All right.

Good morning.

We now call this meeting at the Sacramento Law and Legislation Committee to order at 11 a.m.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the rule?

Thank you, Council Member Dickinson.

Councilmember Plecky Baum.

Council Member Jennings.

And Chair Maple.

I am here.

Councilor Pluckybond, will you please lead us in the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance?

Please rise.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanon, the Southern Maidu, Valley Plains, Miwok, Petwin Wintu 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 in these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples history contribution and lives.

Thank you.

Salute.

Pledge allegiance to the Federal United States of America.

To the Republic for which it stands.

Thank you very much.

As always, if you would like to address the committee on any agenda item, you can find speaker slips in the back of the room.

Please fill them out, turn them in at the front here to our wonderful clerk's office team.

And then you'll have two minutes to address the committee once the item is called.

And we ask that you keep your comments respectful in under two minutes.

So with that, I now call for the consent calendar.

Do we have any items that members wish to speak on or pull?

Council Dickinson.

Thanks, Chair.

I just had a question or two on uh item four.

So if we could.

Okay, why don't you do that now?

Why don't I do that now?

Okay.

Who's who's the guru of the building code?

Thank you.

Not to be confused with the plumbing code.

Hi.

Um thanks.

I just was curious.

Uh uh, this recommendation is to repeal the entirety of uh the uh portion of the ordinance that uh applies to electrification.

Correct.

And um the the case out of Berkeley, if I recall it correctly, was about the city requiring uh or prohibiting, I guess put it the other way around, gas hookups in new construction, correct.

So I didn't have time to to look at this, but uh uh by by the title, I assume that that this goes further.

What you're proposing to delete goes further than just that issue.

Is that is it?

No, it does not.

It just is to that issue.

It just is to that issue.

So the reason uh we're we're recommending rescinding is because we can no longer enforce the all electric for new construction uh based on the ninth circuit court of appeals decision in Berkeley, but only with respect, only with respect to to uh prohibiting gas hookups.

Correct.

Yeah, okay, okay.

That's the uh I'm tempted to just say let's test it again, but uh it's the I mean it was a different district of uh the federal court, so yeah, so so essentially what we're um what we're allowing is the the dual big um mixed fuel application and new construction, and that's generally for let's say new new buildings that contain restaurants for tenant improvements for the most part the building code is aiming towards all electric construction, um so that's why it's kind of it's not a huge change.

The big deal is the the not allowing gas.

So um you've made me think of one other question.

The the Green Building Code, which was merged into the the building code, uh the standard building code, and I I only know that because I happen to offer the legislation to do that.

Um, it does that now.

Does the Green Building Code now emphasize electric hookups uh for new construction is that it does?

It it um it promotes I wouldn't say that it requires all electric construction, but it definitely promotes so when a designer is going into providing their analysis for the green building and the energy code compliance, um, there is, you get a lot.

There's a lot of benefits to going all electric, utilizing heat pump systems, um uh electric for cooking appliances and all of that uh for water heating, uh heating, cooling.

Um, so there's big benefit.

And so the the California Energy Code and the Green Green Building Code are really promoting the all-electric construction.

Okay.

Okay, and that's so from your point of view then.

Losing this particular section of our local ordinance as part of the local building code is not a big it may be a small step backward, but not a big step backward, is it?

In my opinion, in my opinion, yeah, and I can I can share uh my reasoning for that is most of our new master plan uh subdivisions uh within the city, they're not even being plumbed to allow gas, right?

Um so most of our newer home building communities are all electric as it is.

Um I would say that this probably affects most of the infill projects downtown wherein they may have you know businesses on the first level um that would require gas, and when I say that it's usually the restaurant industry, yeah.

Yeah, okay, and that's in itself is controversial.

Uh exactly anyone who's followed who's followed this a little a little bit about whether actually gas is really critical to to to food preparation or or not, as it has been portrayed by some.

So okay.

Uh I appreciate you um uh responding to the the questions.

Uh thanks, Chair.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Dickinson.

Um Madam Clerk, do we have any public comments on this item?

I have no speakers on the consent calendar.

All right.

I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar.

So moved.

Okay, I have a motion, a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed reps.

That passes unanimously.

Okay, we'll move on now to item number five.

Our rail yard special site district and digital billboards.

Do we have presenting?

Welcome.

Apologies for the delay.

It's good enough, right?

Yes.

There you go.

That was a lot of buildup for not a very particularly uh dynamic map, but Marco Gonzalez, City Manager's Office of Innovation and Economic Development on the Rail Yards Project Manager.

So the item before you represents another significant step in executing the three-party deal framework for transforming the rail yards that was unanimously unanimously adopted by city council at the end of 2024, and in the definitive agreements unanimously approved in June.

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

The Republic Stadium, the Sacramento Valley Station, and the historic central shops, which you can see here on the map.

As part of staff's due diligence to determine the project feasibility with our partners, downtown Rail Yard Venture and Indominable, we examine the capital stacks of each project to verify how signage revenue play into the project's deal structures.

And we concluded that without the entirety of the signed revenue dedicated to the Republic Stadium and rehabilitation of the central shops, our vision of bringing the three catalytic projects to our central city is put in jeopardy.

With that, I will turn it over, turn it over to Matt Seites with our community development department.

Thank you, Marco.

If I could get the presentation uh brought up.

Perfect.

All right.

Um good day, Chair Maple, committee members.

Uh, my name is Matt Seitz, senior architect with community development.

Uh, as Marco aptly discussed the economic conditions tied to signage in the rail yard to all focus on staff's full term sheet obligations and city council's request for the rail yard special sign district through a consolidated presentation.

There's two parts of the ordinance that we're gonna go over, but I'm breaking it down into three sections so it's a little more consumable.

Um first is the rail yards, the overall district boundaries that is going to overlay the existing rail yards special planning district.

There are five subdistricts that it's then broken down into each subdistrict uh the regulations are going to move on their own timeline uh with the development needs of each one of those districts.

So to briefly summarize the five districts, the area in purple, that is the Sack Valley Station, the area in green, which is subdistrict two, that is the Sacramento Historic Shops, Subdistrict 3, which is shown in kind of that tangy orange color.

Uh that is all properties owned by DRV.

Uh Subdistrict 4, which is in the red area, that is in Domino Owned Properties, and then lastly, subdistrict five, which is Kaisers, that is in blue.

The second portion of this, the second portion of the ordinance that we're folding through is shown in subdistrict three.

This is the allowance of digital billboards.

Um there will be a maximum of five allowed within sub-district three, all shown in this light purple location, generally two by the freeway, one uh near the central shops, and then one up on 7th Street, and then again another between 5th and 6th, further down below the central shops near uh near the Sack Valley station.

Um, all of the billboards must be installed on city owned and or leased properties.

The third and final part of this is within subdistrict two.

So within sub-district two, which is the uh historic shops, uh we're folding in a provision for a static digital marquee.

Uh, that will be allowed with on within a give me one second here.

Um the digital marquees are shown by these examples.

This is what we're looking for and what we're contemplating uh to happen within this area.

Because this area is part of the historic district.

The staff has limited uh the digital use uh to large entertainment only, which would be something like the paint shop.

Uh in here, the term static is uh is key.

It means that the sign content may only change once per day, ensuring the signs function more like traditional marquee displays than uh regular uh dynamic digital displays.

In closing, um staff is requesting the committee review the proposed ordinances, deleting and adding section 15148193 of the Sacramento City Code relating to signs in the rail yards, and pass separate motions for both the first and the second uh item uh forwarding these ordinances over to city council for consideration.

Thank you.

If you have any questions, I'm here for answers.

All right, thank you very much.

At this time, why don't we go to public comment first?

Thank you, Chair.

I have six speakers on this item.

Sonia Carabel, Gwendolyn Vincent, Nancy Williams, Yolanda Villanueva, Pamela Freeman, then Gracie Silva.

Please feel free to line up in the aisle.

Sonia.

Welcome.

Hi everyone, good morning.

I'm here with Unite Here Local 49.

Uh, my name is Sonia Carabelle with Unite Here Local 49 and Rail Yards for All.

And we are opposing this sweetheart billboards deal for the rail yards developers as long as the affordable housing is still a shameful 6% of 10,000 units.

In 2007, Sacramento decided to ban new billboards to stop ads from dominating space all around the city.

Sacramento also generally prohibits animated digital ads.

These are good decisions that limit corporate control of our public space.

Why should the city make a special exemption for these developers?

More importantly, we are opposed to the plan to give DRV and Republic free leases on city land for these digital billboards.

The deal passed last June included draft zero dollar leases for up to 12 billboards in the rail yards area.

Based on market rate billboard leases from 2024, the market rate of market value of these 12 leases over 35 years is about 120 million dollars.

That is a lot of money that is needed in our city budget and could go a long way towards making the rail yards affordable for all.

We have been advocating for more affordable housing in the rail yards, and we've heard that it's not financially possible.

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

If Sacramento is going to give more benefits to developers in the rail yards, like this billboard deal or a future EIFD, there should also be more benefit to the people of Sacramento, such as affordable housing.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Gwendolyn.

Welcome.

Good morning.

And I've got involved in this because homelessness can befall anyone.

One spinal reconstruction surgery, let me know that my plan for retirement was not sufficient.

And so I've gotten involved with affordable housing.

So now I understand that one particular developer is here looking for a sweetheart deal where they're gonna make or cost the city over a hundred million dollars over 35 years.

I just don't think the city can afford that when you've got people living on the street.

And some of those people on the street are taxpayers.

They can't afford a home because the rental prices of rent is just outrageous.

So if these developers would like to have free space to advertise, I think they need to do a little bit better, coming up with more affordable housing, or come out of pocket and pay for your own advertising.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker's Nancy Williams, following Nancy, um is Yolanda Villanueva.

Good morning, good morning.

I know you've no, you you see us all the time.

25% affordable housing, you guys, way better than 6%, especially if you live in affordable housing, like I do in the rail yard.

I live at the AJ, luxury, it's beautiful.

I'm there because that's where I can afford to live right now, but everybody can afford that.

You know, we need these billboards or a sweetheart deal for your developers, but not for us.

You're giving away money that could help other people that are living on the street, living on our sidewalk, or living in your garage.

No more giveaways to developers while the affordable housing is still at 6%.

Come on, people.

Where's your mom?

Where's your dad gonna live?

Where are your kids gonna live?

We all need a place to stay, and it's not on the corner of rail yards and six on the sidewalk.

It's within the walls.

How about your neighborhoods?

You see us walking around.

Come on, people, give us more.

We need a little more.

We need help.

We're here asking.

We are people who don't ask for help, but we need it now.

We need more affordable housing in the rail yards, in Sacramento, in California, in the freaking United States.

Let's go.

Please listen.

I know you're looking at us, but please listen and hear.

I'm a single mom, three kids.

They're gonna need affordable housing the way it goes.

And I have kids with great jobs, UPS worker, Apple, yay, and they're a low income.

I don't get it.

I'm glad you guys have the jobs you have.

Let's be responsible with it.

Help us out.

I need help.

I'm asking.

I need help.

Thank you.

Next speakers, Yolanda, then Pamela, then Gracie.

Hi.

I'm Yolanda Villeneuve.

I lived here 65 years.

Today, 66.

I'm in hospice.

I'm not supposed to have been here today.

And I'm still here because I'm a warrior.

I'm a Chicana warrior.

I've been fought all my life.

All my life.

I've been struggling to find identity here in our railroad district.

Was the only one to take me?

I have two pensions.

I have Social Security.

But I'm sick.

The medicine wasn't there for me.

And I'm here bleeding with you guys.

I don't know where my children and my grandchildren.

I only have one son left.

And I have beautiful seven blessings.

And I'm fighting for their grandparents and their mother-in-laws and father-in-laws to be.

They're only one married.

One is unbulb.

She's a lobbyist.

She followed me as a child, watching me fight for women's rights.

I was born into this world, not having an identity, and I'm leaving this world at 66.

Was finally understanding all the time we were lied to.

I worked hard as a student.

I thought my children and my grandchildren to work hard.

They all have good education.

What is wrong with us?

Don't let us seniors.

I almost died in the street if I didn't have a friend to take me, you know.

It was during the election time.

Mr.

Roger Discinson, I've talked to you a couple of times.

You saved me a couple of times.

McCarthy said me a couple of times.

Mitsubi saved me a couple of times.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Pamela, then Gracie.

Thank you for your comments.

Pamela is our next speaker, then Gracie.

Dear City Council.

I am addressing you this morning on behalf of the residents.

All of the residents at the wrong centers.

They all know me.

And they all and I know them all.

And they are my friends.

They help me move in.

When I couldn't find a place, I was homeless for over a year.

Couldn't find a place to live.

I finally got a place at the Wong Center.

And I think my purpose in that is helping the citizens of Sacramento have a better place to live.

It's very difficult to be around people that are hurting and need help.

At the Wong Center.

They actually helped me move in.

I had not much help.

And they were taking stuff out of my truck and bringing it up to my house.

They've become my family.

I am here today, basically, regarding the rail yard deal because it's not right.

It's not right.

It's not right for 100% of your people.

It might be right for 40% of your people.

But is is there, are we are we are we slicing people up now?

See what they can do, where they can live, what they can have.

Um we want the city council to prioritize needs that reflect the needs of your people, your voters.

I think you've seen what the people in at the uh Wong Center can do when they get their voice.

And we're all so proud that we have we I think if your comments, your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Gracie Silva, and Gracie's our final speaker on this item on these two items.

Welcome.

Good morning.

Um had a very clear idea of what I wanted to say, and then I got up here.

Well, you might be looking at me and wonder why a 29 something is worried about affordable housing.

Well, it's because it's could be my future at any moment, just a week and a half ago, I was laid off as a result of this administration.

I was working for the California Primary Care Association and I was laid off.

I am fortunate because I have family, I can go home too.

But they're 10 years away from retirement.

Who knows what their future will be?

And then when where will I be if I can't find a job?

I got involved because I'm here for my future, and I'm here for all people that are younger than me and their future because it's clear that we cannot guarantee housing for our citizens here in California and here in the United States.

If we are paying taxes, if we are contributing to the economy, we should be provided housing.

While this um development is fantastic for the city, and it's something that I am for, because cities should flourish, the people who will be providing the workforce for Kaiser, for that stadium, for those shopping centers, are the people who will most likely be living in affordable housing.

But a lot of them are living in rural communities where they again intersectionality, they're gonna be commuting where they should be able to live locally, providing the workforce into the district that they are supporting.

So as representatives of the city and the people, the interest is to provide housing for those who will be providing the workforce to support the actual development of the rail yards.

Is your responsibility as our representatives to ensure that there is housing and that people do not end up on the street because that's what is what will be happening?

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

So the final speaker?

Alright, thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um, so with that, I want to open it up to my colleagues, maybe Councillor Bluckybaum who represents this area, perhaps.

Yeah, quick question.

Quick question for staff about the um uh the duration of the uh uh the sign change.

I think it was um that there you are.

Sorry, I didn't see you sit down.

Um, you said temporary uh digital uh marquee signage uh that could change no more than once per day.

Uh how do we arrive at the once per day?

Is there a um a standard around how often you want to make those those can change?

So uh since that static sign is within the historic district, we were trying to keep things very um in tune with our historic secretary of interior standards, those principles behind that.

So by changing it only once a day, uh it allowed them to do the same thing as a traditional marquee would where they used to put letters up and it would stay there for a full day.

Uh this allows them to do just one sign per day, and they could potentially have three sides to that sign, so they could show different things on different sides of the sign that could work towards them showing for a future shows, etc.

So as far as uh that goes, we're trying to keep it just like any other sign that you would see up uh if whether it was a cabinet sign, whether it was a channeled letter sign, it follows the same principle of signage that we already have in the city.

It just keeps it purely as static once a day.

Is there so is there anything in that historic uh standard that would restrict us changing it once an hour or once a minute?

Some greater frequency than once a day?

Oh, sorry.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the whole question.

Is there any is there any restrictions as a part of the um uh the uh historic property standards that would prohibit us from changing the sign with a greater frequency than once a day, once an hour, once a minute, or some other um digital signs are prohibited by the sign code in historic districts.

So when this first came up, the answer was no, you can't have one.

Based on some research that was provided by DRV and some research we did, we found um confirmed several historic districts that were using digital signs, but they were using them in a static manner.

In other words, they weren't changing it on a regular basis.

Um digital signs regularly change their message.

We wanted to avoid that, so the agreement when we put this forward was to change it once a day, which was um a substitution for having to change it manually.

We felt that there wasn't much difference between um a sign that was presented in a digital manner, digital technology, but in a static manner, um, and one that you got up on a ladder and changed the letters on a regular basis.

So the ordinance as written talks about a change once a day.

Thank you.

Council member Dickinson.

Um thanks, Chair.

Uh I a couple things.

Uh one, I I um I am appreciative of the uh of the testimony and the purpose um for which it's it's given, but it's it's it it's my understanding that what we're really looking at is uh is a part of a much larger agreement uh between the the city and the and the applicant here.

And so um uh I think at least for my part uh it's important to recognize that this is a constituent element of something that uh presumably if realized will have um considerably more benefit for the um for for the city and for the people of the of the city than if you carve this out and said, for example, charge market rate for the um for the for the rent of of these sites.

So um my question on this point to you is is that a fair characterization of of what we're uh considering here today in in that respect.

Um don't know if I can answer that directly, but let's kind of take this apart.

The uh entertainment venue requested a marquee to be able to identify their show, be able to uh let people know what was going on in that location.

Um marquees are uh traditional within um entertainment buildings.

The purpose of that particular marquee was to identify the event at that location and not to be providing general advertising uh or elements for sale.

It was about being able to identify the events.

Um as noted on on the map that um Matt had up, there is a digital sign about 50 yards, 100 yards from the marquee.

It will be a presumably there's discussed a three-sided digital sign of substantial height.

That will be a general sign for advertisement for hire.

Um if there is a desire to put additional information on that one that might be related to the entertainment, it is within rock throwing distance of the uh intended entertainment center.

So we felt that any general advertisement or or messages that needed to change on a regular basis could be presented on that, and the purpose of the marquee could remain a description like any marquee on any theater about what's happening there or what is coming for the next act.

And and Bruce, I was really um speaking uh uh to the larger issue, it's uh both these items two and three, or excuse me, seven and eight, whatever they are, uh combined.

So not so much to the static signs that are the particular item uh we're talking about now, but but both of these items in context.

And Marco, do you want to try to address this?

Let me tear off of what Bruce was saying here.

So when we brought forward the definitive documents, tearing off of the term sheet, we brought forward an economic study that really talked about uh it did two things.

It talked about the three uh projects that we had on the map that I showed.

So soccer stadium, historic central shop, Sack Valley Station, and all of the economic benefits, the jobs, the revenue to the area that it would generate.

And then it also looked at as those projects catalyze the full build out of the rail yards, which will include housing, obviously affordable housing, um, office retail, what that full economic uh benefit was, and it's it's billions of dollars over the life of the project.

So by investing in this project now, utilizing the tools that we've laid out in the three-party deal, it really will have this catalytic effect to your point about benefiting the entire community.

Yeah, I think that that's the the crux of this, and I I can say from my own experience having been involved in some negotiations like this, it's interesting how much signage is and how important signage is uh to uh proponents of of these large projects and stadiums, arenas, and the uh and the like.

And so I I I have a couple comments on the next next item or comment or two on the next next item that I'll hold.

Um, but uh uh I I don't I I think we all are are mindful uh of trying to to make this work in the best possible way um for the for the city and for the for the residents uh uh of the uh of the city uh this is um this is for um better or worse and uh and depending on how one one sees it part of what makes this deal work and I think that that's something that um uh we're all uh uh thoughtful about so thanks.

Councilmember, um not seeing anything on this side of the councilmember Jennings.

Just one question from the standpoint of uh there's nothing that we are doing that is affecting the historic value of this area, so I see one no and I see one pause.

Oh, um I struggle to answer that that question because I think it's a compromise to be clear.

Um there are several ongoing projects within the historic district that are not historic elements of an impact on the district, um, uh from podium in the center to the plaza, middle, uh, future development is planned, um, signage program, uh just general signage program, and then the digital marquee.

All of these have an impact on the district because it's not a pure historical interpretation.

However, the the um impact we feel is negligible and justifiable based on current conditions.

Um the standards within Secretary of Interior Standards talk about adaptive reuse and finding new economic lives for older buildings.

An old building that has no economic value gets destroyed, gets left in the background.

When we can find ways to revitalize those buildings by adding things to them which have an impact on the purity of the historic area, it's still considered a reasonable thing to do.

So what we're putting forward here, yes, has an impact.

It's a negligible impact, but it has a positive impact relative to the economic vitality and adaptive reuse of the buildings.

And and I appreciate that answer, and maybe I should have been more specific as it relates to the marquee.

Um the there's nothing that we are doing that affects the historic value, and that's that's really what we should be talking about because that's what's on the table right now.

Yeah, it it kind of fits in all of that.

This was a historic paint, or it was a paint shop for um the rail yards, where they ended up painting the the locomotives.

And so when we hang a marquee on the front of what it was a historic paint shop, it's saying this is not what it was, this is something different.

So people will end up coming to this particular location, look at it and think it was always a theater.

So there'll be a misinterpretation there.

So there's a little bit of a challenge there by adding the marquee.

But quite frankly, the marquee was an absolutely critical element for the financial success of the operators of that particular facility.

And so we didn't really object to having a marquee on the building.

The physical marquee and its attachment to the building doesn't do any physical damage, it may cause a little confusion of the history of the site, but it's again an acceptable adaptive reuse.

Thank you.

Great questions.

Um I'll just make a couple comments and then I'll open it up to a motion from my colleagues.

But I think for me, uh it's important to contextualize it.

I know we've had this conversation over and over and over again over several years and long before I got here as well.

Um, but I think that it's important to know that this is this is a historic site.

This is a site that is I've heard many different versions of this, so hopefully I don't butcher it, but the largest infill development west of the Mississippi.

Um it is important to Sacramento's history and and also to our our economic development as a city and our growth and what we want to see as the future of our city.

Um and I love you know love to travel, go to cities where they have beautiful, wonderful projects like this, and that requires partnership, public-private partnerships with the governments and with developers and with the community, and so I think it's really important that essentially what we have here is uh um a lot of privately held land that uh people are at great expense um are doing uh are developing in a way that's gonna benefit the community greatly, going to benefit our downtown corridor, um and and ultimately gonna change the way that our that our downtown corridor looks and feels and that's a big risk for them.

And so I think as a city it's important for us to say we we really applaud you for wanting to take that risk, because otherwise the position we could be in 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now is that we have the same site with also deteriorating um buildings on it and and nothing that's benefiting the community there, and that would be my biggest fear uh is is looking is looking back and saying, man, I wish we would have gotten that right.

Um and so I I support this.

Um I will looks like maybe our counselor plucky bomb will be making a motion.

I'm happy to second it.

Um and I think this is uh an important piece of the pie.

This is our way as a city of saying, hey, we're gonna partner with you to make sure that this works and that it provides benefit to the community.

So with that, I hear a motion over here.

All right, motion by counselor plucky bomb.

Um I will second that.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, any opposed or abstain?

That passes unanimously.

And we'll move on to our next item.

Thank you.

We have item number six, also similar uh similar topic.

Uh please so we asked for two motions.

One for item five and one for item six.

Okay, do we have a motion for item six?

So moved.

Um I know Council Member Dickinson, you had um questions on this item.

Well, I thank you, Chair.

I I not so much question.

I just wanted to note um uh the uh and uh hopefully a sensitivity towards some of the issues that can be raised by um signage, uh especially lighted signage.

Uh we've got we've got areas designated in general for placement of the the signs that would be permitted.

Um I would have concerns about about uh the relationship of whatever is developed to to residential areas in the in the rail yards so that it doesn't cause uh uh disruption on uh on that level.

Uh I would hope there'd be sensitivity to the height uh and design of uh of these of these signs.

I I I have to say, and I said this yesterday um uh when uh uh we were having a briefing, uh, you know, we were 10 10 or 12 years ago uh going in the opposite direction of fewer signs, especially billboards on on freeways, and we now seem to have gone back in the uh in the other direction, uh which is uh somewhat disconcerting from from my point of view, but as I said a moment ago, I recog recognize in this case they are they are part of a broader construct, um, but but it doesn't mean that in what we do with these signs that we're not we're not careful about limiting whatever adverse impacts there may be from them, and that's really what I wanted to express.

I hope that will that thought will be carried through as you go through placement design and other features of of these signs uh uh over time.

Thanks.

And uh maybe for the public's um edification, maybe you could speak a little bit to that process for how the signs will be.

That'd be great.

Sure.

So um just as with any other sign uh that comes through in the city, it will go through site plan and design review.

This will be at a staff level review.

We'll take everything into consideration, all components uh relations to adjacent properties, adjacent buildings, other elements that may impact in some other form.

Um we'll also work within the height constraints, the number of LEDs, uh LED boards on there.

We'll also look at um what our light limits are.

Uh we will do that just as we've done with the ESC, that sign district.

Uh same thing with like channel 24.

Any digits in the city, the staff does review.

We get through that process, they grant the entitlement, they go over to building, they get the uh the building permit, and then our staff will uh go through and we'll do a final um inspection on those signs, just to make sure everything is meeting what our criteria is as a city.

That's really helpful.

And you know, just to put a finer point on it, you know, Sacramento's not gonna be Las Vegas.

So we we have there's limit it's limited in scope, it's gonna be tasteful, it's gonna be reviewed, and I think that's really important.

So I thought I heard a motion over here from Council Member Plucky Baum.

Um he presented his motion for your motion, seconded by Jennings.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Uh, any opposed or abstain?

And then I want to clarify I didn't say this out loud.

We didn't have any public comment on that item.

Okay, thank you very much.

I'll now move on to our other very important item here.

Our business operations tax modernization update based on our listening sessions and other activities.

So please, good.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, chair, council members, members of the public, I'm P.

Cletto, the finance director.

Um, and as the chair mentioned, we came to the committee in May to discuss modernizing our business operations tax.

The committee gave us direction to uh hold outreach sessions, and uh so we did.

We'll talk a little bit about the results of those sessions and what were uh recommending to the committee this morning.

Um so just again to kind of level set, you know, why are we here?

Uh, you know, our tax was last updated in 1991, it has a lot of set dollar amounts.

Those dollars have eroded uh by inflation, and we've received, you know, in our citywide assessments recommendations to uh look at revisiting this.

Uh so again, I'm not gonna go through this.

We went through this more in depth in May, uh, but we do have a structure that differs on your business type, but the vast majority of our businesses and revenues fall in the gross receipts category.

And again, we have a $5,000 maximum cap that applies uh for any category.

Um and this just shows how the the revenue breaks down.

We we uh generate roughly nine million dollars a year in business operations tax revenue, with the vast majority being the gross receipts businesses.

Um so we conducted four outreach sessions, and you know, we have a little bit more detail, but the general if I could sum up the general theme that we heard from the business community, it was frustration.

Uh there was frustration about uh fee increases over the last couple of years doing business with the city, um, frustration with their business environment, which granted we don't control, but um, you know, a lot of uh businesses are struggling with inflation, especially from the professionals.

You know, we heard that hey, um, if we're a dentist, our reimbursement rates aren't increasing uh from insurance or from dentical, but our costs are going up, and that's that's very true.

Uh we also heard frustration with the current level of city services, and you know, one of the questions that uh we we got in every session was well, where will this additional money uh go?

What what additional things is the city going to do?

And you know, unfortunately, our answer is we're projecting big budget deficits.

So, so really, this is going to uh mitigate any additional revenue would mitigate potential cuts.

We also had some discussion regarding current enforcement efforts.

You know, we did inform the community around our new agreement with the state that data sharing, which really helps us find people who hopefully inadvertently didn't apply for the business operations tax and allows us to go.

But we still have very low penalties that were set in 1991, and so any update we would want to also allow council the ability to set penalties for repeat bad actors via resolution.

So we wanted to look at a few different options, and you know, we kind of put them up here just uh for the committee and public to see what some different scenarios could look like.

The first one is hey, let's just take all the 1991 dollars, put them in 2025 dollars and adjust for inflation going forward.

Um that would result in about three and a half million dollars of additional revenue a year.

Uh, it would be a big jump for the professionals.

Uh, their flat rates would increase by you know over a hundred percent from for that inflation adjustment.

Um, option two was update for inflation and let's see what happens if we get rid of the maximum cap.

Um so it brings in more revenue, obviously, around uh 10.8 million.

Um, you know, however, we'll as we'll discuss in a minute, that may put us uh so far outside of our surrounding jurisdictions, it may put us at a disadvantage, and a lot of these big businesses are big employers, big sales tax generators.

Um, so option three is what we brought forward for discussion today.

Um what we're proposing is raising that uh that threshold where you start to pay the gross receipts tax from 10,000 to 100,000, so way more than inflation.

The purpose of that is to really help protect our small and medium-sized businesses.

Um for all the other categories that aren't gross receipts, we're proposing let's just hold them harmless for right now and only adjust for future inflation.

So they wouldn't have that big 100% plus uh jump for professionals for you know, hotels, motels, for residential rent uh rentals.

Uh we're also proposing increasing the maximum cap, phasing it in over five years from 5,000 to 125,000.

And uh, what that would result in is in the first year around uh 3.2 million in additional revenue, and then that would grow as that cap higher cap phases in to almost six million by year five.

Uh so the rash, you know, the rationale really what we were trying to do is to strike a balance between updating our tax and incorporating the feedback that we heard from the business community.

Uh, under this structure, any business grossing between 60,000 and roughly 12 and a half million would actually see a tax cut.

It would be a small tax cut, but it would be a tax cut, and that's roughly half of our businesses uh in the gross receipts category.

And uh those smaller ones would see a increase of $20 or less per year.

Um, so that really covers most of it.

It's really those big businesses that would be driving the additional revenue from the higher cap.

Um, you know, we again, like I mentioned before, for those other categories, the professionals, uh, we would keep them at their current level and then only increase for inflation in the future.

And you know, this additional revenue would help preserve services that all the residents enjoy, but also benefit the business community.

And again, we want you know, we we do want to have a cap.

There are cities that are, you know, peer jurisdictions in the bay.

They don't have a cap, uh, but you know, we have a lot of surrounding jurisdictions, Roseville, Elkgrove, Sack County that just generally have lower business tax burdens, and we don't we want large businesses to invest here too, and we don't want to lose our current large businesses.

So, again, with the considerations, our current uh effective uh tax is very regressive.

We have a 12 and a half million dollar business and a 500 million dollar business paying the same $5,000.

Uh but gross receipts is a top line tax, right?

So it doesn't take into account business expenses.

Um we we want to keep our high gross receipts generators in the city.

Uh we want to be competitive.

Uh we you know, do we did take a look at those peer jurisdictions and what they do, and they typically have higher uh business tax burdens than us.

And we're also, as you know, are very well aware of.

We have a budget issue and that we need to solve.

So as far as timing, if council, or the committee wants to advance and council wants to put on a ballot for the 2026 elections to get on the June primary ballot, we would need council approval in January.

November would give us more time, or the committee could choose to come back for another election cycle.

And really what we're looking for is direction.

So does the committee want us to bring forward a ballot measure for council consideration, which would involve more discussion with the full council, or does the committee want us to go back and uh take another look at this or bring this back up at a future date.

And with that, that is the staff presentation, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you very much.

Um, I want to say I know we have several public commenters, so before we move on to that, I just want to share a little bit of um what I saw in these sessions.

I had the opportunity to lead these in partnership with our wonderful staff, our finance team, Pete and Brian.

Thank you.

I know it took a lot of your time and effort, and we hosted uh several sessions.

I attended most of them, including some on Zoom and most in person.

Uh, and so I just wanted to say uh thank you, and this is a great overview.

I also want to say this is something that I you know we've talked a lot about on this dais about this need.

I've often said the last time uh that this was updated was actually before I was born.

Uh so I think there's a there is a need to update our business operations tax.

But I will say just my own editorial before we move on, that what I heard from uh community members, what I heard from people who attended the sessions, our businesses, and so on, is um a fear and a frustration.

I heard that there is hey, there's a lot happening right now, we've got fees increasing, we've got all these layers that are happening all at once, and some of that's on us, just being honest.

You know, some of it is you know, we hadn't increased uh you know our fees in quite some time, and so it all happened at once, and that was that was very difficult for some of our smaller and medium-sized businesses, um, and that's something that we have to contend with.

I will also say um that you know, as a part of my role on various other uh boards and and and the city council that I've also seen polling for other measures, not for this measure, but for other measures, and I will say that there is an attitude in in the city right now that is very concerned about the word tax at all, um, whether that be a modernization, a change, an update, increase, whatever it may be.

And so I think we also have a really difficult decision before us about timing.

Uh, and where I'm currently leaning right now, and I want to hear from the public and from my colleagues, is that I I think it would be unwise to move forward in 2026.

Um I think that we need to spend the time between now and 2028 to work with our community to make sure that we have the language right, that we have the right messaging, that we're talking to folks, and we're and we're make we're carving the right message, um, and the language, because I think my my fear here is that if we move quickly and we put something on the ballot in 2026 and it fails again, it will be even more difficult for us to do this in the future.

And that's not something that I think would be wise.

That's my personal opinion, and so wanted to share that based on having attended many of these sessions and helping lead them.

Uh, and so with that, I'd love to open it up to public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I have seven speakers.

The first is Tiffany Clark, Madeline Noel, Liz Williams, Chris Valencia.

Welcome, and thank you for your participation in all the sessions.

Good morning, Chair, Councilmember staff, Sacramento Attorney Tiffany Clark, independent policy advocate as well.

Um, here to respond to some of the proposals put forth by uh staff today in the context of my research, which I think you all have seen, which shows that by following the lead of some of our peer jurisdictions and implementing four critical reforms, we could more than eliminate our budget deficits, jumpstart small businesses and economic growth, dramatically increase income sensitivity in our tax system, and potentially pass it all by a wide margin with a broad coalition.

However, if the city does not feel prepared to go forward with full reform at this time, there are some half measures that could be taken.

I detailed those and materials sent separately, but with my remaining time, I want to focus on just one of the four areas of reform.

That is opting all non-gross receipts tax businesses into gross receipts taxation, or at least allowing them to opt themselves in.

Currently, most types of licensed professionals, most types of professionals licensed seven years or more practicing solo, pay such a high flat tax that they are taxed, and it's unusual, it's an unusually high flat tax, that they are taxed as though they all earn 685,000 in annual gross receipts, even if they're in fact semi-retired, making under 50,000 a year, working from home, what have you.

Option three, the one recommended before you today would retain that and make it worse by adding CPI adjustments going forward.

The other two proposals would more than double that high flat tax and add CPI adjustments going forward, meaning those professionals would all be taxed as though they all earn over 1.8 million in annual gross receipts.

This is regressive and it's unusual.

Most peer jurisdictions either opt them all in or allow them to opt themselves in.

I urge this committee to at least do the latter.

It would sacrifice very little in revenue given how few licensed professionals there are and fewer still who would opt in.

It would affect no stakeholder group negatively.

It would garner the enthusiastic support of the group that defeated the last BOT measure licensed professionals.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Madeline and then Liz.

Welcome.

Good morning, Chair Maple and members of the committee.

I'm Adela Knoll.

I'm with the downtown Sacramento Partnership, a property-based improvement district in downtown, serving 66 blocks of our city's urban core.

I want to thank Pete Clutto, the city staff, Chair Maple and her team for their collective efforts to engage the community for insight and feedback on this topic.

That very input is helping shape a broader conversation about where we're heading as on the city standpoint and the business front.

With a new city manager coming on board and the council entering its second year working together, I see an opportunity to set a strong unified course towards long-term economic stability and resilience.

We all want a city that provides services and meets the needs of its residents.

And to do that, we need a healthy fiscal foundation.

We recognize the need to explore all options to get to that place.

And while raising the business operations tax may yield short-term revenue, it also risks slowing the very growth that fuels sustainable funding over time.

If we zoom out and take the long view, the path to that future lies not in short-term fixes, but in creating the conditions that attract and grow a diverse base of employers, strengthen our workforce, and open more pathways to economic mobility for our residents.

These are the kind of long-term benefits that can insulate the city from very market swings that challenge us today.

Welcoming new businesses and encouraging capital investment allows us to do more than just sustain the city.

It lets us grow the pie so there's more to share.

That's how we meet the days of today and build for tomorrow.

As one of the council's top priorities shifts to economic development, we must be thoughtful and strategic about which levers we pull.

If we're serious about long-term prosperity, we must invest in the soil, not just the harvest.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be a part of this important conversation.

We at the Downtown Partnership remain committed to working alongside you to bring continued engagement and collaboration.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Liz Williams, followed by Chris Valencia.

I'd like to just said it all.

Good morning still.

Chair Maple, members of the committee, Liz Williams speaking on behalf of the Metro Chamber and the businesses we represent across the city of Sacramento.

I want to first thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Over the summer, the city chair maple staff held stakeholder discussions around the operations modernization, and we really appreciated participating in that discussion.

However, since those stakeholder conversations, this proposal has advanced with very limited time for our members to review and provide meaningful feedback.

Many are still analyzing the multiple options the staff report and could bring forward recommendations if they had a little more time to view how it would impact their operations.

For that reason, we respectfully ask that you table this item to allow for deeper engagement and collaboration with the business community.

The chamber recognizes the need to update an outdated tax structure, but we also urge caution in relying on additional taxation of existing businesses to solve a much larger structural deficit.

As a council sharpens its focus on economic development, it's critical that policies like this are aligned with that vision, encouraging investment, business retention, and long-term growth for our local economy.

Sacramento's competitive competitiveness depends on predictability, fairness, and a business climate that supports opportunity.

The metric chamber stands ready to work with the city to refine a path forward that advances both fiscal responsibility and economic vitality.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and your leadership.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris Valencia, followed by Allison Lee.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Chris Valency, and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association, and it's over 500 members in the building and development community.

I want to echo uh the comments of my colleagues.

Uh, first by thanking staff for all the work that they have done.

But also uh I do want to bring up that in these listening sessions, while they were very much appreciated that we were included.

It would have been uh good to have an additional session where these options were presented for our feedback and input in them.

Uh the options presented being made available to our members would help us to understand how it would impact them.

Uh we respectfully request that this item be tabled for now to last to allow for further engagement and consideration for possibly the 2028 ballot.

Uh there have been many charges on business, and we do uh urge caution that this committee think about on the whole how much pressure is being put on businesses.

Uh and we are very happy to continue working with this council and to find uh solutions that will work for everybody.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Allison Lee, followed by James Allison.

Hello, committee and members of the council.

My name is Allison Lee, and I'm the legislative director for Region Business, a coalition of local business leaders dedicated to helping Sacramento realize its potential through bold policy leadership.

We strongly oppose the modernization of the city's business operation tax.

While we recognize the city's need to address its structural deficit, this proposal places a disproportionate burden on the very businesses that are vital to Sacramento's long-term economic stability.

Importantly, this tax increase is being proposed at a time when Sacramento's revenues are at a high.

This upward trend undermines the justification for increasing taxes on local businesses.

Instead, the city should be responsibly managing these revenues.

This proposed tax increases financial pressures on businesses already facing a high tax and regulatory burden in the state of California, along with rising labor costs and other city fees.

The gross receipts tax fails to account for expenses, unfairly impacting low margin businesses like grocery stores, a massive increase in the cap from 5,000 to 125,000 and on competitive rates, risk-driving businesses to lower tax jurisdictions like Elkgrove, Roseville, or other states, taking their jobs, sales, and property tax revenues with them.

Businesses have voiced frustration with inadequate city services such as public safety and infrastructure maintenance.

The city cannot expect to tax its way out of solving these issues.

We urge the law and ledge committee to reject the BOT modernization proposal and instead focus on reducing spending on non core services like Measure L and increasing government efficiency through competitive outsourcing of jobs that are not core mandates.

Sacramento's economic vitality depends on pursuing collaborative policy support businesses, which are the cornerstone of our community and are actively building a stronger Sacramento.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is James Allison, followed by Keon Bliss.

My name is James Allison.

I'm in the executive director of the Power and Alliance, a PBID that represents about 1,500 businesses and 30,000 jobs in Sacramento's manufacturing and industrial core.

Ultimately, you know, I would like to say that I resonate quite highly with uh Chair Maple's uh points earlier uh about just the timeliness of this issue.

You know, it's uh uh very prevalent in our district that we know that a large number of these businesses that are going to be the the highest revenue grossing businesses are are located within our district.

They're also uh extremely high employer or high-level employers with uh large numbers of employees.

You know, there's a reason that you see 30,000 jobs coming out of only 1,500 businesses.

Uh the reality of it is is that when we're looking at a proposal like we are right now, uh it doesn't matter how big of an operation you have.

If you're a single operation, a hundred and twenty thousand dollar tax liability in a single year or even in a couple of years is a massive burden to to front.

Um what you're gonna hear as we get into the budget conversations a lot is is we really need to focus on growing the pie here in Sacramento and not going after our same sources.

Uh I think that there's a reality that we need to face in this city that when we hear the great advances that are happening in Folsom and Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova and across the river, that the things that are benefiting our surrounding localities aren't necessarily directly benefiting the city of Sacramento.

We need to make ourselves compare uh competitive, not necessarily with peer jurisdictions throughout the state, but we need to look at how we're attracting businesses because the semiconductor plant opening in Folsom does very little to uh alleviate our own financial crisis that we're facing in the city.

And if we're being outcompeted in business placement and employment and in residential housing construction, where is the benefit coming to the city of Sacramento, even if we're seeing a regional success?

So, ultimately, I would really like to resonate with that point and uh thank the city and everyone for their time through this process.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Our final speaker is Keon Bliss.

I appreciate that you all are taking this uh item up again.

This is something that, as the chair noted, has not been updated since some of us were born.

And this isn't about just modernization, it's about addressing uh economic uncertainty for everybody, not just business communities, but particularly the consumers who, in case anybody that's been through uh basic economics 101, uh would recognize that uh consumers comprise no less than 70 percent of our economic output.

And yet we are hearing a lot of uh business representatives come up here today, people that can afford to be in these chambers uh every day because they are very well uh affluent and uh paid to be here, uh, but not many community members that are here.

As much as I appreciate the community sessions that were gone, but that doesn't that isn't representative or participatory for the vast majority of more than 525,000 people that live in this city.

And they deserve an actual say within this.

Not in 20, like it should have happened yesterday, but it should, but it can happen as soon as possible.

And the idea that we need to delay this so that members of the Sacramento Metro Chamber or the North State Building Industry Association uh can meet with you all behind closed doors and try to water it down even further to benefit their own business interests, simply aren't, it simply isn't acceptable.

It won't be acceptable to your constituents, the vast majority of whom oftentimes don't participate because of backroom deals that like they're asked advocating for.

So I really encourage you all to show some guts with this because there is no amount of taxation that these business industries, these developers are going to be comfortable with at any point in time, and we need to actually balance the scale and actually show it.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you for comments.

Thank you.

Okay, so at this time I will open it up to my colleagues.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thank you.

You know, this may be one where everybody's right.

Uh everyone's got valid points to to make here.

Um I certainly have been an outspoken advocate of the approach of trying to grow the pie as the uh as I think the uh preferable and uh ultimately uh only uh sustainable way of of helping the budget uh and the services provided with the monies in that budget for the people of uh uh of sacramento um so the the comments uh about uh making sure we can stay competitive uh and helping ourselves grow the pie uh certainly reson resonate uh with me from from that that perspective um at the at the same time uh i'm also uh mindful of the fact that that that this uh uh approach the the the realities of of the business operations hacks haven't changed in 30 years now uh one can say we should should have speaking institutionally in historical terms we should have not let that happen the this should have been adjusted over over time but we obviously can't go backwards and the question now is how do we best go forward and in serving the needs of of the city and not compromising those things uh uh that that we think are valuable uh in the in the process at least not any more than hopefully nominally uh if at all uh with those considerations in in mind i i um actually think what the staff has come up with is a very reasonable uh approach uh it doesn't it doesn't fully seek to to mimic what other peer cities are doing in the state it's not what oakland's doing or San Francisco's doing or Los Angeles is doing um but it's more realistic uh i uh i think in in terms of those comparisons it doesn't it doesn't also simply abdicate to the idea that um this is a make or break issue ultimately for where people locate their businesses or operate the their businesses is is it a factor sure but lots of other things are are are factors as well so it's something uh that needs to be in the equation but but uh I don't think it rises to the level of of being an element that uh ultimately is is uh the the uh piece that makes the the decision uh so um uh the the question isn't I think ultimately whether the business operations tax need needs to be adjusted the question is when and what is that approach the the timing is not uh an unimportant issue but the timing's never going to be easy um the the the timing needs to be I think uh weighed in the balance of what's likely to give us the greatest chance for success and maybe that isn't now or maybe maybe it is I think it's actually uh too soon to know the answer to that to that question uh is this the exactly the right approach well um as I said a moment ago I think it's a reasonable approach is it the is it the best one I think it answers a lot of the objections that that those of you who are on the council at the time heard to the last iteration of uh of this and I think the staff deserves credit and and Chair Maple and your staff is uh as well for listening hearing that I think as we all did and trying to be responsive to it so notwithstanding uh all of that as a preface uh I think uh without making uh a decision uh on this today it it would be short sighted to stop the process I number one I think the full council ought to have the opportunity to to consider and debate uh the issue.

Number two, what applies today in terms of uh how people are thinking uh about uh the community of about finances, about the world uh uh even in the most stable of times, that can change radically from one week to the next, let alone one year to the next.

And we are not, I think it is fair to say in the most stable of times.

So what the mood of the electorate will be next June or next November, I think is is highly unpredictable at this stage.

And to me, that's another reason not to truncate this process at this point.

It may be that and the consideration of other measures that are being floated or debated that the June actually could be, if the council wanted to proceed, might be the better timing than November.

But it's too soon to know that.

So for me, it would be send this on, don't end this discussion here.

Let's continue to have uh a dialogue with uh uh hopefully all representative parts of the uh of the community and give this give this uh time uh in the oven to see if it rises or falls uh or just burns up.

All right, thank you.

Other comments, counselor.

Like Roger, I am also hungry and thinking about food and uh and also agree uh with this comments as I often do.

Um we've heard loud and clear from the business community that um you know we've uh taxed and fees feed ourselves into oblivion already.

I'm sensitive to that.

Um that said, we are facing uh some pretty significant uh fiscal headwinds uh and are going to need every uh opportunity to uh mitigate those those impacts and harms.

Uh, and would like to see um uh what's possible uh uh with the VOT.

It may be that there is just no appetite uh to do anything with this, uh, but uh but I'm not prepared to um uh end the conversation just yet.

Okay.

So I'm hearing you say you'd like a full discussion at council.

Okay, all right.

Councilmember Jennings, yeah.

I just wanted to weigh in that um council member uh Dickinson said it probably best.

This could be a time when everybody is right, um, and yet everybody is not at the table right now, and so bringing it to the full council for us to have a discussion gives us more opportunity to take a look at what is going on, and I I don't think you can have it at a council meeting.

I think it has to be more in a workshop type meeting where it's exclusively the conversation and we can have all the resources that are necessary in order to be able to hold the discussion and that be exclusively the topic that we talk about.

Uh so I I would say um we need to stay competitive, we need to take the long view as been said before.

Um we need to table this item for now, but not table this item at all entirely in its entirety.

In other words, bring it back to the full council in order for us to have the long discussion, okay.

So I'm hearing um full full council discussion.

I think I think that that's a great idea.

Um what I will say though, one of the comments that I've heard um is that we you know we hosted all of these meetings, and staff went back, uh, you know, developed the the recommendations, and then basically, you know, the the business community and the broader community said they said got a notification basically a few days before this meeting uh about that, and I think that it'd be great for folks to have the time to actually process what's come from the staff, um the recommendation, uh the rationale, the things that are in here, which is great by the way, um, and uh and have that opportunity.

So I guess my maybe I'll make the motion that we that we forward this to the full council, um, after uh staff has the opportunity to to meet with those that participated in our community workshops, and anyone else who wants to participate will advertise those publicly to hear about these recommendations um and to have an opportunity for for folks to um digest them and then come back to the council, and then what I heard from Councilmore Jennings is in a workshop style.

I think that's a great idea too.

And so maybe that could be the recommendation from this committee.

Is that clear?

Great.

Okay, do I have a second?

All right, a motion and a second.

Um any other comments from members?

Okay, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Any opposed to obscene?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And that brings us to our final item here, which is uh my council proposal.

Uh and so uh colleagues today um I'm bringing forward a proposal to allow individuals carrying kurpons uh as bona fide articles of faith to enter city of Sacramento facilities.

This policy would ensure that members of our Sikh community who are required by their faith to wear the kurban as a symbol of justice and spiritual devotion are not denied access to city buildings or meetings.

Other jurisdictions, including the city of Fresno and several other fed uh several federal agencies have adopted similar accommodations that balance religious freedom and public safety.

Our goal is to align our local policy with those best practices and ensure Sacramento remains a city that values inclusion and respects the diverse faith traditions of all residents.

And I would I will say that before you I've included a um letter from the vice president of uh Fresno City Council attesting to their current um ordinance that they've had in place for several years, and included a copy of that resolution.

I've also uh forwarded this to the clerk so that it can be part of the public record um for folks who want to look back at it.

Uh and so with that, I'd like to um pass over the microphone uh to Jess Cheat Singh, who is uh not only a Sacramento City Unified School Board member, but also a member of the Jakarta movement who can speak further about the cultural and religious significance of this proposal.

Welcome.

All right.

Good morning, Chair Maple.

Well, it's not morning, it's uh afternoon now.

So good afternoon, Chair Maple and Council members.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um, yes, my name is just Jeet Singh, I'm the board chair of Jigata movement, and I'm also here on behalf of the 40,000 strong Sikh community in the Sacramento region.

And I'm proud to say I'm one of the only visible six elected in Sacramento serving as president of the SAC City and Fight School Board.

Um I'm here to respectfully urge you to pass a motion that approves the proposal and forwards this item to city council to adopt a policy, as you said, explicitly permitting six to wear curpons uh when attending city council meetings uh with appropriate safety accommodations that you all have listed in the um in the link there.

But I'm gonna provide a little bit of uh background.

So for initiated six, wearing a curpon is one of the five articles of faith.

Um it is not a weapon, but rather a deep symbolic spiritual obligation of dignity, self-respect, and protection of the vulnerable.

Denying access to public civic proceedings unless a six removes their kurpon is effectively asking someone to leave a quote of their identity outside of the door.

That undermines our ideal of inclusive civic engagement.

That has been a practice and protocol here, unfortunately, and that blanket ban is just wholly inappropriate and not aligned with the values of the city that both you and all of us represent here as elected officials.

Six of called California home for over 100 years.

Uh, the largest community of the United States is right here in this state.

And as the capital of this great state, um, I urge us to demonstrate the same commitment to inclusivity that our entire state has shown uh through legislation, both at the state level, other cities, um, and at other jurisdictions.

I'm not asking you all to recreate the wheel.

This is a civil rights issue, and in fact, six can wear a curbon right now and walk over to our state capital with no length limitation.

Um, as long as it is visible and folks are able to inspect it, they're able to walk in, walk amongst our chambers, walk and meet our governor, welcome meet our lawmakers at the state.

The city of Fresno passed a similar Kurban ordinance many years ago.

And whose support was then by police chief Jerry Dyer, who is now the mayor of the city of Fresno.

That ordinance is this ordinance is based on that ordinance, includes the same safety measures, includes a length limitation, but also improves the ordinance by allowing six to wear that kurpon over their clothing, as some of our members here are wearing today.

A key concern, and I'll address it, is safety.

But law enforcement agencies in California have already received training about kurpons and how to interact with them respectfully.

AB 504 was passed unanimously through both houses in 2009 to mandate state law, statewide law enforcement training on curbons and stick identity.

Although the governor at that time vetoed it, it was with the understanding that the training should continue and happen just directly with law enforcement itself.

So in 2010, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training sent a memo out to law law enforcement agencies across the state and introduced mandatory curpon training for all new law enforcement agents in California and at their current um uh cadet training as well.

In fact, we have six who wear their karpons and serve in our police force and in our military.

That memo in part does say that six wear a religious uniform that is intended to identify them as members of the faith.

The karpan is a ceremonial item resembling a small sword, usually with a curved tip.

Kurpans can be made of either steel or iron.

It's typically worn in a sheath, hung on a strap and slung over the shoulder or worn around the waist.

It may be visible over the clothing or under a jacket.

Usually a karpan can be unidentified as a religious item because a sick carrying it is also wearing the other four articles of faith, which is a kirpan, gaus, which is our uncut hair, a kara, which is a streel bracelet that you all see me wearing all the time, a cashara, which is long undergarments, and a kanga, which is a small wooden comb that we keep underneath their turban to keep our hair tidy and clean.

At a time when Sikhs are facing a surge in hate crimes once more, it's important that we have SICs express their religious practices as with other faiths and their articles of faith.

Whether that's yarmakas, hijabs, crosses, um sick religious discrimination, not allowing six to wear their karban risks religious discrimination.

It undermines trust amongst our residents that city institutions will treat them equitably.

As a civic body, Sacramento has a duty to enable all citizens to participate in government fully without compromising their faith.

We want to be seen.

We no longer want to hide in the shadows.

We want to see as full members of the community.

And by visibly and proudly expressing our beliefs, we will build an understanding in our aspect of our faith, dispelling fear of building a better Sacramento.

I do want to thank SAC PD for meeting with us almost two years ago, and we urge SAC PD to work with us to improve signage, to increase increase inclusivity, receive training about the SIC Kerban, beyond the training that was sent out from the state.

We're here, we're local.

I can always pop in and provide and provide answers to anything, and then work with us if individual concerns arise.

By adopting this policy, Sacramento would affirm its commitment to religious freedom, dignity, and inclusive participation, ensuring that six, like all citizens here, can come fully as they are to engage in public discourse.

Thank you.

Thank you, Justy.

And with that, I do before we move on to public comment, I do want to say that I've had we've had several meetings at the police department.

I want to thank them for their partnership and working with us and talking through some of the issues and the concerns, and should this committee decide to move this forward to for staff to draft an ordinance and move it to the council that that staff report include that information as well as anything from the city attorney's office who we've also spoken with.

And so with that, I'd like to open it up for public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

I have two speakers.

Mean Deep Singh, then Keon Bliss.

Welcome.

Hello.

I would like to start off by acknowledging the stewards of this land, Nissan people, Miwok, um, the Maidu and the Popman.

Um, it is on their land that you know we are allowed to inhabit and exist.

Um, everybody in this country comes from some other place, right?

We all come from a reason, whether it's us uh personally or our ancestors, our parents' grandparents, their grandparents.

And I think the idea of this country originally is to be able to exist to practice your um, the way a freedom that you do not get in other places.

And I think in the first amendment, um, along with you know, other uh freedoms, the freedom of religion is uh one of the first ones.

So, with that, I do want to say um we appreciate you all for taking up this item.

Um, and this is not something that's like optional for initiated six.

This is compulsory.

We sleep with it, we walk with it, we we shower with it, we we do everything with our karpan.

It's an extension of our um limbs you can even think of.

Um, there are people that you know don't even participate in like life if they're not allowed to exist as a sick um with their um, I don't like using the word articles of faith, but for the purposes of this conversation, we can use that um because that I think assumes that these are kind of like things that people just optionally keep.

Um, but for six a carpon is not optional for initiated six, I should say.

Um, and uh I do want to um reiterate what Jajit said it is allowed in the state capitol.

Um there are no restrictions on it.

Um all you have to do is just go through the metal detector and just make sure you don't have like a I don't know, a gun or something, right?

Um, but you can go anywhere in the Capitol in any building there, any room.

So with that, we really hope you guys uh move this forward and let the folks in uh Sacramento be part of this uh process.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Keon Bliss and Chinwa Rhodes.

Greetings law and legislation committee.

Uh I would agree as well uh with my uh Sikh siblings and uh and community members that they deserve to have full observation of their uh respective traditions and religious traditions.

Uh as many of us uh are oftentimes afforded.

Um it really makes a lot of sense uh considering that we already allow uh weapons in this chamber on a regular on a routine basis, um, not by members of law enforcement like Sacramento Police Department, but even civilian employees, uh such as uh the Sacramento Police Officers Association president, Dustin Smith, who routinely comes in two chambers uh with his piss with his sidearm equipped, even when he is in civilian clothing, uh the only civilian allowed with a with a loaded firearm uh inside the chambers.

And that's standard actually for uh the city like for the city police departments uh reference manual uh 430.01 actually requires that in uh all sworn officers uh in civilian wear shall wear uh their sidearm fully loaded with department authorized issued amus uh ammunition um it with their plain clothes, and that doesn't make uh just apply to this chamber, that implies to any community meeting that we're ever in.

And we've uh actually had instances where uh uh uh commissioners like the SAC uh on the community police review commission have requested uh that plainclothes police officers leave their side arms in their uh in their duty vehicle uh before uh public meet uh community engagement meetings uh but refuse to do so because of this policy.

So I would say that if we allow some civilians to come in with loaded carry firearms, this policy to allow um such uh uh these Kerpons to be allowed inside is just a no-brainer.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is Chinwa.

Welcome, trustee.

Hello, hello.

I'll keep mine brief.

Um good to see you all.

I just want to say first, uh, Councilmember Maple, Chair Maple.

Uh thank you for bringing this forward.

Um this is uh really big for our city.

And as we talk about access and opportunity, I just urge this committee to move it forward to council uh so they can have a good decision uh on behalf of our residents.

Um that's all I have to say today.

Thank you so much and see you guys later.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, um opening up to my colleagues for any questions, comments.

Councilman Jennings.

Thank you very much, and uh I want to thank everyone who came out and spoke on this subject.

Um I think Fresno has shown us uh what can be done and what should be done.

And in my opinion, um I want to make sure that we all have the opportunity to always exercise our faith and what we believe in.

And so I want to take this item and I want to make this something that we can move as quickly as possible.

I'd like us to take it to the full council and come back to the full council with how we move forward with changing this within our system.

Wonderful.

I'll put that in the form of a motion.

All right, and I'll I'll happily second it and I appreciate your support.

Um, and I do want to say, hopefully, as a part of your motion that we can, and you did say this in a timely fashion.

Uh the reason being um in November, we will be bringing forward a resolution um to to commemorate Seek History Month.

Yeah, Seek History Month.

I want to make sure I said the right word and not.

And so I would love that to be a part of that celebration commemoration that folks are able to come in and bring their cropons and show their faith.

And so my hope is that we'll be able to move this forward quickly so that we can do that in November.

So we have a motion and a second.

Any other questions or comments?

Alright, all those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you to everyone who showed up and provided comment.

Thank you.

And so do we have any public comments or matters not on the agenda?

I do have one speaker, L.R.

Roberts.

Right.

Didn't change.

I'm a retired street worker, and I uh used to run a small business in Oak Park.

Um, says our society cannot function if we can't get housing for working people.

If a one-bedroom is $2,000, which is what I'm seeing really often now, you have to make $6,000 to qualify.

I never made that much money.

Uh we also should not allow huge out-of-state and out-of-country corporations to buy up our houses and land.

I'm getting a postcard or letter every single day without fail with some weird company I've never heard of trying to buy my house.

This is not okay.

This is not tenable.

We're you can't run a society like that.

And then the second thing I want to talk about is um our community chase prostitution from T Street to Broadway, right across from my kids' high school.

And uh obviously, but now I'll release the underage traffic girls show up on 47th Avenue in Stockton every early evening without fail.

And you can tell these the outfits they're in, which are interesting because I can sew, um, are made by the same person.

Um, so police a police officer told me recently that these girls are taken, they used to prosecute them, which was amazing because they were too young to consent to the so to prosecute them just drove me nuts.

So now they go to the receiving home, uh, from which they immediately leave.

So that isn't solving the problem, is it?

They're going to go right back to the pimp.

So, you know, those of us who know me, uh, Richard and I took in three homeless kids, and one of whom was molested at the receiving home and died of AIDS later.

Now we don't know that that's where he got it, but could have been where he got it.

Um so he died in 1990.

Uh, my friend's daughter was allowed by the receiving home to go into a car date with an adult and was paralyzed from the next one.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

You I I'll follow up with you about this.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, and so with that, seeing nothing else to come before the committee, we are adjourned at 12 34 p.m.

Thank you.