Law and Legislation Committee Special Meeting - March 29, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Law and Legislation Committee Special Meeting - March 29, 2022
The Law and Legislation Committee held a special teleconference meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 12:30 p.m., adjourning at 1:53 p.m. The committee considered three items: an update to the Military Equipment Use Policy, a proposed ordinance restricting city staff from using their titles to support or oppose ballot measures, and a framework for a Community Benefits Ordinance. Public testimony focused on deficiencies in the military equipment policy, and the committee provided direction on each item.
Public Comments & Testimony (Item 2 - Military Equipment Use Policy)
- Louise Melher: Expressed disturbance at the process, citing lack of civilian oversight and incomplete information on past equipment use; urged complete reporting on deployments.
- Barb Atwell (American Friends Service Committee): Raised three concerns: the policy describes only authorized users, not purposes; it does not conform to AB 48 (limiting tear gas use); and the LRAD policy does not meet AB 481's standard of safeguarding civil rights.
- Marshall Arnwine (ACLU of Northern California): Requested council reject the policy because it lacks specific authorized uses for each equipment, particularly chemical agents, and violates AB 48 by using language like "not limited to." Noted the 180-day review period and urged thorough review.
- Jennifer II (American Friends Service Committee): Echoed earlier comments, noting that the LRAD has resulted in lawsuits (e.g., New York City paid $750,000). Stressed there is no urgency and council should send the policy back for correction.
- Diane Rosenbloom (Sacramento resident): Urged policy to specify when equipment cannot be used, citing risks of LRAD hearing damage, chemical agents in crowds, and emotional impacts of armored vehicle deployment.
- John Lindsay Poland (American Friends Service Committee): Emphasized policies should not authorize unlimited use; need for de-escalation requirements and explicit references to AB 48 limitations on chemical agents and impact projectiles in crowd control.
Discussion Items
1. Military Equipment Use Policy (Item 2)
- Deputy Chief Norman Leong presented a proposal to repeal and replace Ordinance 2021-0034 to add four omitted items: flashbang, armor-piercing ammunition, two types of UAVs (micro and aerial). Stated the department grounded the micro UAVs pending approval.
- Councilmember Jeff Harris expressed support for moving the policy to City Council, noting the value of UAS tools for safety. He made a motion to recommend the ordinance to council.
- Councilmember Katie Valenzuela opposed immediate forwarding, citing lack of 30-day advance notice (noted the December process was rushed), and argued the policy should include clearer prohibitions and references to AB 48. She recommended the policy come back to committee for amendments, allowing 180-day timeline.
- City Attorney Steve Itagaki clarified that the 180-day clock started on submission (March 25) and use of equipment is permitted during that period. He explained that the ordinance must be repealed and replaced annually per state law.
- Assistant City Manager Ken Chonlin warned that overloading the ordinance with employment policies would create an administrative burden, as those policies change frequently.
- Councilmember Eric Guerra supported a 60-day return to committee to refine language without delay.
- Outcome: Committee gave direction to staff to continue working with stakeholders and return to Law and Legislation within 60 days with clarified language, including better delineation of when equipment can and cannot be used and cross-references to related policies. No formal vote was taken; the motion by Harris died for lack of a second.
2. Ordinance on City Staff Use of Titles for Ballot Measures (Item 3)
- Chair Jay Schenirer introduced the item, prompted by Measure G where a senior staffer used their city title to oppose a measure that council took no position on. He proposed an ordinance requiring alignment: if council takes a position, staff may only use their title in alignment; if council takes no position, staff may not use their city title at all.
- Councilmember Harris disagreed, arguing staff have a right to use their titles as voters, and saw no problem with differing opinions. He favored status quo.
- Councilmember Guerra supported the proposal, noting similar practices in the CSU system.
- Councilmember Valenzuela supported the direction, stating the public would justifiably conflate a staff title with city position.
- Chair Schenirer moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and bring it to City Council for consideration.
- Vote: 3-1 (Guerra, Valenzuela, Schenirer in favor; Harris opposed). Motion passed.
3. Community Benefits Ordinance Framework and Outreach (Item 1)
- Leslie Fritzsche and Ellen Sullivan (Office of Innovation and Economic Development) presented a framework based on examples from Detroit and Richmond. Key components: trigger (thresholds for requiring a CBA), benefits menu, oversight, and metrics. Proposed triggers: Tier 1 ($75M+ project value with $1M+ city investment); Tier 2 ($3M+ value with $300k+ city investment). Aggie Square settlement requires a draft ordinance by June.
- Public Comment: Lambert Davis (To the Bay and Back Cheesecakes) urged metrics to benefit underserved neighborhoods like Del Paso Heights, noting his family business is the only Black-owned cheesecake business in Sacramento.
- Committee discussion emphasized flexibility, avoiding overly prescriptive requirements that could deter development, and ensuring local hire, procurement, apprenticeship programs, and anti-displacement measures. Councilmember Valenzuela suggested including post-construction job quality and housing affordability. Councilmember Harris cautioned that triggers should be set high (millions) to avoid deterring small projects. Chair Schenirer supported in-lieu payment options, developer certainty, and oversight via meet-and-confer processes. Committee requested staff work closely with SAC IWD (Sacramento Investment Without Displacement) and engage developers (e.g., Wexford, GSAC, Metro Chamber, labor unions) in outreach.
- Outcome: Committee provided direction to staff on the framework and directed staff to bring back a draft community benefits ordinance to Law and Legislation for consideration. Staff committed to meeting the June timeline but emphasized doing it right over meeting an artificial deadline.
Key Outcomes
- Military Equipment Use Policy: Staff directed to continue working with stakeholders and return to Law and Legislation within 60 days with refined language incorporating clearer use restrictions and cross-references.
- Staff Ballot Measure Ordinance: Motion passed (3-1) directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance restricting city staff from using their titles to support or oppose ballot measures unless aligned with council action, to be brought to City Council.
- Community Benefits Ordinance: Staff directed to proceed with outreach and bring a draft ordinance back to the committee for consideration, with guidance to include flexible triggers, a menu of benefits, enforcement mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement.
Meeting Transcript
Chair Staff is ready when you are. Great, thanks very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the law and legislation committee. Mindy, could Madam Clerk, could you please call a roll to establish the quorum? Thank you. Councilmember Gera is expected momentarily. Councilmember Harris. Here. Councilmember Valenzuela. Here. And Chair Shaneer. Here. Thanks very much. Councilmember Valenzuela, do you want to lead us in the land acknowledgement and the pledge? Absolutely. It would be my pleasure. Please stand. Please rise for the opening acknowledgement in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands to the original people of this land. The Nissanong people, the Southern Maidu, Bali and Plains, Miwok, Putwin Winton people, 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 today and active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous Peoples' history, contributions, and lives. Thank you. Now please salute and pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thanks very much. What we'd like to do, because Mr. Gera is running a little bit behind, is change the order of our items here. We'll do item two first, then item three, and then come back to item one. Item one is the community benefit agreement discussion. So item two. Yes, sir. You are on. Okay. Um my name is Norm Leong, your deputy chief of police, and we are coming before Long Ledge today to uh update in ordinance um that the council approved as emergency ordinance back on December 14th of 2021. Uh as you may recall, AB 481 required us to uh enact an ordinance and approve by the governing body for specified equipment deemed military use. And um when we did so back in December, we omitted four items. Um each of those items are similar to items already approved, but function slightly differently uh than those items um already approved. Um the four items that we are adding to the policy are um a flashbang, uh which is a distraction uh disorientation device used primarily in this case uh for hostage rescue situations, ammunition that's for armor piercing when we engage a suspect that um is armed and also wearing body armor, um, and then two um unmanned aerial vehicles, uh one of which is what we call a micro that we use inside residences uh to clear before SWAT officers enter, and then the other a uh uh UAV that uh hovers over locations uh that we have a legal right to do so, uh such as search warrants and stuff. Um we anticipate having to both by law come before lawn ledge and council umce a year with a annual report, as well as when we purchase new items uh or replenish items uh that were already approved. With that, uh I'll turn it back over. Okay, madam clerk. Do we have members of the public who wish to speak on this? Yes, Chair. I have four hands raised to make public comment on this item. Okay, let's go ahead and hear from those individuals. And if I may, I do have a read to the record um in regards to the ordinance. Ordinance section one C states the ordinance was submitted to the city council on March 22nd, and the correct date is March 25th. So a minor change.
openpublica.com