying to get to, I think, as a state is how do we eliminate the illicit market and all of the um the illegal drugs and and products that are making young people sick and are allowing them to access it on the internet and other places while having a thriving industry.

So I think we're we're striking that balance here.

So I'll be supporting this today.

I just want to thank the staff.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'll be supporting the motion that's on the floor.

I want to thank my colleague, council member Kaplan for uh putting the motion on the table.

Um it's the exact same motion that I was thinking.

So uh hopefully our time on the council together, we're starting to think a whole lot alike.

Um and I enjoy that, but I also want to thank um the pastors and the ministers who came here today um and really advocated their voice in a way outside of the pulpit that you know this was their pulpit today to let us know why this is important and why we need to stand strong together to make sure that we don't create more harm in what was what in in what we could have potentially a decision we could have potentially made.

And and I thank them, but I also thank them for bringing all the young people and hearing the voice of the young people.

That that touched my heart as much as anything that has happened today, that you were here today to say no, no loopholes, protect more than schools, right?

Make sure our churches and our parks are protected.

That's right, raise it up high, you know.

And so I just want to acknowledge you and give you a round of applause.

For being here today, and let this not be the last effort that you stand up strong for.

You know, any time something is going on, whether it's in the school or in city hall, you stand strong to make sure that your voice is heard.

So I just want to thank our pastors, our young people, and all those who spoke on behalf of keeping this ordinance where it is, and um I'm hoping that we have the votes to be able to move this forward.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I will be voting no on this item.

Um I don't think that there is an appetite in my district to add more dispensaries to the district.

Um I did bring this up at one of my Capacito Concarina office hours, uh, where I asked my community, like, how do you feel about cannabis?

How do you feel about the policy that we're doing?

And I heard loud and clear from my community that they didn't want more dispensaries in our district, and so I want to acknowledge the the voice in my community, and so I'll be a no on this item.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, first of all, I want to I I want to thank those who've come to speak today, regardless of your point of view.

It informs it informs the conversation to have those those views all represented in the in this public conversation.

Um secondly, I want to uh I want to uh thank the staff because this four-year road has been a long and twisty one to say the least, and I think it's it's a reflection of how not just uh the community, but how elected officials still struggle with this issue.

Should we think about dispensaries more like coffee shops, or should we think about them more like liquor stores?

And I think and I think that we're still uh we're still having that that debate uh with sharp differences of of opinion, not just in Sacramento, but across across the state uh and beyond.

Uh and council member maple's point is certainly not to be lost here about the illicit uh market as well and its and it's its impact.

So I this route has been a complicated one because those are the kinds of issues we're struggling with.

Where should where should we land uh on this on this question uh should we should we be uh of the view that we have enough and we don't need more uh which there's certainly uh validity to holding that that view or should we be of of the view that what the evidence and studies that have been done indicate is is that there are not significant adverse impacts of uh of dispensaries most of us I think are guided by our own personal view of this subject and this substance uh and our own personal uh experience uh for uh that determination uh it's less it's less about what a study shows and it's and it's more about what we have seen and heard and experienced uh in our case in district two I think the there's a strongly held belief that that we have enough in that part of the city in fact we have more than our share uh and so the the point of view of saying no more uh is uh i is uh uh a um appealing uh thought um on the other hand i i think that if uh we look at what the impacts have been um it is it is not easy to identify uh a substantial amount of evidence that indicates that that the impacts have have been adverse beyond community sensibility which is not an inconsiderable element but nonetheless is doesn't does not rise to the level of of a crime so uh that that preface is all a way of trying to just share some of some of the context of my own thinking about this about this subject and uh frankly I think that we would probably be at least as well off if not better off if we thought about this more as the way we think about alcohol licensing and uh the uh the conditional use permit process that we apply to to alcohol we have two different constructs and I'm not sure that that the that really makes sense uh because of the the similarity of the considerations for the two uh for the two different substances nonetheless we are where we are maybe we we will evolve to something that's closer to a com a conditional use permit process as we use for for alcohol over time uh that remains to be to be seen in this in this instance uh there are a couple things that that I uh do conclude one one is I think that restoring the call-up procedure is is a sound step I I think that makes a lot of sense in this context it's uh such a sensitive and remains such a sensitive subject uh I also believe that providing uh the same treatment for faith-based uh institutions as we do for a host of of other public uh uses makes sense and so I support that uh and I appreciate the advocacy of of those who have carried carried that issue and raised it when it when it was not initially included and we have we have responded to that, and I think I think appropriately so uh I I also think about frankly something we're not doing in this ordinance, which is with respect.

Uh, I think it was the production and and and testing of making it a zoning administrator decision for um for approval as opposed to a CUP approval, uh with greater than 600 feet because those frankly can be uses as I've seen that can have some some neighborhood impacts as well.

But that we will leave for another day.

So, so in substance uh and it's and some uh I s I will support the ordinance that uh is on the table, the motion that's the that's on the table.

I think it does strike a balance.

I think it respects public and important private institutions, uh that uh deserve uh recognition uh in terms of uh buffering.

Uh, but at the same time, we're doing some things that I think are sensible in the context of of regulating uh cannabis uh sales and streamlining the uh review process, which I think was a large part of our conversation at one of the hearings previously.

Uh and so we're not we're not making it uh more onerous, we're making it uh less so for those who want to try to establish uh dispensaries uh and those um types of businesses.

So that is a balance, and that's what that's what that's where I think it makes sense to be today.

Uh, and so as I said a moment ago, I will I will support the motion.

Thank you, Councilmember Bank.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I first uh want to take this moment to thank everyone who came today, um, all the pastors, all our young people and all our advocates who came today to uh speak uh about their experiences.

Um, you know, our faith-based organizations uh serve a critical role uh in an important asset in our community, uh, youth programming, senior program, you name it, not just on Sundays, but um seven days a week, right?

And so I want to hold space and acknowledge that, and I do believe that as a city we have a responsibility to be thoughtful and deliberate in our decision-making process, making sure that community-serving institutions like our churches or schools are preserved and that their voices are heard.

Um, and I also want to take a moment to thank staff uh just for their hard work to get us to this moment.

Um, at the last council meeting when we had this conversation, I couldn't support the ordinance as is, um, and it was actually during that time that I requested that council members actually have the opportunity to call up any proposed site for a public hearing before the final approval.

I remember walking across the dais here talking to council member Gera and try and figure out how we could uh come to a compromise, and uh I actually do believe that um the call-up provision uh really serves as an important safeguard in the process because we now have this tool available to us, and so what does that mean for me as a council member?

Uh it means that um as a council member I'm gonna be able to have all the relevant information, I could fully evaluate potential impacts, benefits, and unintended consequences for the churches or the minority-owned businesses, and I think that's important for the council members uh to have.

Um, and we should use it, and I I think all of us should use it when a project raised significant community concerns when we hear from our churches or our institution, if there are long-term impacts in on neighborhoods or youth-serving organizations.

I think that's important.

Um, and the reason why I am supporting the motion on the table is because we have this call-up um provision.

Uh, that council members can actually do this during a public hearing, uh, which means that we will get an opportunity to engage with the community as well.

I think for me, it just provides an additional layer of protection and accountability.

It didn't have it before, uh, because at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is also balance um the interests of our community-based organization, our community members, and our minority-owned businesses that often are left behind.

And so, for me, our goal is not to create more barriers, but to ensure that we have a fair and thoughtful process that protects our community asset while also supporting equitable economic opportunities.

Um, and that's the fine balance that uh that we have to walk.

Um, but again, the last time we had this conversation, um, you know, it was really hard for me to support it until we added the uh direction to add the provision for council members to call up a project, and I think that um, you know, I support that, and so with that, I'll be supporting the motion on the table.

Um, with that, we have a motion and a second.

I I just want to know that I support this.

I think this is a good compromise, and thank the council members for fine-tuning it.

I guess the big picture going back here nearly 20 years that the city of SAC was one of the first cities in California that decided they want to take this industry out of the shadows and regulate it and tax it.

And with that, we do have a program that we know funds our our quite a few youth programs with that with measure L.

So we have been a leader on this, but we can focus on refining it and making sure it works.

And you know, the big picture, speaking of the shadows, is you know, you go you drive by.

First of all, I'll admit that I am not a consumer of these products, not to disparage it.

It's come a long way over the years, but some of mine are saying some of the fastest growing consumers are older people, and they don't want to have to go buy stuff in the shadows.

And like as Mr.

Dickinson said, want to make sure the products are tested and safe and so forth.

So having these lounges of a legal product is something that anybody would want to do.

I will note that um this is a very issue to my life.

I have teenage kids, and for those council members with little ones, teenage years is rough, right?

Council member Vang.

And so the um opportunities for exposure to these products and um, you know, cannabis vaping and all that is real and legit and easy for kids to get.

Uh, but I will say I'm 99% certain that it's not through these legalized cannabis shops, it's through other places that they can easily get them online or through other um illicit entities, but it's not through our licensed cannabis uh shops.

And then lastly, as council member um Gera noted, uh you know, I had a district just like all of you, and I remember, you know, getting inquiries about you know nuisance properties and liquor stores and having seen cannabis locations in the city now for nearly 15 years.

Rarely are there from problems around our cannabis locations.

So with that, I think this is the sound approach, and uh continues the city of Sacramento having smart regulations related to this industry.

So with that, we have a motion a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

I think you should do it.

Okay, there's one.

Okay, okay.

Eight ayes, one no.

That is um we have closed the public hearing and a no for council member talamantes.

All others in favor, no motion passes.

Thank you.

We now move to item 19, which is a Ntowa space and habitat conservation plan fee extension of interim authorization.

And I do need a four-fifth vote on this item.

That would be the moment.

I thought that was a real person.

I didn't have a lot of people, and okay.

So let's take just a moment.

If you're leaving, please do so quietly.

We do have a few more council jet items to go.

Mayor, I might recommend that we'll take a one-minute break.

Um, I might recommend that we take item 20 before item 19.

Okay.

I can guarantee you that um it's less than a two-minute presentation.

Let's do that.

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

Yeah.

We'll take item 20 and then item 19.

When our council members return, that's what I was saying, give them a minute.

We could even take item 21.

So we will now move to item 20, which is the city council policy regarding disruption of city operated telephonic or internet services during council meetings.

Um, this is from my office.

Um, and I can guarantee you it's less than a two-minute presentation.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Members and charter Officers.

I'm Wendy Clock Johnson, the Assistant city clerk.

As you know, last year, Governor Newsom signed the Brown Act Modernization Act, commonly known as Senate Bill 707 into legislation.

This legislation requires that the Sacramento City Council as an eligible legislative body to provide opportunities for remote remote public participation during city council meetings.

SB 707 also requires that the city council adopt a policy addressing disruptions to the telephonic services that the city uses to provide remote participation.

The resolution before you adopts that required policy, establishes the procedures the city will follow in the event of a disruption or outage of the city's remote participation platform or city controlled systems.

Thank you.

I have a motion by Councilmember Gera, a second by councilmember Kaplan.

I do have one speaker, Lambert, on this item.

Thank you, Miss Clock.

I was under the impression that this might address what we've been concerned about, which is uh there's no more call-in.

Uh and it's it was disrupted by a guy who shook up City Hall to the core.

And ever since he did that, a lot of seniors I know where I come from have asked me that you should turn the phone system back on to accept their calls.

They can't come down here.

So that's a to me that's a uh freedom of speech issue.

Also, this uh overhead.

I saw at work one night.

I keep hearing that it's out of order and all of that, but I saw a lawyer come up here and say, Hey, can you turn this on?

And somebody got up and turned it on.

So uh I think it's intentional that something's wrong with this.

There's nothing wrong with this.

They turned that on, and it was a long meeting that lasted until 11 30 at night.

So it was just one of the meetings, it's easy to go look up.

All you gotta do is go back and look at what was the last city council meeting that went to 11 30 and they turned this on.

This should be on.

I mean, nobody wants to show something like this or turn our backs on you and show it to the public.

You should be able to show that.

And um internet services.

If this is talking about remote working, I'm a person that says that I don't believe people working remotely should get a raise.

What are they doing getting paid for internet service at their home?

That's uh abuse of COVID to me.

You should people working remotely should not get a raise.

What's your raise for?

You're already saving money by being at home.

Mayor that concludes our public comment on this item.

You do have a motion by Councilmember Gera, second by Kaplan.

Okay, thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Seeing no noes or abstentions, it passes nine zero.

Thank you, Ms.

Clock.

We'll move back to item 19, the Nanoba Space and Habitat Conservation Plan fee, extension of interim authorization.

And I will open the public hearing.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

I'm Matthew Isola, associate planner with the community development department.

This item is a brief follow-up to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan fee adjustment that the council adopted on May 19th of this year.

The HCP fee funds the mitigation obligations of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, including habitat land acquisition, restoration, and long-term management.

These activities are what allowed development to proceed in North and South Natomas under the city's federal and state incidental take permits.

The Natomas Basin Conservancy updates the underlying finance model each year, and this year's update supported a modest adjustment to the fee.

At the May 19th hearing, the council took three actions.

It adopted the Nexus study, it adjusted the HCP fee by a four-fifths vote, and made urgency findings that allowed the adjusted fee to take effect immediately rather than waiting the standard 60 days under the mitigation fee act.

The adjustment increased the fee from 47,031 dollars to 47,567 per gross acre, an increase of about 536 dollars or 1.1%, mainly driven by increases in administration operations and maintenance costs.

There is no impact to the general fund.

That immediate authorization is only effective for 30 days.

Today's action extends it for an additional 30 days, bridging the gap until the fee takes permanent effect on its own terms on July 18th, which is 60 days from the original adoption.

The effect of this is that the adjusted fee stays continuous in place through the grading season with no lapse in coverage.

I'll note that there are no changes to the fee amount or nexus study.

This is purely the procedural step to maintain what the council already approved.

Like the original action, this extension also requires a four-fifths vote.

Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution extending the interim authorization and is available for any questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember, are we a public comment?

No.

No public comment.

Councilmember Kaplan.

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

I'll second.

Motion is second.

All is in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

No for extensions.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Stephanie Green.

I'm the program manager for federal programs at SHRA.

Tonight I'm presenting workshop number two for the 2027 one-year annual action plan versus the City of Sacramento.

As a reminder, the action plan outlines how the city will propose to use federal HUD entitlement funding during the upcoming program year.

Those programs include community development block grant or CDBG, home investment partnerships program, emergency solutions grant or ESG, and the housing opportunity for persons with AIDS or HOPWA.

This action plan process began earlier this year with workshop one in February, and since then staff have been working closely with the city departments to identify and evaluate potential projects.

Today's workshop, I'll review the estimated funding allocations, present the draft list of projects, and we would like to receive any input before the action plan is finalized later this year.

Starting off with CDBG for 2027, we estimate the city will receive about 4.9 million, and this is an estimate based off of prior year's allocations.

This slide provides a high-level breakdown of how those funds are proposed to be allocated among the eligible activity categories.

As in prior years, public services are capped at 15% of the entitlement, and administration is capped at 20%.

We're currently estimating about $670,000 for public services with services, which is below the allowable cap.

And administration is estimated at about $790,000, which is well below the HUD maximum of $910,000.

Oh, let me go back, sorry.

Another major component of the budget is the required HUD loan repayment associated with Marisol Village.

This is estimated at about $1.29 million for 2027.

After accounting for these allocations, the remaining funding is for infrastructure and public facilities, housing rehab and preservation, and a small capital reserve for potential project adjustments.

Overall, we're proposing about 1.55 million for infrastructure and public facilities and about 405,000 for housing-related activities.

This slide and the next show each of the projects proposed, grouped by district.

We had three requests in district one, three and district two, one in district three, and one in District Four.

On district in district six, we have one, five, and district seven, although they are all at the same park and they are separate activities.

One in District 8 and one that would provide citywide services.

These requests significantly exceed available funding, requiring staff to prioritize projects based on available resources, readiness, and city priorities.

I'm sorry, uh I'm trying to hit back and it keeps going forward.

Sorry.

There we go.

As part of the review process, staff identified several requested projects that were either not currently eligible under HUD regulations or not sufficiently ready to move forward during the 2027 program year.

Ineligible projects are the two at the bottom of this slide: the South Natomas Park Project, which is not located in a qualifying low MOD area, and the Animal Shelter Improvements Project, which would serve the entire city and therefore not provide direct or exclusive benefits to low mod income residents.

And then the Robla Parks Project did not require any additional funding.

And projects that may still be viable in future years, but currently would require additional planning or project development would be the Norwood Playground Project, Norwood Complete Streets, and the Del Paso Park Project.

We'll continue coordinating with departments on these projects for possible future action plan cycles.

After completing the eligibility and readiness review, staff developed preliminary funding recommendations from the remaining list of projects based on city priorities.

Shown here is that remaining list of projects, and to the far right, identifies which are recommended for funding and for how much.

The projects currently recommended for funding include the Dixie on Alleyways Design Project, Marina Vista baseball field improvements, Fruit Ridge Road Complete Streets, Richmond Park Basketball Lighting, which actually is uh the basketball courts and the softball fields lighting and improvements to the asphalt, and the 24th Street bypass park improvements.

The recommendation for all of these projects is to fund the full requested amount.

The total funding is about 1.45 million.

This slide summarizes the proposed allocations for the other funding categories of housing, public services, and administration.

For housing, funding was proposed for both the rebuilding together minor repair program and SHRA's home repair program.

These programs will help to preserve existing affordable housing stock and assist low-income homeowners with critical health and safety repairs.

For public services, we propose the Animal Care Services Homelessness Outreach and Assistance Program, which is a new program that was brought to us this year.

Meals on Wheels as well as the Capital Park Hotel public services.

Administrative funding supports fair housing services, including the renter help line and project sentinel, and overall direct administration and supports functions of the federal grant programs.

For the city's home ESG and HOPWA programs, home funds will be used for multifamily affordable housing construction and rehab.

ESG is proposed for rapid rehousing and/or prevention efforts, and HOPWA funding will support supportive services for persons living with HIV and AIDS.

Together, these programs continue to support affordable housing production, homelessness response efforts, and supportive housing services throughout the community.

Finally, the slide summarizes the remaining action plan timeline.

Following tonight's workshop, we will continue meeting with the city departments throughout the summer.

Final budgets will be developed by August, and then the action plan will return to the city council in October for formal approval.

After that, we will submit the completed action plan to HUD.

So that concludes my presentation.

We're seeking feedback on the proposed funding allocations and recommended projects before finalizing the action plan.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks.

Actually, I had a question off the top.

There's a 15% allocation for administration of the CDBG money.

And this probably isn't a question for you to answer, but I wonder if if we could manage to get away with less allocated to administration than that.

Yes, so we're allowed up to 20%, and this year we are actually much less than the 20%.

The 20% maximum for administration is 910.

We're at 790, and only 590 of that is actually going directly to CDBG administration.

Well, I I appreciate that, but it doesn't answer the question whether we could get away with less.

Maybe Chris wants to weigh in.

Yeah, well, Chris or Christine.

But um do you want to go, Chris?

Go for it.

Good afternoon.

I appreciate the question.

We when we first presented to you back in January, or was it March?

Um for the first action plan workshop, that was the first time I've interacted with the city council, and I heard the concerns of the admin costs.

Was there a way for us to reduce those costs?

So we did go back and look at that, and we looked at the history as well.

And we have been charging almost a 20% per year based on the number of staff that are working on the projects and the and managing the program.

But as we revisited that and looked at realigning, we did reduce and we actually reduce the cost about 14%.

The concern we heard from the council.

So you went to 14, then you needed 60.

So you took the middle, the middle.

Apologies for that, but that's right now it's based on the precedent of the S of SHRA with regard to our budget, and we are in our budget cycle for 2027.

We did have we did have to put that back in based on um union requirements and so forth.

Okay, I um I I appreciate the explanation.

You know, we're searching for more money to get into these into the project.

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

So there the thank you, Chris.

There are there are two very uh worthy entrance.

Uh one the alleyway, the Dixie N alleyways, and and the other is the Babcock Park improvements.

Um without without without doubt, I'd like to scoop up money from other districts, but that might be a difficult enterprise to undertake.

I I I'm trying to figure out whether there's a reason in particular that you looked at the alleyways as opposed to the park uh improvements at at this point, and recognizing that we've got a mobility study going on right now along Arden Way uh as well that's gonna make some recommendations and whether this is whether this is connected to that in in some fashion.

But we also have work that's being done at Babcock Park, and we're gonna take hopefully one of these days open open that.

Um, so I don't know whether the best way to resolve that particular conundrum is is uh cage fighting that seems to be in vogue in certain people these days.

Um but uh can you can can you comment on that from your perspective?

Yeah, I mean we certainly could fund Dixie An alleyways over the the park project.

I think um, you know, we were going based off some staff priorities, but also you know, we funded parks project last year and didn't fund any um transportation projects, and so this year we thought we might try to balance it a little bit and do some transportation projects as well, but you know, we're open to comments, that's why we're here.

Well, this is just the planning money for the for the alleyways.

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

Uh yes, at least so, yes.

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

Yes, and while we could use funding CDBG for planning, there is one, you know, concern there where if we use it for planning and we don't end up with a project ultimately, then that money will actually have to be categorized as admin um under the admin category.

So, you know, that is a bit of a concern when we're using CDBG funds for planning projects only.

Um so we would like to see a project move forward that is pretty sure that it's gonna move forward and actually break ground.

Yeah, well, and that's really it starts to get to the core of it, which is which is what can we actually deliver?

What and uh maybe Leslie's got a comment on this, but um, if we can I would tend to say if we can actually deliver the park improvements, maybe that's what we ought to do as opposed to planning for something else which has got great merit to it.

But how do we how do we actually fund the project?

So maybe this is this may not be a conversation that has to happen right here and now.

Maybe this is something we all talk about uh together later since we're not taking action today.

But I'm interested if you have a comment.

Yes, sir.

I I do have a couple comments as it relates to the Dixie Ann alleyway improvements, and and I think we certainly can revisit that and see if we uh prioritize the park improvements instead.

But I will say that they the Dixie Ann Street improvements are in um some ways tied to the Arden Way HSC grant uh that was uh provided, so there were some match requirements for some of those improvements.

And it's my understanding this is tied to some of that match requirement, but we can revisit it as we are uh just approaching uh this list for your input today, and before we finalize the list, we'll have some more conversations internally with the public works department, the parks department, and certainly CDPG staff and your staff.

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

Um yes, so that there was some uh requirements for the HSC.

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

Okay, all right.

Well, I'd like to be part of that conversation.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Kaplan.

Just quick feedback.

Um, I don't want it presented in a certain way.

You called it Norwood Complete Streets.

It's actually not Norwood complete streets because that is a separate plan.

This is just looking at a certain section of of completing a sidewalk.

So I I just want to make sure that that's clarified when it comes back that that we're not confusing the two because that was one of the things of like not covering, you know, because it's not funded.

Well, yes, Norwood Complete Streets is not, but we might be able to find a way with the completing a sidewalk to Norwood Junior High.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Guerrera.

Thank you very much.

First, you know, I'm very uh excited to see um, you know, prioritizing Fruit Ridge Road, particularly on the safety issues, you know, the uh the pedestrian issues.

We have a school right there where there's heavy traffic, uh, and uh the condition of that road has been just uh taking a quite a bit of beating from all the heavy duty traffic.

So I think the project moving forward to allocate funds to do all the safety and road improvements on Fruit Ridge Road are critical and to helping slowing down the speed of traffic that's there.

You know, and beyond just council district six.

I mean, I I appreciate the focus here on uh meals on wheels, the support for senior services, uh and particularly all the supportive services involved in uh some of the programs that we've heard some concerns about.

Capitol Park Hotel, I think making sure that we have the services in there to address some of the challenges we have, including the homeless outreach component, are are in um uh critical.

Let's hope, you know.

I hope that home program stays uh intact.

Um I uh like to see more of those funds for multifamily housing construction uh and rehabilitation.

I think not only as we are growing our housing stock, making sure that we're maintaining our older housing stock and rehabilitation.

So just wanted to thank that for that action plan moving forward.

I know many of these have been years in the works, but I think we have to stay the course on some of those programs uh and make sure that we actually execute them, not just on the planning phase, but actually on the construction phase.

So I'm looking forward to a lot of those road safety improvements as well.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

May I have one speaker, Lambert?

Do the motion.

Uh I wasn't sure exactly what this was talking about, but then as a native, knowing that there's over 20 communities in District 2.

The fur right away when I heard Dixie Ann, I know what that is, and I know what's going on right there.

But I kept hearing some parks, but they didn't say what park.

So uh maybe Leslie Fritchy can and somebody can give me clarity because uh there are parks, there's many parks in District 2.

Somebody said Del Paso Park.

A lot of people think Del Paso Park is in Del Paso Heights.

It's not, it's near if I if my memory's good, it's near Harry Renfrey Park, which is a different location.

How do I know Harry Renfrey Park?

Uh, me and my brother and a lot of people, we played there.

So we know that area.

So when I heard Del Paso Park, uh, I'm putting on the record that on my way here, I can't.

I went by and I've been studying this park.

I think everybody on the Rostrum should take a trip over to a park called Wood Lake Park, especially the new city manager.

You should get familiar with District 2.

It's over 20 communities.

Go take a look at Wood Lake Park.

I went by there today.

Do you know that place has two water fountains that work?

Children's apparatus and a baseball field, but what it doesn't have that children are gonna want to do, they're gonna say, can I go potty?

And there's nothing there for them to use, and the homeless are there.

So that's unsanitary to me.

To me, that's not a park if it doesn't have restrooms.

It should have restrooms like Hagenwood Park.

That's where you should put your money at, is in Hagenwood Park.

We were talking about Babcock Park.

Okay, okay.

I'm talking about Wood Lake.

Well, I know what you're talking about.

We were talking about Babcock Park.

We now move to Council Comments Ideas Questions and AB 123 reports.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have up?

See none.

Um, I have through two speakers for public comments matters not on the agenda.

Lambert, then Patrick B.

Mr.

Davis, you wanted to speak on matters on the agenda.

Since you brought that up about Babcock Park and all of that, let me bring something up that uh we're very concerned about.

The uh there was a company called Wide Open Walls.

We're gonna stay focused on this.

Wide open walls and also some bonus events.

They received a hundred and sixty thousand dollars under a no-written agreement.

That's unheard of, and they were caught by the auditors department.

The millennials and me, they think we should have gotten that kind of money.

We have no scandals on us.

How many people can say that?

And we now know where the money came from.

I would suggest that the city rostrum and the city attorney and the city manager's office have an emergency meeting because we have found out where that money has come from, and specifically in this report, it says that you're not supposed to award any written agreement over $500.

And let's explain what the money went to.

$50, $100,000 went to a company to help them with their advertising and public relations.

Do you know how many millennials I could have hired for that kind of money?

Plus, we could have bought a couple of delivery trucks to take our cheesecakes in the heat anywhere in California.

That's gonna be a tremendous scandal on this city.

How dare you take our taxpayer monies and give people no written agreements, and nobody's, they said they couldn't audit it.

How in the world can you not audit money if a check's written?

Unless they're writing their own checks.

But it was the staff that cut those checks loose.

Next speaker is Patrick B.

Is Patrick's still here?

I don't see any movement.

Mayor, we've concluded the business today.

You may adjourn.

Okay.

Thank you.

We will adjourn and come back in nineteen minutes.