Sounds like we agreed.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning and welcome to today's Sacramento City Council Law and Legislation Committee meeting.

I now call this meeting to order at 1101 a.m.

Kirk, will you please call the roll?

Yes.

Um councilmember Dickinson is absent.

Councilmember Flucky Bond?

Here.

Councilmember Jennings.

Here and Chair Maple.

I am here.

And I will ask Councilmember Pluckybond, please do the land acknowledgement and the Pledge of Allegiance.

In honor of Sacramento, Sacramento's indigenous people and travel lands.

The original people of this land, the Nissan people, Southern Rayu, the Valley Plays, and Ni Watch, and Wentzu people of Welcome Rancheria.

Sacramento is only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still want the site us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today.

The active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people, history, contribution, and lives.

Thank you.

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, Councilmember.

All right.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

I know we have an action-packed uh hearing here with a lot of items of interest.

Um, for those who want to make a public comment on any of the items, please go and get a slip from the back of the room.

Uh fill it out, and you'll bring it up to the front here to our wonderful clerk staff who will then transmit it to us.

Um, please fill out those slips and return them to us before the item starts in order to be heard.

You'll have two minutes to address the committee once called upon.

Um with that, we will now move on to our consent calendar.

Are there any items that members wish to pull or discuss separately?

Seeing none, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?

I have no public comment.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Any opposed or abstain?

That passes unanimously.

That now brings us to our first discussion item.

Uh item four ordinance revision to chapter 5.138 and 9.12 for related to tobacco retailers.

Welcome up.

Well, thank you, Council members of the law and ledge committee.

My name is Sean Bartosz, the code enforcement manager with the community development department.

Um, we're here as a follow-up to the tobacco retailer license meeting we had early last year.

Um, back in 2019, we um amended the city code, which put a prohibition on flavored tobacco, which the state has recently adopted as well, and we added a proximity requirement to the tobacco retailers.

We also required a conditional use permit for most new tobacco retailers, and in 2020, we allowed for a healthy foods exemption.

Um, as you can see here, back around the time we started the healthy foods exemption, we had about 240 tobacco retailer licenses, um, which went up to about 311 right before last year's presentation, and we are now right around 300 tobacco retailer licenses in the city.

Um, throughout the Sacramento County region, there are a total of 786 tobacco retailer licenses, like I said, with about 300 of those here in the city of Sacramento.

Uh, here's a graph that shows the uh changes throughout time.

Um during that time with the with the healthy foods exemptions.

There's been 29 locations that opened their tobacco retailer license with the exemption.

As you can see, we had as many as nine in D2 and uh zero in D1 and D5.

Um there are a total of 46 smoke shops in Sacramento.

This would be uh tobacco retailers that are not a convenience store, not a gas station, they are strictly there to vent tobacco.

We have about 10 of them in D4 and only one in D8.

On the right hand side, you can see how many of those open via that healthy foods exemption.

Uh there's recent law updates.

Um, this state law uh created an unflavored tobacco list.

Uh this uh cleared up some confusion um with the uh tobacco ordinance.

Um so they created a list.

If uh tobacco is not on this list, it is presumed to be flavored and not allowed to be sold.

Um it also stopped non-fDA e-cigarettes from being added to the unflavored list, and it allowed for confiscation of flavored tobacco products by law enforcement agency.

However, that does not include code enforcement.

Based on council feedback from the last presentation and uh CDD staff, the following will be highlights of the more notable proposed amendments to the Sacramento City Code.

Um, the Health of Healthy Foods Exemption Sunset.

This will end the Healthy Foods exemption.

It will allow for those who receive the exemption to keep the exemption moving forward as long as they don't uh lapse in their licensing.

Um I think the packet uh talks about this being effective April 1st because of the timelines and go into full council, that would probably get pushed to about June 1st.

Um there are many uh definitions updated, such as nicotine, characterizing flavors, shisha, hookah, and flavor enhancers.

It's just improves our clarity to be more consistent and help with enforcement.

Uh, more on helping enforcement.

Um in the past, tobacco shops were allowed to deny an inspection without any kind of uh penalty or whatnot.

So uh we added some um enforcement that if they obstruct an inspection, delay or deny an inspection, we can take enforcement action upon them.

We can later on go get a warrant and come back and do an inspection, but this would allow us to suspend them for denying an inspection.

Also clarifying the uh tobacco prohibition in the past, the code currently states that it must be displayed for sale.

Oftentimes we'd be see flavored tobacco in a back room, in a cabinet, in a drawer under the register, and they would say it's for the employees' use.

Um it was uh stock that they were trying to get rid of.

However, multiple times we'd go in and play and close and they would sell anyway.

So part of the new code would be any tobacco flavor tobacco on the premises would be uh presumed for sale in a violation.

And then cleaning up some language in Title IX still had uh verbiage about being 18 and over to be able to buy to be consistent with state law, we change that to 21 and over.

Um, there were some concerns when we met with business owners in the industry.

Um they have some recommendations.

Some of them were uh not allowing any new smoke shops.

Um, and then uh allowing currently permitted license holders to transfer the license during the sale and also exempting uh convenience stores that have gas stations from the proximity requirement.

A lot of their concerns is that they have based their future plans and retirement around being able to sell at a certain price, and if they can't, if the new owner can't get a license, it affects their future plans.

They also recommend banning the sale of Kratum products and nitrous oxide.

Um during the uh last presentation we did early last year.

We were asked to make this program fully 100% cost recovery from the license fees.

Um when we did a fee study, we found that we spent about 260,000 annually on licensing and the multiple routine inspections.

Um currently our TRL uh fees, tobacco retailer license fees are 510 for a new uh license and 472 renewal.

To make it 100% cost recovery, those fees would go to $909 for a new TRL and $759 for the renewal.

Uh, in comparison to some uh cities in Sacramento County and Northern California, um that would probably put us on the higher end in Sacramento County, but still on the lower end for Northern California as a whole.

As you can see, some are as much as 2500 for a new license.

Um and uh puts us real close to what Alameda County is charging now.

Um that's all I have.

I know there's many people that would like to speak on this matter, and I'll be available for questions if you have any.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Um, with that, we'll move over to public comment.

Um, and before we do that, just quickly I want to say uh in terms of process.

So what depending on what happens in this committee here, this is the first part of the discussion.

This will either end up coming back to this committee if there's revisions or going to the city council for further discussion.

So there will be at least one more, if not a couple more opportunities to weigh in.

Just wanted to let folks know about that.

And with that, Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

Yes, I have 14 speakers.

If you'd like to start lining up in the aisle, I'll call a few at a time.

The first is Rachel, then Kimberly and Liz.

Welcome.

Good morning, committee.

My name is Rachel Alvarez, and I'm the vice chairperson of the Greater Sacramento Smoke and Tobacco Free Coalition.

Our coalition's mission is to create smoke and tobacco free communities across Sacramento County through equitable policies, collaboration, and education that addresses disparities in communities most impacted by commercial tobacco.

Speaking on behalf of the coalition, we first wanted to thank this committee for revisiting the city's tobacco retail ordinance and for considering updates that strengthen protections for Sacramento residents.

As you all know, in 2018, the city of Sacramento adopted one of the most progressive tobacco retail ordinances in California by banning the sale of flavored commercial tobacco products.

That policy was an important step to protect public health and to reduce tobacco addiction among vulnerable populations, especially our youth.

It wasn't long after that that Sacramento County and then the state followed suit by banning the sale of flavored tobacco products.

The 2020 amendment, known as the Healthy Food Exemption, weakened our strong ordinance and allowed for a greater number of tobacco retailers without a noticeable increase in community access to healthy and nutritious foods.

Unfortunately, as we saw with the original ordinance with the City of Sacramento setting the precedent, the amendment has had negative implications for surrounding areas.

A month ago from today, the city of Stockton adopted a healthy food exemption into their city's code, an exemption with language that was modeled directly after the city of Sacramento's.

We share these two examples to underscore the importance of these discussions and to remind us all that the course of action that we take matters for the health and future of people both inside and outside of city lines.

For these reasons, the coalition strongly supports the amendments proposed by city staff.

Finally, we encourage the city to begin thinking about long-term public health strategies that reduce the availability of commercial tobacco products altogether.

Sacramento currently has about 300 licensed tobacco retailers.

That is about 130 more than the public health benchmark of one retailer per 2500 residents.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Next is Kimberly.

Good morning.

My name is Timberly Bankston Lee.

I'm the executive director of the Seoul Project.

I'm also a resident, proud resident of Sacramento in District 7.

I want to begin by acknowledging Sacramento's leadership in tobacco prevention.

In 2019, the city adopted one of the strongest flavored tobacco bans around the state.

Policies like these have helped contribute to significant progress.

In fact, we're down to 6% overall as far as smoking prevalence in the city.

As the city reviews the TRL, our organization would like to highlight two observations.

The healthy food exemption adopted in 2020 was intended to increase access to healthy food in neighborhoods as identified as food deserts.

However, the exemption did not appear to expand access to healthy food at all, and instead allowed an additional 33 tobacco retailers to be licenses to be issued.

Second, tobacco retailer density remains an important public health consideration.

Research consistently shows that higher concentrations concentrations of tobacco retailers are associated with higher smoking rates and an increased exposure to tobacco marketing.

Retailer density can also raise equity considerations as tobacco retailing are often more heavily concentrated in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates and larger African American populations.

And I sent ahead a lot of resources for you to review.

We conducted a public opinion survey, which found that 80% of Sacramento residents support policies that would phase out the sale of commercial tobacco products over time.

This reflects growing public awareness about the health impacts of tobacco and interest in policies that continue reducing tobacco-related harm.

Sacramento has already made significant progress in reducing tobacco use.

This review provides an opportunity to continue building on that progress while supporting healthier community environments across our city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next is Liz, then I have Anissa or Anissa, sorry, David and Jacob.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Liz Hendricks.

I'm government relations director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and I'm a proud resident of Sacramento's District 4.

I'd like to encourage the council to strengthen Sacramento's tobacco retail licensing ordinance by voting to remove the healthy food exemption.

This exemption circumvents one of the original intentions of the city's initial TRL ordinance, which was to decrease the saturation of tobacco retailers in Sacramento to limit access to tobacco products, especially among youth.

Instead, this exemption has had the opposite effect.

It has increased tobacco availability in Sacramento.

A study that was conducted in 2025 on Sacramento's healthy food exemption found that as of February of 2025, 33 tobacco retailers used this exemption, which accounted for 45% of all new TRLs issued after 2020.

Rather than decreasing tobacco retailer density, the exemption has created a pathway for new and reinstated tobacco licenses, including in areas that were not food deserts and that did not did not lack grocery access.

Sacramento's initial comprehensive TRL also served as a model for other jurisdictions interested in adopting a strong TRL.

Now we're seeing other jurisdictions like Stockton follow Sacramento's lead in adopting healthy retailer exemptions into their density policies.

ACS can also request that the city ensure that licensing fees fully cover the cost of inspections, compliance checks, and program administration.

I thank you for your leadership on this issue, and I urge Sacramento to continue to be a model for other jurisdictions by making the amendments to strengthen the city's TRL.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning.

My name's Anisa Adams, and I'm with the Soul Project.

I'm here today to speak about some of the common myths surrounding a gradual phase out of tobacco sales, also known as the tobacco end game, and research surrounding implementation of public health best practices.

So first, current research indicates that higher concentrations of tobacco retailers are associated with increased exposure and smoking initiation in youth, and as well as normalization of tobacco, particularly in communities that already experience uh health inequities and like low income and minority communities.

Um research from jurisdictions who have ended sales show that cross-border shopping is not common.

Um, and that the end of tobacco sales in a city does not displace those sales to other nearby areas, including uh within the counties, and many believe that retailers will lose a lot of their profit, uh but tobacco accounts for less than six percent of most retailers' profit, to which margins could be made up by selling other products, and retailers who primarily sell tobacco could reframe their business models to make larger profits by selling higher margin products that do not pose the harms to people's health that tobacco products do, um, and as well as uh health disparities that it produces as a result in certain communities.

Um and then lastly, uh a big claim is that by reducing tobacco availability that that might generate a black market, um, but there's no research at all that confirms this, and in fact, limiting access is the most effective tool to reduce consumption and initiation.

Thank you.

Next is David, then I have Jacob, Harmon, and Alexandria.

Thanks everyone.

I like your green tie.

Uh I wanted to introduce myself.

My name's David Thule.

I'm uh a business owner, and uh I own gas stations in the Sacramento area.

I've invested millions of dollars into this community, and um I have a concern on this.

I my concern is I believe we have to have a pathway for people to sell their businesses and being able to move their license.

I'm I'm in a process right now of trying to sell a site.

Um, this unknown right here, it's gonna take for this uh to sell this site months, but it's not gonna make it under this, and there is no pathway, and I can't sell this site without some clarity on this.

Um the previous speaker just mentioned, but I can tell you that tobacco makes up 30% of convenience store sales.

It certainly makes up more than six percent of the profit inside the stores.

Um I'm concerned that some that uh gas stations are being put together a little bit with tobacco stores and everything.

Gas station owners have to spend significantly more money.

Um the cost to build a gas station could be anywhere from five to ten million dollars right now in the city of Sacramento, and to lose the ability to move your license makes a site almost unsellable.

Um, so I believe there needs to be a pathway there.

Um, I believe the healthy food exemption is the right way to go.

Um if I transfer to site right now, the healthy food exemption was only for sites that have been transferred or some new licenses.

It would significantly reduce down to only five percent of your shelving to tobacco.

It's not a major player in your it's not a major focus of your business, and um it allows somewhat of a compromise between you know the health and the business community in Sacramento, and I think we need to find something that is a compromise between both.

Thank you.

Next is Jacob.

Hi, good morning.

I'm a dispensary owner in Sacramento.

Um I just want to come up here and share my thoughts on this.

Sacramento supporting a 1,000-foot separation from tobacco retailers to prevent clustering, even though tobacco stores prevent clusters, even though tobacco stores sell the same basic smokable products.

At the same time, the city is considering eliminating the 600-foot buffer between cannabis dispensaries.

That inconsistency is difficult to justify.

Cannabis smoke lounges will involve on-site smoking and additional impacts.

If anything, if anything, those should have face equal or greater protections, not fewer.

Sacramento should not be moving backwards by removing cannabis spacing protection while maintaining stricter anti-clustering rules for tobacco stores that do not even allow smoking on site.

That inconsistent land use policy and inconsistent policy makes it very difficult.

Now respectfully asked ask you to consider as the city evaluates tobacco retail policy and broader land use policy around cannabis use.

Adopt standards that are more restrictive for adopt standards that are more consistent across the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know it's unrelated to tobacco, but my understanding is that what will come back in the next staff report for cannabis will include a thousand foot buffer.

Oh in case that's helpful.

So keep an eye out for that.

Thank you for telling me that, and I'm sorry I showed up here.

No, you're gonna be able to do that.

Appreciate you guys listening to us through that process while we're going through it.

So thank you so much.

Thanks.

Next is Harman.

Welcome.

Well, thank you.

Good morning.

Uh Harmus Handu, uh Rodney Cigar and Knicker from down the street.

Um took us we took over in August of 24.

It took us uh 10 months to get our tobacco license.

Uh there's some other factors at play, but you know, imagine owning a spot or buying this place called cigar and liquor and and getting cussed out, you know, for not having uh tobacco.

I'm 42 years old.

I've seen uh tobacco my whole life.

Um, you know, I also own a gas station.

And that's as Dave said, there's millions of dollars being invested into our communities by these business owners.

And what I personally believe is it's just creating an unfair advantage to those who aren't selling or you know, have been grandfathered in.

There's a lot of corporations that are available, they're not giving up their licenses.

Um definitely more than uh 10 percent of sales are derived from tobacco.

It gets people in the door.

Um, I I've if anybody's willing, um more than um able to guide you guys around downtown to show you guys the access to flavored tobacco.

Um, we're willing to conform to the to the rules and regulations, but uh you know, for for somebody to work their whole lives uh and not have uh any other options for uh retirement, you know, it it is devastating.

It it does um you know put you in a bind to where the people are gonna find their tobacco regardless of you know what we implement.

Um the flavors, you know, I'm all for it.

I have two daughters.

Um, you know, I think education is is the great way to go um to to you know put forth the the dangers of tobacco, but at the same time, um you know there's people that are uh investing into our communities.

I've done it myself, um, and I've shared the financials with the police department and you know, anybody that's you know contributing to our decision making, and uh it's not easy being a business owner these days.

You know, um there's a lot of fees, there's a lot of regulations and loop uh, you know, things that we have to be uh weary of.

Um so we're just asking for a fair chance and a level playing field.

Thank you guys.

Next is Alexandria, then I have Jas, Letitia, and Rocky.

Good morning.

My name is Dr.

Alexandria Rymold.

I'm a constituent in District 6.

I'm also a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California Davis, leading research on the Sacramento Healthy Food Exemption.

I'm here today to share my research findings.

As you know, in 2020, with the goal of addressing food deserts, the Sacramento City Council introduced the healthy food exemption, which circumvents tobacco retailer proximity requirements if a licensee devotes no more than 5% of total shelf space to tobacco products and at least 10% of shelf space to healthy food.

In February 2025, my team received data from the city of Sacramento on 33 retailers that used the healthy food exemption to open.

Between September and October 2025, we conducted in-store observations to identify the healthy foods that were available.

We also combined our data with USDA and census demographic data to better understand where these stores were opening.

Based on our in-store observations, only six retailers or around 20% were in compliance.

Noncompliance was driven by a lack of fresh fruits and vegetables, where only 12 retailers had fresh fruit and only six had fresh vegetables.

And even the retailers that stocked fresh fruits and vegetables often had limited or low quality options, and large sections of the retailers were devoted to unhealthy products like tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and ultra-processed foods.

Furthermore, though the healthy food exemption aimed to increase healthy food access in food deserts, only two of the 33 retailers or 6% that use the healthy food exemption to open opened in what the USDA classifies as low-income low access areas, formerly known as food deserts.

We also found that these retailers opened in areas with larger black and Hispanic populations, as well as in areas with lower educational attainment and lower median household income compared to Sacramento County.

Thus the healthy food exemption may be further contributing to inequities and tobacco exposure.

Next to Jess.

Oh, Chair, can I ask a question?

Doctor?

If it's okay, uh a question from one of our members.

I have a question for you.

If you can you come back to the podium.

I I um thank you for your comments.

I'm just curious whether what your findings your research is written up or published yet.

Not yet.

We are writing that up, and we do plan to submit it to the American Journal of Public Health.

Okay.

I mean, if you can share what it is, share what you have done in writing between the time we hear this and presume it goes to the council, that would probably be very helpful.

Absolutely.

I did submit a public comment, and I did attach the policy brief, which is two pages outlining all of our research findings.

Oh, good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

My name is Jazz Zundel.

I'm a local businessman in Sacramento City and County.

I own some convenience stores and some other businesses.

I have convenience stores since almost like 20 years now.

And uh, like other people talked, you know, we are at that age for the retirement, right?

You heard it from everyone.

But is this the solution by taking that uh the tobacco retailer license from the local businessman?

Is that the solution?

If somebody said like we went to inspect the stores and they were not like uh they were not in compliance, but did you guys give any any of those like strict compliance?

Okay, this is what you guys need to have.

All the convenience stores, we have all the food items.

We have we are at my store, I have like about all the produce fruits, everything in there.

Why we are getting her uh uh why you guys want to hurt us?

This business, it's we don't want to sell tobacco at all, to be honest, but that is one of the items which brings the all the customers also in our stores.

If you take, let's say, if I want to sell my my business, right?

And the next uh business owner will not get that tobacco permit.

Will will that be a solution?

There will be another store selling uh tobaccos over there.

That's not a solution.

Give us some pictures, okay, that this is the rack every every convenience store should have.

We not a tobacco stores, we are a convenience stores.

We are there for a public.

So give us a picture.

Okay, this is the rack, everybody should have it.

There should be like a produce, there should be fruit on it, and all the look come look at my store.

Full of uh so many racks full of um the food items.

We have millennials.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Laticia Ramitas.

I am with the law firm of Thatch and Hooper, and we represent Thule Oil.

You heard owners, David Thule earlier today.

I am here to stress um the level of uncertainty that a change like this in terms of eliminating the healthy food exemption creates for a business.

As mentioned, tobacco is about 30% of in-store revenue sales.

If you take a step back, you can also, our clients can um have data to show that your average tobacco purchase includes non-tobacco purchases as well, within the range of like eight to twelve dollars, and it varies by stores, but this is data that I have personally seen from our clients.

So when we talk about the financial harm to local businesses, this is exactly what we're talking about.

You're changing the nature of the business, and you uh this type of regulation will uh cut off a revenue stream that they need in order to be profitable.

It's not just a revenue stream, it's a profitable uh profit center for many gas stations, just given the nature of franchise agreements.

Also, I I do want to say that a fuel retailer is heavily regulated both by uh local and uh state agencies in terms of if there's any hot food, they're regularly inspected.

Um, there's also the water inspections, underground storage.

I mean, you're talking about a business that is extremely um sophisticated, they are heavily regulated, and compliance is in their DNA for many of them.

And in particular, I will say our client, Thule Oil, who um, as I mentioned, is a local business, it's actually a second generation family business.

And by um eliminating the healthy food exemption, you this change will actually put at risk the ability for them to um ensure that future owners can sell tobacco and will therefore lead to a decrease in value of their business.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Rocky Mulley, and I'm with APCA, which is American Petroleum Convenience Association.

We literally represent actually over 100 members in the city of Sacramento alone.

And they have multiple stores.

So I want to start by saying that as small business owners, we understand the importance of public health and youth protection.

Many of us follow strict ID policies and take compliance very seriously.

However, the proposed changes could unintentionally harm responsible small businesses that are already complying with city's rules.

Distinguish convenience stores and gas stations from tobacco shops.

There needs to be a clear distinction between tobacco focused shops and convenience stores or gas stations.

A gas station typically, as Mr.

David said earlier, a gas station typically costs $7 to $10 million to build and operate as a full service retail location, providing fuel, groceries, drinks, and essential goods to the community.

Tobacco products may represent around 30% of Kenyan stores roof sales, but these stores are not tobacco shops.

They are community service businesses.

Applying the same restrictions designed for tobacco shops to gas stations and general community stores may create unintended economic consequences.

The thousand foot rule and non-transferability could harm small businesses.

The proposed thousand-foot rule combined with non-transferability could make some businesses really impossible to sell in the future.

Small business owners often rely on the ability to sell their businesses as part of retirement planning or financial stability.

At the end, we respect the city's goal of protecting public health.

At the same time, we ask the council to consider policies that balance those goals with survival of responsible small businesses that serve our communities every day.

We hope the city will protect businesses already complying with the healthy food program.

Consider consider exemptions for gas stations and convenience stores.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

The next few, I apologize, I'm having trouble with the handwriting, but I believe last name K-U-M-R-A.

Then first name S A M Ya.

Then I have D I L.

Welcome.

And lastly, Gabriel.

Welcome up.

My name is Sammy Chan.

I'm also with the American American Promote Petroleum and Convenience Store Association.

I'm also second generation store owner.

Small business owners often rely on the ability to sell their business as part of retirement planning or financial stability.

If a business license cannot transfer the value of that business could drop dramatically overnight.

Like said before, it could render the business unsellable.

30% or less are tobacco sales, but those are customers that come into our store.

So that's stopping or eliminating 30% of the shopping public to come into our store to buy healthy foods or drinks or sodas or anything else coming to our store.

So this creates a financial risk for people who invest their life savings into their stores.

Protecting businesses already follow healthy food exemptions.

Many stores already comply with the healthy food exemption program, or they do it on their own by having fruits and vegetables, breads and cereals in their store.

These stores are already meeting the city's goals of promoting healthier retail environments.

Businesses that are in good standing and comply with these rules should be allowed to continue operating under grandfather clause.

We want to follow all the rules and regulations.

We believe selling legal product to legal age, we want to follow those rules.

We have no intention to sell to underage or to sell flavor tobacco.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Dalbir Chahal.

I'm a local business owner, convenience store owner.

Like most of my colleagues said, it's the same thing.

I mean, California is going away from tobacco, and we respect it.

I mean, this I I heard that a recommendations and they want to enforce more stricter rules.

We have no problem with it.

But the problem is the regulation is actually not working with the proximity rule.

Because proximity rules, you're hurting existing business owners, create uh diminishing their their goodwill when they sell the store.

When they sell the stores, they want to be able to transfer the tobacco license.

Otherwise, they will not be able to get the value of the store.

And I can explain how.

Let's say there are two stores, A and B, they're across from each other.

A store is on sale, and they're not gonna be able to get their license.

First of all, new buyers will hesitate to buy it, because any time someone comes in to buy tobacco, let's say remove the tobacco ward for a second, replace it with the milk.

Let's say you want to buy milk or bread, and one store only sells milk, other stores sells milk and bread.

You would rather go to the store which sells milk and bread rather than first driving to the store pick up milk and then go to pick up this.

That's that's a big problem.

So if you want to regulate tobacco, most welcome, you can regulate as much as you want.

Some places are making $10, $50 a pack, $30 a pack, make it $50 a back.

So every will everyone have the same kind of impact.

That will reduce the amount of consumption.

But you know, uh creating that uh unfair competition is not good.

We store owners, I work in my store more than 15 years.

I'm 47 right now.

I'm not that strong, and I used to be 20 years, and work more than 25 years in this country, and I hope to at some point collect that goodwill I paid to my by my store.

That's the only way of retirement I have.

So I really hope you folks consider this.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Hello, uh, my name is Gabriel.

Thank you for taking my comment because I submitted the uh slip late, but I wanted to actually talk about the recommendation on slide, I believe it was 51 about banning the sale and distribution of Kratom products.

Um earlier this year, at the beginning of the year, California Department of Public Health issued a statewide ban on all kratom products, and I believe that this was a mistake because it's a product that is pretty widely misunderstood.

The kratom leaf products are often associated with products like 7-0, which are concentrated forms of an alkaloid that is produced by the plant and are incredibly dangerous.

And the California Department of Public Health kind of did a throw the baby out with the bathwater top situation where they wanted to ban all kratom products.

Um the Kratom leaf product is actually responsible for getting hundreds of thousands of people across the United States off of opioid addiction.

Um I think that it would be a huge mistake uh to ban the sale of all kratom products.

I think that just further regulation is something that's needed, and it's something that Los Angeles County is actually taking under consideration to just add further uh regulation of the sale of Kratom products and the derived products that are being sold under like 7-0 and other um like highly concentrated forms.

Um it's just becoming increasingly difficult for people who do use those products to get them, and I think that it's safe to say that when you ban a product like that, people are more likely to turn to black market methods to get something that's similar and more likely to get something that's like opiate-based or fentanyl.

Um, so I know that it's not a huge part of the presentation that the city provided, but I do think that it's an important note.

Thank you.

Um I do have one more than one I I believe I mispronounced earlier or misspelled.

Is it K-H-A-I-R-A?

Okay, thank you.

Well, not the last one.

Sorry about that.

Come on up.

Good morning.

My name is Parmjit Kara, and I'm a retailer.

I have a gas station in district three.

And um recently, last year, we have another gas station open across the street for me.

So our biggest concern is like we made a lot of investments in our business, especially gas stations, convenience stores.

So our age is getting there where I we have to sell it for our retirements, or we have to pass over business to our kids.

So this ordinance will not allow us to transfer to or sell our business to anyone for our retirements.

So my biggest concern is I don't think so.

The gas stations and convenience stores is the issue.

I think the biggest issue is smoke shops.

So we have to be kind of make them separation or something.

Uh because smoke shop investments very little and convenience stores and gas station investments is big.

So putting everything together and this ordinance uh is gonna hurt our retirements.

So I strongly request so concerned this.

Thank you.

Okay, I think that completes our public commenters.

Thank you.

Um really appreciate everyone who came out and shared your point of view.

Um with that, I would love to open it up to my colleagues for any questions, comments, concerns.

Council Dickinson.

Thanks, Cherry.

First of all, I just wanted to clarify or confirm that the proposal would not allow those who have licenses with the healthy food exemption to transfer.

They could maintain them as long as they kept ownership.

But they but the pro proposal is not to let the license transfer on sale or that is correct.

The current city code, even without the new new additions to it, already does not allow for transfer of ownership of the license on uh if they sell the business, the new owner has to uh uh apply for a brand new tobacco license and not transferable.

And that's the that's not the current that's the current regime.

That is the current policy now, yes.

So so the healthy foods exemption with the proximity um allows for the new owner to get the license now via the healthy foods.

When the healthy foods goes away, then there's no transfer of license and they wouldn't be able to have a tobacco license any for any longer.

So um help me understand if uh if they're gas stations across the street from each other and they each have licenses now, and let's let's say they have both have them under the healthy foods uh exemption.

Uh and uh one owner wants to sell to some new buyer, what would that what would transfer nothing in with respect to um tobacco?

Under the new uh proposal, then the new owner would not be able to get a tobacco retailer license.

Uh uh under any circumstances.

Correct.

Okay.

And uh currently the license doesn't transfer, but they can apply as is that is that is correct, yes.

Okay, okay.

Thank thank you.

That helps me understand.

Um the other well, the uh in terms of comment, Chair, uh I do support uh efforts to try to reduce the number of uh of uh locations and businesses uh where tobacco is available.

Um so in principle, I think that's uh I think that is desirable, uh certainly from a public health standpoint, and it would be consistent with I think what the city has has done legislatively as well as the county uh over the uh over the years.

Um at the same time uh uh I am sensitive to those who have made an investment in a business and and having uh uh an impact on uh uh on that value uh because then they may have a license, but they're not gonna live forever.

So they're gonna uh have some uh uh real consequence potentially from this.

And I think that that the this is this is something that doesn't really affect the the Bel Airs and the safe ways.

It's the small smaller business operators.

So uh there's an in that sense something of a of an equity uh consideration as well for me.

Um so I'm uh trying to figure out how how best we bal balance that those those considerations.

Uh the other thing I I wanted to just uh I I guess it's a question I don't guess it's a question more than a uh a statement is nitrous oxide, which seems to be emerging as a real problem.

Uh and you didn't pr present anything on it, but it was mentioned in the comments.

Uh uh I am curious about whether if we're gonna if we if we think we should address nitrous oxide, the sale of nitrous oxide, uh should we do that separately or should that be incorporated here or how would you see that, Sean?

I would assume it'd be on a separate ordinance.

It wouldn't be part of the tobacco ordinance.

Um like I said, this was a recommendation from a lot of the tobacco retailers.

Um but it would have to be a separate ordinance away from the tobacco, I would think.

Okay.

I I I don't know.

I we had some comment on the the Kratum products.

I don't know as much about that, but I um actually have to say I was just at the at the at the Civic Well Policymakers conference and talking to some other elect local elected officials from around the state who are seeing nitrous oxide emerging as a real uh as a real problem uh in their in their communities.

I don't know the extent to which it is here, but it does seem to me that uh given given what I heard from others that that that's something that that uh merits uh examination uh uh as perhaps a separate matter as you suggest.

Thanks, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Um Council Member Puckybaughn.

Uh so a year ago the city council met and had a full discussion about uh tobacco use citywide.

Uh at that time, I think we had a conversation about the healthy foods exemption.

Uh my expectation was that what we were um moving, the direction we were moving as a city was really full cessation of tobacco sales citywide.

What would a full managed retreat from uh tobacco sales look like in a way that was um equitable to the license holders and gave them an opportunity to uh divest from those uh if they if they so chose if the question is what would it take to begin issuing no new licenses, it would be just to put a moratorium and no new tobacco retail license and only let the existing um retailers um hold the license.

Other cities that have uh cease tobacco sales uh uh was there a notice period, a duration where they were able to uh do that for some period of time and and then uh allow folks to phase out of those uses, or was it a uh a hard stop?

Remote our research that showed kind of like when we started the um ban on flavor to provide the retailers a time to um deplo uh plenish their um inventories and then not um be able to purchase additional product and um had a sunset date to have it done.

How much was how much time how much notice did we give on the flavor?

Is that a year?

No, I believe it was 90 days.

90 days, okay.

Um, I mean what we're hearing uh from the community today is uh you know, this this change today would obviously be uh disruptive.

Um if there was an opportunity for us to have a fuller discussion about uh tobacco sales citywide, uh is that something that we could bring back maybe later the summer or um you know later in the year?

Yes, if the goal of the council is to begin reducing the current number of retailers, then that would be a separate discussion.

This one would allow your current retailers to continue to operate.

There just wouldn't be any um additional new permits um if they uh didn't meet the proximity requirements, and it would also not allow any um properties that transfer to use the healthy food exemption any longer.

So that's currently the way they get around the proximity requirements is using healthy food exemption.

Um if they maintain status quo, they all the current license we have, unless they um lost their license, failed to renew, um they would continue operating.

Chair, my preference if if if it's the will of this body is to um uh bring this back to the future for a fuller discussion about uh how we're gonna treat tobacco enforcement citywide uh outside of the healthy foods exemption, just full stop.

Okay, all right, Councilmannings, anything from you?

Yeah, I was just really listening to the whole conversation and trying to understand it more.

And I'm kind of where Councilmember Pluckybaugh is right now.

I think we need to have a comprehensive conversation as a council on the whole uh healthy choice um food exemption on the tobacco uh the use of tobacco.

Um what we put in place in 2020, uh the statistics surrounding that, just really opening it up to the entire council so we can understand it, not just the council, but for the entire community of Sacramento, so we can understand it better and then make policy as far as moving forward.

Right.

Um so I have a couple of questions.

Um one of them's already been answered, but I want to clarify it.

So under the the this proposed um rule change, which would then go to city council for discussion if we decided to move forward, um, would be ending the exemption.

So uh moving forward.

So any new um anyone applying for a new license through this um through a new for a new tobacco sales license that was in within a thousand feet of another retailer would not be able to use an exemption if they were within that thousand feet, so they wouldn't be able to open and say and sell tobacco if they were within a thousand feet of another tobacco retailer.

That is correct.

If they applied, they would be denied their application.

Okay.

Um and then those who currently have the exemption would not that wouldn't remove the exemption that they have, they'd be grandfathered in.

That is correct, they'd be able to keep it moving forward.

But if they, as we heard from some of the members or some of the um folks who came and spoke today, that if they wanted to sell their business because it's their retirement or whatever it may be, they would not be able to include that that sale, the ability to sell in moving forward for whomever buys it.

Correct.

The new owner would have to apply, and if there's a location within a thousand feet, they would be they would then be denied.

Um I guess the question I have is I'm thinking about like alcohol sales, for example.

When there's a permit to sell alcohol, does that stay with the building and like the property itself, or does that go with like whoever owns the business?

As far as I know, they would have to sell that liquor license as part of the sale.

Is that correct?

They could sell the license somewhere else also.

Yeah, they they could sell the license to someone else or to the person buying their business, but uh it the license that license is transferable.

Okay.

Um I guess I'm having a little heartache with that, um, because I do I am sympathetic to the idea of you know, you buy you build a business, this is part of it, you know, for better or worse.

And you know, of course, I'm not a I'm not a proponent of you know more young people smoking, for example, but it is a reality that people over the age of 21 smoke cigarettes.

Um I was a smoker for many years, I haven't been in a long time, but I I sympathize with that too, and I understand that people who smoke are gonna go buy their product somewhere, presumably, though there is research that says if it's less available, people can make different choices, and that can lead to reduction in sales.

But um, you know, I think with the current environment uh that we're in, and I I know I heard one of the speakers say, you know, that there's not evidence to suggest that people will go, you know, to the county, for example, to buy, and I just um that doesn't bring very true to me in in reality because you know, we're the way my district is designed anyway, which is a little bit different than some of the folks up here, is you can literally be on one side of the street of my district and you're in the city of Sacramento, and your neighbor right across the street from you is in the county because of a part of the county that jets into the city called the fruit bridge finger.

Um, and so you know, literally you could have one store on one side of the street that's selling if this rule change were to pass that would be not allowed to sell, perhaps, and then someone across the street who can, um, and that all that's gonna do is not only push sales into the county of Sacramento, which it hurts you know, the track in tax revenues, but also uh doesn't really accomplish our goals here, right?

If someone's so I'm I'm really curious about that city-county connection, um, and if we have any data showing how many stores that are selling tobacco, for example, are you know like right near the city limits.

Uh and it's okay if you don't have that right now, but it is a question I have because I think it's important that we have if we're going to make a decision like this that we have data that supports what we want to do, and that is not gonna lead to maybe some unintended consequences, like folks still choosing to buy tobacco and smoking and then just going right across the street, for example.

So I'm just having some a little bit of um concern over that, and I do I do really sympathize with you know folks who may not have you know a 401k, don't have a traditional retirement account, and they put their entire lives into their business, and that is their retirement plan, and all of a sudden we make a change and now they cannot sell their business for what for what it's worth.

Um and so I'm a little bit inclined.

I am inclined to end the exemption moving forward personally, um, because I you know I think that we've seen in the data that that we're we're not necessarily seeing the proliferation of fresh fruits and vegetables all over the communities and places where there are food deserts.

In fact, we see the most in District 4 and places that are pr very walkable and do have grocery stores and um, but uh I am I do think that it might make sense to allow people to transfer the license so long as it stays with the physical property.

Um so if someone's selling and that business is there, if someone's a different owner, nothing has physically changed about the the building itself.

I don't see why that building, the person who owns that building might not be able to do the same thing if everybody else's grandfathered in who had that before.

That just seems like a fairness issue to me.

Um so I just want I'm just saying these, I'm thinking through this out loud.

I'm also have um questions about Kratum, where I don't know enough about it to say that we should should or should not do something, but I am really interested to learn more because if it is a an issue and a concern, then we should probably be thinking about regulations related to that.

I just don't know.

I don't I don't know if we have enough information to say definitively what we should or should not do, especially if there are nuances as we're uh was mentioned.

There might be certain products that make a lot of sense to carry, and there might be ones that we absolutely do not want to be sold.

I know that's also true for some C BD products and other things that are sold in um some stores, and so there might be a bigger discussion on that moving forward.

Um, I'm gonna stop rambling, and I see that council member Dickinson has another comment.

Thanks, Chair.

Uh I I would uh suggest that we uh send this to the full council.

I I think this is something that we need to have nine members uh make uh as decision on and not just keep it here, have the not have the staff come back to the committee because it it's just gonna string this out even even longer.

Um but I but in doing so uh I I would further suggest that we highlight this issue, I think particularly of the of the transferability of uh a license under the uh under the healthy food exemption um uh as we've been discussing where it where it otherwise would expire uh or would not be possible to to to transfer.

Um it it does seem it does seem to me that we could eliminate the healthy food exemption uh in in general, the grandfather, the people who've who've got it and um uh and allow them to to transfer.

But I think that that's just something we could highlight for the full council to discuss without changing without changing the recommendations here that the staff have come to us.

So if that sounds reasonable to members, I'll make that as a motion.

I would second the motion and a second.

Is that clear enough as a motion?

Madam Gore.

I I hear that you did your the motion is to forward the ordinances to city council for consideration.

Okay.

Um by highlighting, do you mean that the the the council as part of what comes to council will be a consideration of transferability as a part of that?

Okay, because I know the current proposal doesn't allow that.

Yes, so that that's exactly what I that's exactly what I'm I'm suggesting or moving.

Okay, we have a motion a second.

So I um I'll just say more broadly that um that I think one of the most successful public health campaigns of all time has been uh to tobacco related, the fact that we've seen in basically one generation the ubiquitousness of cigarettes um basically go away, and it's been uh kind of amazing to see it in my lifetime.

Um but we also you know live in the reality that there are still people who smoke uh and there's still people who want to purchase cigarettes and that that is probably something that will continue to happen regardless of if they're going to someone who's sitting in this audience's store or not.

Um, and I think that you know I am very interested in a broader discussion in the future about what's our stance as a city on tobacco sales writ large.

Um, is that something that we want to try to control more?

Um, is that I would recommend that in that discussion that we partner with the county of Sacramento because we are so closely tied to them geographically that um I really hope that decisions that we make here that we don't control what they do and we don't um and vice versa, but that maybe we can partner in some policy making there um so that uh it is uniform and no one I because I really do sympathize as um as a business owner myself with uh the idea of fairness and making sure that we're setting a level playing field and that everybody's operating in the same space because it really truly is unfair if you're operating by one set of standards and rules, and the person across the street from you or down the road or whatever it may be has a different set of standards that is allowing them to make more profit than you and that is something that we must I think think about as we're continuing this work.

And so I hear that there's a motion and a second um for this to go to the full council for discussion with some of the changes that were recommended.

Um and with that, uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstained?

Okay, that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, we now move on to our next item related to status update on prior vacant property tax exploration.

We have closed session.

Yeah, I know.

I'm aware we're gonna take as long as we take it.

There you go.

All right.

Yep, I'm done.

Good afternoon, Chair Maple and members of the law and legislation committee.

Uh, my name is Greta Seuss, senior planner with the community development department.

Today I'm returning to this committee to provide a status update on the prior discussion of a vacant property tax.

Um, that's been uh with this committee over the past free few years.

At the September lawn legislation committee, uh direction was provided to staff to conduct outreach on the topic of the vacant property tax and return to the committee.

Um in January, staff what met with members of the public who addressed this committee to seek their input on the idea of a vacant property tax.

This feedback is summarized in attachment two of the staff report.

Overall, property and business uh stakeholders indicated that at this time they do not support a tax and express concerns about the absence of effective enforcement and clear pathways to address the underlying reasons.

Properties remain vacant.

Um participants emphasize that property owners should not be penalized for holding property vacant, particularly in situations where market conditions or regulatory barriers make development infeasible.

Um, in lieu of a tax-based approach, stakeholders emphasized enforcement incentives and process improvements as more effective tools to encourage investment and activation of properties.

Uh participants were particularly interested in an enhanced vacant lot and building monitoring and enforcement program, which is being discussed next on today's agenda.

Given that an enhanced code enforcement program is currently being developed, and the fact that such a tax would require a two-thirds voter approval as outlined in attachment three.

And given that past polling results do not reach the two-thirds voter threshold that is required to pass a vacant property tax.

Staff does not recommend moving forward with a vacant property tax at this time.

This concludes my remarks and am available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

At this time, we'll take any public comment.

First, I have Josh, then Jeff and Dalein.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Chair and members of the committee, my name is Josh Oaken on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors representing over 7,500 members.

We support staff's recommendation not to move forward with the vacant property tax at this time.

A new tax would place additional financial burdens on property owners, many of whom are already navigating challenging market conditions.

More importantly, it does not address the core issue, which is enforcement of the city's existing vacant property registry.

The city has already identified thousands of vacant properties, yet a significant number remain unregistered.

Before creating a new tax, the focus should be on improving compliance and enforcement of the current program, particularly targeting true nuisance properties.

If we if we are not identifying all vacant properties under the current system, adding a new tax will not fix that.

It risks creating a broader, more complex system that still misses the mark while placing additional burdens on responsible property owners.

A more effective approach is to focus on enforcement, bring unregistered properties into compliance, and target the relatively small number of properties that are true nuisance sites impacting neighborhoods.

We urge you to accept staff's recommendation and focus on enforcement over new taxation.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge committee to accept staff's recommendation and not move forward vacant vacant property tax at this time, and instead priority prioritize enforcement.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next is Jeff Kessler.

Welcome.

Hi.

My name is Jeff Kessler.

I'm a downtown Sacramento resident in Phil's district, actually.

Um, and also president of the vacancy fee project.

We're a nonprofit organization working in Sacramento to end vacancy and also to approve improve affordability.

Um I want to acknowledge uh the work staff has done on this exploration, uh, several committee hearings, voter polling, and a clear summary of the pathways available for a vacancy tax.

That is a real foundation, even if this phase is closing without a tax.

But I do have some concerns about the outreach process.

Uh, the January stakeholder meeting included the chamber, the realtors association, the California Apartment Association, and representatives from the development community.

These are all voices of property owners.

Uh, there was no corresponding outreach to the businesses that actually occupy and create vital parts of our community or even want to occupy these spaces owned by those same property owners.

No small business owners, uh, no merchants, no neighborhood associations representing the blocks that live with these vacancies every day.

Um, this matters because the city's own work has shown that commercial property owners in downtown Sacramento are frequently not Sacramento based.

Over 74% of vacant properties identified had owner contacts outside of Sacramento County.

These property owners are not the ones that are actually absorbing the cost of an empty storefront next door.

The businesses and residents who do absorb that cost were not in the room.

Even scheduling meetings like this during key business hours makes it difficult to hear from the most important stakeholders.

Um, that's an incomplete record, and the committee should know it going forward.

Um, we understand why staff is not advancing a city uh referred measure.

57% support a real majority, but short of two-thirds.

Your own staff report documents the path forward.

A citizen initiative requires only a simple majority.

That work is already underway.

Um, two requests as you close out this chapter.

First, design the new monitoring registry to capture square footage.

Thank you for your comments.

Dalyn Galantine.

Hello, my name is Dalen Gillantine, and I live in the Woodlake neighborhood in City Council District 2.

I really appreciate the work that's been done thus far to investigate and explore a vacancy fee, and I'm here to advocate for additional monitoring and work towards moving towards an even stricter and strongest possible vacancy registration compliance and enforcement program.

In conjunction with item six, the proposed monitoring could hopefully be used to create the necessary infrastructure to identify vacant properties, and as I mentioned, work towards a feasible comprehensive tax or fee aimed at reducing vacancy within the city of Sacramento.

While the actions taken thus far have been really important for steps, they won't change the economics for large commercial landlords who use vacancy as a strategy and can earn six figures just from appreciation without exploring or working with the single tenant.

Following the lead of other California cities, including San Francisco, Berkeley, Stockton, I would ask the content committee to continue working towards a comprehensive vacancy tax ballot measure in 2028, most likely through the Citizens Initiative pathway previously mentioned.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

That's all the comments we have.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

Really appreciate that.

Um any comments or questions from my colleagues.

Uh noting that we are running slightly behind today.

Just want to put that in note.

Okay.

Counselor Plugie Bomb.

Thank you, Chair.

Jeff, we got the rest of your comments in the written, so we'll I think there'll be a fuller discussion about accountability and enforcement in the next item.

So I just want to say thank you.

Awesome.

And I'll just quickly say uh thank you so much for the presentation and for all of the work that you put into this.

I know it's been several years, and I appreciate it because I know it's one of the issues that we often bring up on uh in this council and this dias is about vacant properties, blighted properties.

And I know we're gonna have a broader discussion about enforcement in the next item.

Um, but I think that uh the work that you did, that the polling and some of the discussions that we've had lately have really helped us hone in on what it is that we're actually trying to do here, uh, which might be more enforcement related of the actual nuisance properties than it is trying to do a blanket approach, which may or may not actually result in what we're trying to see, um, including, you know, I'm not sure one of the things that I mentioned at um the last hearing that we spent more in depth about this was you know, of the places that do have vacancy taxes.

Do we have any actual like results data that shows that it's actually leading to more development?

For example, are we seeing a lot go from vacant and blighted to beautiful overnight because it's taxed or not?

Um, and so I'd love you know, maybe we can have a conversation that about that as we move forward, but my intuition is telling me probably not.

Um, and so I think it's the right thing to do to hit pause on this for now, knowing that you know that these may be conversations that come up in the future, and then we'll focus our energy on the code enforcement discussion for now.

So thank you so much.

Appreciate the update.

And then we'll move on to our final item, final discussion item here on enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring.

Um, so related but different.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh Chair and Committee members.

Um, Peter Lemos from your coding housing enforcement chief for the city of Sacramento.

Uh today I'm here to present information to the committee on an enhanced vacant lot and vacant building registration, monitoring and enforcement program.

The topic of vacant parcels and properties has been interested in recent years due to concerns of blighted properties, empty buildings, and vacant storefronts that are not maintained that lack the development of vacant parcels over prolonged periods of time.

The city of Sacramento uh code enforcement is committed to maintaining safe and desirable living and working environments for all residents.

Visitors and business owners are our primary goals voluntary compliment compliance through education enforcement and standards of substandard vacant and dangerous buildings.

So we set standards to make sure they're maintained and addressing nuisance lots.

While we recognize the challenges presented by the stakeholders and the property owners, the legal and operational reality remains.

Property owners are the stewards of their land.

They're fundal, they have a fundamental obligation to ensure their properties do not fall into disrepair or become a source of community harm.

The request for an enhanced vacant lot or vacant building registration monitoring and enforcement program has been discussed to address this uh citywide issue.

The city of Sacramento currently has a vacant um lot program, chapter 8.

Um three six.

Um this was adopted in 2018 to reduce blight and improved maintenance standards.

The program requires annual registration, establishes nuisance monitoring fees, and sets standards for property upkeep.

The adopted ordinance did not include methods or for staffing and monitoring of enforcement of the vacant lots, and in turn limits how um how much of time we can have um follow up and respond to these complaints.

It was basically to get a better um idea of where our vacant lots were and what condition they were in.

The city also has a annual wheat abatement program that focuses on fire hazards.

This program normally begins mid-April, dependent on weather conditions and focuses mainly only on fire risk where we abate the actual properties that are not in compliance.

Our goal is to abate these properties by uh July 1st, and this is to cut vegetation.

And there's a vacant building codes that provide requirements for vacant buildings.

The current ordinance does not provide for complaint response or only provides for complaint response abatements, and it achieves minimal compliance, and then the cases are closed.

There's no ongoing monitoring or registration or nuisance conditions for those properties.

On September 16th, 2025, staff brought discussion to the law and legislative committee to request direction on amendments to the ordinance 8.136.

The committee provided direction to staff developed registration monitoring and enhanced enforcement program for vacant buildings and vacant lots, considering all best practices and staff recommendations to get input from stakeholders on different models and to complete a fee study to determine the fees to cover the cost of the program and staffing.

The fee study was completed, and staff identified several areas of the municipal code that require modification, clear requirements to maintaining buildings and property.

We've identified several codes within our municipal code that are antiquated, do not provide clarification of what is required, and they provide a lot of discretion on what enforcement and what compliance is.

So our proposed vacant lot and vacant building enforcement program.

So currently we have 5,115 vacant lots identified and they go through a registration program.

And the idea is to reduce blight, ensure maintenance, and requires a also requires a nuisance verification.

So if they become a nuisance, then they can become an annually monitored or monthly monitored vacant lot.

Problem is we have identified over 140 of these lots, and we don't have the capacity to monitor every one of these every month.

And we focus on more on the registration part of it and complaints to address the immediate complaints.

Wheat abatement program, it's proactive, it's fire prevention.

It's set through our state codes.

We bring this to council every year to remove overgrown vegation, vegetation, fire hazards, and trash from these properties, and then the case is closed, so it's a very short monitoring of these properties.

Complaint-driven enforcement addresses issues reactively.

We address the vacant properties for illegal dumping, blight, overgrown vacant vegetation, but no proactive inspections on this program.

And vacant building monitoring.

Addresses issues reactively.

So monthly monitoring is not done unless it's a uh considered a dangerous building.

There is a complaints response fee, requires maintenance, not does not accrue maintenance monitoring fees, and can remain vacant if not maintained, or if maintained, I'm sorry.

So basically, if we get a broad building that's vacant, we get called out because it's uh unsecured, we will secure it.

Um, if their frontage doesn't have dangerous conditions, we will close the case.

Um build the property owner and property owners responsible for the payment.

Where our current uh vacant lots exist.

So September 3rd, 2025, uh, when we presented, we had 4270 vacant lots.

That number has increased to 5,115.

Though there's a significant number of vacant properties, the actual registration fee and such hasn't increased significantly because these are mostly large properties that have been subdivided, so they're exempt from the registration fee for two years under our exemptions.

This provides you uh kind of a map of where these are at and then where are our nuisance lots that we've already identified.

So these are properties that have had um two or more notices and orders or penalties in three years, and so these properties should be monthly monitored, but um under the current um program and our current staffing um they're not on a regular basis.

So, what is a nuisance lot?

Uh it's a vacant lot with two or more certain administrative penalties, um, including wheat abatement.

So, if they um weren't in compliance and we had to abate it, that would be one of the violations for them.

Um administrative penalties, and this is in a 24-month period that uh in order to get off the registration, they would have to have no violations for 24 months straight.

Um, it will remain such and continually be monitored.

If it was to uh begin construction, um became a uh guard garden or fell under the other exemptions, then it could be also be removed from the monitoring program.

Ownership category.

So we identified um three main types of vacant properties, or these are vacant lots.

I'm sorry.

So who are these?

So individuals, trusts, faith centers, um overall.

There's 2,200 of the 5,000 plus vacant lots of those 2,000, 90% of those are have a mailing address outside of our county.

Um LLCs limited partnerships own 2762 of the vacant lots.

74% of those are registered or recorded outside of our county.

And then of course we have City of Sacramento government, it's going to be county, school districts, federal state buildings.

We have 143 of those that we make friendly phone calls to federal government and state and ask them to maintain their vacant lots.

Current categories.

So a waiver for a fee applies if these certain exemptions are met.

It still requires the properties to register annually, but does not require them to pay the fee.

So there's current exemptions for things like community garden, conservation agreement, parking lots, general ag parcel that was divided or created within 24 months.

Extension of the primary property.

So this is a big issue in the older neighborhoods where a property has more than one parcel, and you can't really tell the difference that it's not even their front yard.

So it provides an exemption for them to register their property.

And as long as those properties are maintained, they're not in violation, then they don't have to pay the annual fee.

So of course, we know we have the parking lot ones identified, of course, and then we have a few community gardens, but very few of the conservation or urban urban agricultural.

So our existing vacant lot program limitations.

So low compliance, we have 5100 vacant lots.

Of those, only 49% are registered.

The number is increasing.

As we continue to bring this forward, people are hearing about it more and more so that we understand a lot of it is outreach and education.

300 properties that are exempt who are registering and but aren't required to pay the registration fee.

Limited enforcement capacity.

So we've identified 149 lots that are nuisance.

These properties under the code should be monitored every single month and charge a monitoring fee, should be posted, fenced, and secured.

Unfortunately, we monitor these when we get a complaint or periodically when the officers in the area addressing other complaints just because of uh caseload and priorities.

Actively right now we have 165 active vacant building cases.

So these are cases that aren't only vacant but are also a immediate risk.

They're unsafe, dangerous, or have extenuating surfaces of such as continued blight, fire damage, uh structural instability.

Inspections are limited under the current uh seasonal staffing model, so that we we dedicate and we have to pull three officers out of the field just to address the uh weed abatement, and so it doesn't leave a lot of time to address just the other vacant lots that are declared instances.

Um there is no dedicated um enforcement team under the current ordinance.

Um even those that have a registered, uh we need we would need officers and such to issue those notices for not registering, penalties for not registering, notices and provide for hearing opportunities, or just doing outreach and education, going out and finding the property owners.

So our gaps in coverage, registration of vacant lots, storefronts, and absentee owners.

Um so currently we do not have a registration program for vacant um uh buildings.

We would like to create a vacant or uh we've been requested to create a vacant property registration and then get information from these properties, such as how long it's been vacant, how many square foot is it, is it is it residential, commercial, um, industrial, what types of buildings they are, and um currently the enforcement is largely only complete driven.

Uh if we see something that's immediate hazardous, we we'll address it, but um overall the officers are only um responding to complaints.

So vacant property registration cost comparison.

We were asked to look at other cities to see where we're at on this um on this level of our current registration process.

So we've looked at a number of cities.

Um top, so currently for a vacant um for registration fee for just for a vacant lot, we charge $70 annually, and for vacant buildings, we charge no fee because there's no vacant building registration program currently.

Vallejo treats them both the same, 519 registration, Hayward is 2,550.

Um is a little bit different, they kind of break theirs down from single lots, multifamily, and commercial.

Um City of Alameda is consistent, uh San Francisco only has a vacant building, they don't address vacant lots on a registration program.

Um Pomona and Santa Rosa are both consistent where they both charge the same registration fee for commercial and residential.

I'm sorry, commercial and um residential and vacant lots all are the same.

We had the fee study, and we addressed um what is what does it take for us to address uh vacant lot registration, nuisant vacant lot monitoring fees, vacant building, what would it take as a registration, our current vacant building monitoring fees, vacant building response fees.

So what is our current fee and what is the um proposed fee study?

Um so we're moving forward with the proposed fee study, which is uh Sacramento.

Um our current registration fee is $70, and the fee study determined that it should be a minimum of $133.

And this is registration, and we would find that would be consistent with buildings and vacant lots for the registration fee flat would be $133.

Our nuisance vacant lot monitoring fee for code enforcement is currently $330 for monitoring fee.

Um, the fee study determined it should be $557.

Um vacant building monitoring fee is currently $380, and the fee study determined it should be $903, and a vacant building response fee.

So this is a vacant building that's uh already a nuisance, and we continue to go back.

Currently, we charge $500, and that was determined that should be $1,630.

So direction from the March 7th 2023 committee was expand the vacant lot, including vacant buildings, implement monthly inspections, um, establish cost recovery, full reimbursement, strengthen abatement authority for faster response, increase the appeal fee for cost recovery of staff time, and to make sure we had a comprehensive approach to this that we were treating properties equally and addressing the the problems, having a basically having a balanced approach.

Stakeholders that we got information from or we met with, we made a number of um contacts, and we also received uh email contact and and um conversations with our bids with our community at community meetings and such.

Um so kind of what we've what we um discovered from these meetings.

Um provide support, help monitor um vacant properties, deter trespassing vandalism, improve uh coordination between uh code enforcement police and uh support for an incentive vacant um lot investment, uh seek to find out why properties are vacant and solve those problems.

Have a process to escalate the vacant property that is in violation, and there was a discussion to have uh look at our JFN policies, um, how we currently address JFN cases and look to see if we could fold this into that.

Um, fairness and exemptions, vacant property owners uh should not be penalized when mark conditions do not support development.

Um properties with active development agreements should not should be exempt.

Umers with entitlement redevelopment plans who cannot demolish until the permits are issued should be exempt.

Um this was conversations we had with them, and that one actually would be exempt because they're still structured on the building, it would just be registered under the uh vacant building ordinance.

Um, and if they did demolish, it would just fall under the vacant lot ordinance.

Um consider escalating fees for longer for the property remains.

So these were all just feedback that we received from stakeholders and constituents.

Our timelines returning to L today once we get a little direction at the end of this.

Um what will we take to the city attorneys to look at to evaluate to run it through the prop pro uh process to develop the ordinance modifications?

There's significant amount of ordinances that need to be uh updated that all address property and maintenance, and then move forward for council for consideration if that is the will of the committee.

So depending on the level of staffing, um we would need 10 to 25 additional staff.

This is gonna bring you some models of what is that look like and what it consists of.

Additional costs uh would include budgets for contractors to abate nuisance and secure buildings, current vacant uh lot monitoring fees would uh increase 50 to 100 percent.

Um alternatives, we could respond to complaints only, um, monitor only nuisance vacant properties, or respond to properties who fail to register, or do not include include storefronts.

So these are all options we'll present towards the end of this.

Um so here's the four models of enforcement that we've looked at and what we would look for consideration.

So if we took the approach of a dedicated enforcement team, this would be 25 employees looking at every vacant lot, every vacant building, every state every vacant uh storefront every month.

This would be $628 per month plus any notices, violations, penalties, and such to every property.

So it starts out at about $7600 annually, plus any additional notices, fees, and monitoring.

Registration and initial inspection.

So this would be if you look at the dollar amount, it's the suggest it's the fee study inspection fee plus the registration fee.

It would include six positions, and this would be to register every vacant property, follow-up to make sure they're registered and do one inspection annually.

Spread it out basically using part of our weed abatement program and this enforcement would and monitoring would still be lax because there wouldn't be a true nuisance declaration or follow-up on nuisance properties.

Registration enforcement, complaint response, and monitoring.

So this would take approximately 10 positions.

What it would consist of is registration of the 133 dollars.

So currently we have a $70 vacant lot registration.

It would move it to the suggested 133 to cover our under our fee study, but also include all vacant buildings and storefronts that have been identified that would follow under the ordinance.

We'd pay the 133 dollars annual registration.

And that's what they would pay.

If they were declared a perfect nuisance, so they're not maintaining their property.

So this program, this idea would focus on the nuisance, blighted and dangerous buildings.

It wouldn't focus on all properties if they're being maintained, if they're being offered for sale lease, such as that.

So this is more of a complaint, nuisance driven, but registering identifying all properties, and then monitoring monthly of those nuisance lots.

So those fees would be uh once we for declaration.

So this is basically a notice and order for a for a nuisance.

That means that they have already received two notice and orders or two abatements or two citations within the three year period.

Um then they would get the note declaration of public nuisance.

That would be uh the suggested dollar amount is 1,079 for vacant lots, and vacant buildings is 2146.

Once they're on that program, they would be monitored monthly for 24 months.

Um they have they can't have violations for the last six months of that time.

And monthly monitoring for a nuisance vacant lot would be 557 dollars.

A nuisance vacant building wouldn't be $903 per month for two years.

Um respond to properties who fail to register.

So currently there's limited response.

So we have, as we know, we have 51% that haven't registered.

This would provide a actually penalty schedule for once they fail to register.

Um, we issue them all a warning.

Um make sure we have uh current um addresses, email addresses, however, we can make contact, and we issue a warning.

Um after the time period, uh they would get a thousand dollar penalty, and then if they failed still failed to register the property, it would go to a two thousand dollar penalty, and we would just move them because they would have the two uh citations, they would become a nuisance, they would go directly to the monitoring monthly.

That's the uh more of an equitable approach where we're addressing um blighted properties or dangerous properties, um, and those are the nuisances.

Um, and kind of takes more of an equitable approach and instead of a across the board uh higher fees and costs to all properties.

Um then the last one would be registration.

So if we only register vacant buildings, such as we do with vacant lots, we will gather information, we will push to have them registered, but it will follow as our current vacant um lot ordinance does and doesn't provide for any enforcement, just provides to have properties registered so we can get information and build a database of what what's happening.

Um staff's suggestion is um the model three, which is the 10 officers where we have we address and focus on nuisance properties, dangerous buildings, um, but still registering all properties that are vacant, whether it's a storefront, um vacant lot, or um vacant building.

So proposed uh program and code changes, uh unified ordinance, bringing it towards easier to understand right now.

If you try to look in our municipal code to find the codes that affect vacant buildings, monitor uh vacant lots, registration, such as you have to go many different places.

We want to simplify it, uh make it easier for our property owners to understand, make it easier for staff to understand.

Umly inspections, dedicated team, proactive year-round monitoring and enforcement, so have staffing to be able to do that where needed.

Um, cost neutral funding, so registration, monitoring, and appeals, uh, full program reimbursement.

We've done the cost study.

We see what the cost of appeals, cost of registration, costs of monthly monitoring and uh penalties should be.

Having a set date for registration of vacant lots and vacant buildings.

Currently, it's kind of like we try to do it in February to March in that time period.

We want to be able to just start it right at the beginning of the year.

Shortening shortening the compliance times.

So this has been a discussion that's when because we have a compliance time of 21 days, but we have a appeal time of 30 days.

So of course the officer is not going to go back until at least 30 days when we have a case because they want to provide the property owner time for appeal.

This would shorten a shorten on a vacant lot that is has a violation to 15 days, have a flat appeal fee, have the time to comply and the time to appeal at the same time.

This would allow us to address those nuisance lots sooner, abate them, secure them, whatever we have to do.

And then on buildings, a little bit different because some of our building code standards, if we are addressing just the vacancy of a building, it's a little bit different.

We could go with the 15 days, but if we're addressing actual building code violations, we need to fall more closer to our California building codes and our thoughts there that their standards set that a reasonable time of compliance is 30 days on a building and a flat 700 appeal fee.

The appeal fees moving from our current um, which ranges between 50 and 700 70 700, would be more consistent with county.

So the county is a flat 700 appeal fee.

We would move towards the same thing instead of having a wide variety of uh appeal fees where we you never know what you're appealing.

So stronger enforcement tools, um declaration of nuisance property applies to the buildings, the 700 appeal fee, owner unable to monitor requirements, um, city-led abatements, clarify the property use and postings, um, so where it's posted, how it's posted, maintenance standard, um, clean up our property, maintenance, securing, and boarding standards.

If you look through our ordinance, there's many different standards, and sometimes when we're citing a both for an occupied property or a vacant property, it's very discretionary, and it just says not appealing.

Um, so what is not appealing to one person may be something else.

So we want we have some outlines of our what we would like to present as uh set standards for property maintenance, um, whether it's boarding, securing, vegetation, uh, cleaning, parking, um, those types of standards.

Um, nuisance exempt vacant lots.

Um, so if you have a vacant lot that has filed for an exemption or vacant building is filed for exemption, if it's in violation, it would lose that exemption.

Currently, they get to finish out that year on the exemption.

Um, and response fee.

So, as we presented, the uh fee study showed that our response fees should be higher.

Um, and then they should actually even be higher for non-registered and non-maintained properties because we're actually gonna even spend more time there.

So we have those fees completed in the fee study also.

So uh technology.

Um, we've had a lot of conversation of uh staff asking how are we advancing technology?

So we have the GAIS team working on currently we have a weed abatement app.

How can we use these apps to also monitor vacant buildings and vacant lots?

This will allow the officers in the field to know where the properties are adjacent and be able to streamline their use.

Um we are also in the middle of a developing an entire new code enforcement um case management system and uh department of cannabis and public works and other and uh entertainment have also come on to the same system, so we'll have a more of a unified system and it'll provide more information and more um ease of access for the property owners so they can register online, um they can submit waivers, um, and they could see where the status of their new um lot is.

Sometimes people will do a registration and it doesn't get completed, and they never have any idea until they get a penalty in the mail.

Um so our recommendation is to uh receive the report for the existing program and vacant building programs that um with the proposed enhancement.

Um pass a motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance for an enhanced vacant lot and vacant building registration and monitoring enforcement program to bring to the full council for consideration with all applicable municipal violations, regulatory fees for full offset of costs, um, staffing, and we'll use the cost study to determine how much um all of our what the cost fee and registration everything completes.

This will allow us to monitor and enforce in the vacant properties based on level of response this committee determines.

So the committee would need to advise do they want which are the models that would be best for for us to bring forward, and this um what's the most balanced approach for the property owners?

We understand speaking to constituents.

What we did find were um constituents and stakeholders that did not want to cross the board um high fees and um brought it against them liens that couldn't be removed and basically uh make a property that is having problems being um redeveloped further underwater, and also to look how we could um use streamline um permitting to assist with getting building permits and such getting completed.

And that concludes my presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

And um, first of all, thank you for going through it in detail, really helpful um for it to conceptualize and two, thank you for taking uh what was actually quite a lot of different varying feedback from from this body and condensing it down into something that we can react to.

So um appreciate that.

I knew I do know we have a number of speakers, I think 14, so we'll call them now.

Thank you.

First is Chris Valencia, then Randall, then Christian.

Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Chris Valencia, and I am here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association, and it's over 500 members, uh builders and developers making to uh working to build housing here in Sacramento.

At the hearing of this very committee on the vacancy tax, this body decided that enforcement of regulations already on the book should be the focus to punish the bad actors in the city.

This proposal on enforcement that has come back is not only onerous but is so encompassing that it punishes every good actor already working hard against hurdles imposed by the city and state.

As proposed significant registration and monitoring fees would apply to building owners who have already have ready-to-lease spaces actively on the market.

This will discourage continued investment.

We also cannot tax our way into a healthier economy.

Policies that impose additional financial burdens risk discouraging the very development that the city has identified as a priority, particularly mixed use in multifamily projects.

By creating disincentives for investment, this approach will slow economic growth, weaken the expansion of the city's tax base, and ultimately worsen the budget constraints it intends to address.

At the same time, this proposal commits the city to hiring 25 additional staff members despite significant budget pressures that are already affecting essential services.

We understand the need to hold those response irresponsible property owners accountable, and we encourage policies to do so.

However, this proposal before you does that at the detriment of economic growth in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

My name is Randall Hahn.

I uh work with the realtors, and I'm also a long-term real estate practitioner in this uh city.

I represent a lot of mom and pop property owners, and uh I'm concerned about this enhanced enforcement program.

Uh most of my clients uh are very responsible property owners, but unfortunately may get blanketed into this enforcement program.

Um what it looks like, you know, on the street is that you know, if you own a vacant lot, you know, we certainly have the weed abatement that comes up.

You know, most of my clients will abate that property two to three times a year, which is more than what is required.

And unfortunately, in between those two to three times we do it, we're cleaning up for um homeless camps, uh, the unhoused, and we're spending a tremendous amount of money, uh, significantly more than what what it used to be like.

Uh in terms of the vacant buildings, uh, you know, post-COVID, we've we've had a number of situations where we've lost tenants, and the marketplace for uh occupancy in vacant commercial is just a challenge.

Um you know, many of my clients have reduced rents by 25-30 percent.

They have uh monitoring, you know, monthly of landscaping and cleanup.

They send people once a week to do you know cleanup of the unhouse situation, but I'm afraid that they're still gonna get blanketed into this program as well too, as a violator.

I think that because there are you know hundreds of uh offenders uh versus the thousands and thousands of properties that are out there.

I think we should focus specifically on those repeat offenders and not blanket the entire property owner pool.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Christian, then I have Chris Little, Tish Mann, and Matt McDonald.

Welcome.

Hello, committee.

My name is Christian McGlade, and I'm a realtor.

It's important that enforcement measures are carefully and narrowly tailored so they do not create unnecessary barriers that are ultimately discourage local investment.

For example, I've worked with the property that was vacant because the owner was completing substantial repairs, including addressing safety issues and deferred maintenance.

During this time, the property was not a nuisance.

It was actively being improved to meet community standards.

Additionally, accepts excessive fees placed a dispropor disproportionate burden on small local investors.

Elevated vacancy fees increase the financial risk of holding or excuse me, of holding or rehab rehabilitating a property, which can be express especially challenging for those operating with limited capital and longer project timelines.

Similar to the property owner in my previous example.

As a result, these pop policies tend to favor large institutional investors with resources to absorb such costs, ultimately discouraging local investment.

Thank you for your time.

Next is Chris Little, then Tish.

Oh, I think that was Christian.

Oh, okay.

Good afternoon, council and staff.

Uh I'm Chris Little.

I live in District 4.

And uh I do know that all of you have issues with vacant parcels in your district.

Uh perhaps Mr.

Dickinson more than some of the others.

Um my feeling is really that that this has been an interesting discussion, but a new program is really not necessary.

We have the tools with the code enforcement to to go out and actually achieve what we need to.

Um given the city's current and future budget situation.

It just seems really imprudent to even consider bringing on more staff to do this, regardless of whether you raising fees or not to do so.

Uh the hiring of more people is is really problematic.

So I'd please I would ask you to please focus on the bad actors.

Um I think there's that's what needs to be done under the current code enforcement program.

And uh as several people have already said, owners face challenges with the unhoused and and other areas.

Uh the economy is is challenging.

Retail is no longer what it once was.

Retail is out by the airport in the warehouses and not in buildings, storefronts the way it once was.

So it creates challenges for many business and uh property owners to fill these vacancies.

It's not that they don't want to, but there are challenges.

Um again, no owners want vacant properties, they want to make the money that that we they can, and I just encourage you to uh direct the staff to work with code enforcement in its current situation.

Thank you.

All right, good afternoon, Chair Maple and members of the lawn legislation committee.

My name is Tish Mann.

I'm here on behalf of the Metro Chamber and the member businesses we represent throughout the city of Sacramento.

While we share the city's goal to create vibrant clean corridors, we are uh which are essential essential for a thriving local economy.

We believe the proposal before you today needs refinement to better promote economic growth.

Property owners are vital stakeholders in our economy.

In most cases, a vacant lot isn't a permanent choice.

It's a transitional phase while the property owners secure the developers, investors, or tenants needed to bring a site to its highest and best use.

We're concerned that a new fee structure that's too high and a rigorous monthly monitoring system might add financial and administrative pressure to property owners.

Let's look at opportunities for incentivizing spending capital on building repairs and property improvements, not bureaucracy.

Rather than establishing a new program, which would be a significant administrative undertaking, we advocate for an alternative solution in which the city achieves its blight reduction goals by strengthening programs already in place, focusing on vacant lot registration, weed abatement, and vacant building monitoring.

A complaint-driven model is a leaner, more responsive alternative.

It targets bad actors without the overhead of a new expansive monitoring system with 25 staff and one that penalizes responsible owners.

Instead, we support hiring the essential essential number of code enforcement staff to both bolster existing programs.

Um coupled with enforcing a modest biennial vacant property and building registration fee to ensure cost recovery.

Metro Chamber is eager to be a partner in this work to ensure we are keeping Sacramento competitive while adjusting blight effectively.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.

Matt McDonald, then I have Josh Oaken, Jeff Kessler, and Karina Raimunda.

Welcome.

Matt McDonald with the California Apartment Association here today in opposition to the proposed monitoring and enforcement program for the exact same reason.

We oppose this idea in September when it was defined as a tax.

It paints all property owners with a broad brush instead of just going after bad actors.

There's nothing surgical in this proposal.

It's an obvious cash grab.

Removing the word tax and replacing it with the word ordinance does not suddenly make this more responsible policy.

And honestly, it's extremely frustrating for those of us who stood at this podium in September and heard this committee explicitly instruct staff to come back with a plan that does not paint property owners with a broad brush.

What happened between September and now that the only thing that has changed is the title.

Did this committee provide direction to the staff that the public doesn't know about?

Or is the staff just ignoring your direction?

More questions.

Why would the city consider adding 25 new staffers while you have a 66 million dollar budget deficit?

If the enforcement strategy isn't proactive, what is the city going to do with the staff?

Why is the proposal so explicit about the fees and reporting requirements, but can't provide objective, clear criteria for what constitutes a quote nuisance property.

We in the business community are heartened, we're hard were hardened in September when this committee seemingly stood up for economic development and investment by recognizing the import of a targeted strategy.

But we urge you to do it again today and forcefully.

Thank you.

Hi.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Josh Oaken on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors representing over 7,500 members.

On agenda item six, we appreciate the city's effort to address nuisance properties, but we encourage a focused and practical approach.

First, the city should prioritize bringing the more than 2,000 unregistered vacant properties into compliance before expanding enforcement.

Only with a complete and accurate picture of vacancy can the city design a proportionate and effective response.

Second, the program should clearly and objectively define the const what constituents, what can what constitutes a nuisance property and provide a clear path to compliance.

Property owners need certainty.

That includes recognizing real world conditions like market challenges, active renovations, and leasing timelines.

This should be a tool to drive improvement, not an open-end financial penalty.

Third, the program should include thoughtful exemptions, including properties with active building permits, actively marketed commercial properties, and residential properties.

Applying commercial style enforcement to residential owners creates unnecessary hardship and does not align with the goal of addressing true blight.

A targeted approach will better address problem properties without penalizing responsible owners or normal market conditions.

Thank you for your time.

Good morning.

My name is Jeff Kessler.

I'm a residental worker in downtown Sacramento, and I serve as the president of the vacancy project.

The proposed enforcement program is a necessary foundation for improving our city, and I urge you to pass the strongest possible program.

Um, from the string of corporate lobbyists that we've all just heard from, uh, we're hearing a sob story that a fee will cost far too much.

Yet if they wanted to actually rent their spaces, we would see decreasing in asking rents, and instead, we're seeing long-term businesses that are staples of our community being forced to relocate because rents are increasing.

These are the same corporate owners of property that are sitting on unrealized capital gains already worth billions of dollars.

And these unrealized capital gains do not benefit our city due to proper proposition 13, which we can't change right now.

Uh, we're in a housing affordability crisis, and one key issue contributing to that is speculative land hoarding of commercial real estate.

Commercial property owners are sitting on empty buildings waiting for a massive payout or an asking rent the market simply won't support.

They're treating our neighborhoods like a low-stakes poker game, and the community is losing.

This is an abstract and it isn't far away, two blocks from here, uh, where we're sitting right now at 1014 10th Street.

The former InSight Coffee Building has sat vacant since 2018 before pandemic.

The owners purchased it in 2002 for 260,000, and comparable properties have recently sold for nearly two million dollars.

That's a return on investment exceeding 9% annually, and that's before you consider any possible tenant.

The annual cost of keeping that same property is less than 50,000 per year on a two million asset.

Vacancy is actually the strategy, and a monitoring fee does not impact that math.

And the building isn't alone, three blocks from this room.

You have one of the hottest corridors of vacancy in the city.

These aren't struggling properties in a depressed market.

They are vacant by choice in the middle of downtown Sacramento within walking distance of City Hall.

High fees aren't a punishment.

They're a market signal.

Let's stop subsidizing stagnation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Karina.

Then I have Verun, John, and James.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Karina Raimundo.

Here on behalf of the Midtown Association, a property-based improvement district representing over 1,300 property and business owners with the mission of making Midtown the center of culture, creativity, and vibrancy in Sacramento's Ibron Court.

We share the city goals of ensuring vacant properties are well maintained and continue to contribute to the vitality of our neighborhoods.

At the same time, it is important to recognize and distinguish between chronically neglected properties and sites that are part of a legitimate development pipeline.

It is also important to look at where these properties are located.

District 4 hosts roughly 263 vacant lots out of more than 5,000 citywide.

Less than 4%.

Midtown likely represents only a fraction of that.

Yet Midtown continues to be one of the city's strongest engines for housing and infill development.

Since 2017, Midtown has helped deliver over 4,700 residential units and nearly 780,000 square feet of commercial space, helping advance Sacramento's goals for housing and a vibrant urban core.

Because of that reality, we want to be careful about policies that could create unintended barriers in areas already delivering housing and investment.

The general plan already calls for activating vacant lots and buildings, and we encourage the city to focus on implementing those tools and making it easier to activate sites with art, markets, and community programming while projects move through the development pipeline.

We are also eager to partner with the city to help identify practical solutions that support these goals while also continuing to encourage investment and activation in Midtown.

Thank you for your time.

I can tell all of you here about how Sacramento's support for a high monitoring fees.

Uh are not inflated.

Blah, blah, blah.

You're all tired, and I can hear many growling dummies.

Instead, I'll read you a letter I wrote to my dad a few minutes ago.

Dad, mom and you visited Sacramento from thousands of miles away last year.

We contacted realtors in the area and looked for vacant lots and commercial properties.

But when I asked you what you plan to do with it, you said it's a safer investment than stocks, um.

It'll keep appreciating in value every year, more than the property taxes, and we wouldn't have to touch it.

America is a free country, you tell me.

Dad, land is limited.

Buying property in the market shouldn't exempt us from a responsibility to make it valuable to that community.

We should only acquire if we want to build or utilize it immediately.

Also tell mom I'm eating much more fresh food now.

Love you.

Buy lol rofel lamau.

Apparently saying low rofel and lamau makes every uncomfortable conversation more bearable.

Thank you.

Next is John.

Then James.

John Vignaki.

Okay.

Then James Allison.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Uh, Chair, Council members, uh, and staff.

Uh, my name is James Allison.

I'm the executive director of the Power In Alliance.

We're a property business improvement district that represents about 1,300 businesses and nearly 30,000 jobs in the power in uh area here in Sacramento.

We're the largest uh industrial area here in our city and the major corridor for uh commercial traffic.

Ultimately, what we are is a PBI.

Uh all of you in the room are familiar, at least on the dais with what PBIDs are, but we truly represent every single commercial parcel within our districts.

Um we are probably also the only offices that receive more calls about nuisance parcels than your offices do.

Uh every single day.

Uh the problem is that without knowing the uh real depth of what a community looks like and what a PBIDS work does, it's really impossible to know the difference between a true, true nuisance parcel and one that is going through a major transformation sometime in the near future.

You know, we had one parcel, excuse me, uh, within the last couple of weeks where it took us months to be able to get agency to be able to have police come out and clear a major encampment that was creating some serious problems, fires, and public hazards.

Uh as the data would point, you know, the owner wasn't a local of Sacramento, and it took us months to be able to get them out there.

That was an absolute definition of what we need to be working together on a common strategy to address.

In the meantime, though, I have another parcel owner who is a local Sacramentan.

His family happens to own a couple of large commercial parcels here in the city.

Uh, they had an entitlement ready to go for a student housing project on Folsom Boulevard.

They were ready to go.

Uh, the university announced that it was going to go in a different direction in their housing.

Things changed, and that entitlement went away entirely.

The developer backed out.

They're left now with a blighted building that they absolutely can do nothing with without a new entitlement.

Uh, well, now the university has indicated that they're looking for new participation.

He would love nothing more than to put student housing on that parcel.

True.

Honestly, nothing more than student housing on that parcel.

But if he were forced into some sort of hard decision because we're still years out from any sort of entitlement existing, that's gonna look like another self-storage lot here in Sacramento.

And candidly, I think we have enough of those.

So we need to understand the market a little bit better and truly understand that the nuanced approach is really the only option uh for us to go forward with.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Frank and then Dalen.

Good afternoon, Chair Maple.

Uh my name is Frank Louie.

I'm the executive director for the Stockton Boulevard Partnership.

Several years ago, Stockton Boulevard had a significant concentration of vacant lots, uh, sitting idle, limited economic opportunities impacting the vitality of the corridor.

With the emergence of Aggie Square, Stockton Boulevard is now a corridor of opportunity, bringing new energy, investment, and long-term vision for economic growth.

The Coca-Cola building is a prime example, which was once underutilized, being transformed into an element hotel extended state, part of the Marriott International brand.

This shows how vacant lots can become a high-quality revenue generating asset that supports business travelers and an innovation economy.

In addition, uh we have the Weinstein Group, which currently has six major sites along Stockton Boulevard and a development pipeline.

They are ethnic uh projects, but a large-scale development takes time, often four to six years to fully deliver.

We're also seeing strong momentum along 9th and 10th Avenue where a vacant lot uh recently sat being developed into mixed income housing, directly addressing the community needs while activating previously idle land.

A blanket ordinance uh risks treating all properties the same, penalizing responsible property owners who are actively moving projects forward, but not effectively addressing the long-term neglected properties.

Stockton Boulevard is no longer a corridor of stagnation, it's a corridor in transition.

As P bids, we have a strong direct relationship with property owners along the corridor.

We remain a working rolodex of property owners, stakeholders, and we're ready to partner with a city to identify and engage problem magnetic owners that have thank you for your comments.

Last is Dalen.

Hello again, my name is Dalen Gillentine, and I live in the Wood Lake neighborhood in City Council District 2.

My district has one of the highest amounts of vacant lots and that highest amount of nuisance lots currently in Sacramento.

Despite the promise of new residential developments in my neighborhood, there isn't an equivalent push to address surrounding pre-existing vacant buildings or vacant commercial lots, or do maintenance on the vacant residential lots that do currently exist.

As such, I'm here to advocate for the strongest vacancy registration compliance and enforcement fees possible, and to ask this committee to go even further.

I support the enhanced vacant lot and building monitoring and enforcement program because it'll create the necessary infrastructure to identify vacant properties and lay a foundation of enforcement to hold negligent owners accountable and address safety concerns.

However, while I believe it's a necessary first step, it won't significantly or noticeably change the financial concerns for large commercial landlords who use vacancy and property appreciation as a choice and strategy as opposed to prioritizing finding tenants.

Following the example set by some other California cities, I asked this committee to pass the fee and then to continue to work to make sure the fee and resulting programs are transparently, you know.

Report it to the public and serve as a first step towards collecting data to study and and building a more comprehensive vacancy fee to address the vacant lots and buildings around Sacramento.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk, does that complete our public commentary?

Yes, that completes the public.

All right, thank you very much.

Um and I am noting the the pressure I'm feeling from the rest of our colleagues that we're about an hour late for closed session, but I do think it's really important that we have these discussions, and this is obviously of great importance to me and to others on this uh on this body because uh we know that vacant lots can be a huge problem in Sacramento.

Uh, I'm sure that's certainly true for Council Member Dickinson, who I see over here seem to have um the most in his district.

So we'll pass it on over for you for your comments and questions.

Uh thanks, Chair.

First, I I am I had a question, uh Peter.

Um roughly 5100 vacant lots based on your survey of the of the city and um I've forgotten 2,000 some odd um uh registered.

So the so the others uh should be registered but are not, it just to be clear.

Is that true?

That is correct.

And so what what if anything uh is done about the fact uh that those lots aren't registered?

Is there any is there any contact with the property owners or any any activity related to those?

Currently there is a administrative staff, one staff member um assigned to this program, and so they send um reminder letters, please letters, you know, um contact with them.

Um we did attempt this last year to um send start sending out penalties for not registering.

Um but we were using admin staff to issue these penalties.

Um in turn the property owner just didn't think they needed to register because they were in the middle of uh a project or something like that because of the delay.

So we had to stop that and say we need the officers, the code officers actually issue the penalty, go to the property, make contact if there's something there, somebody there, do the investigation and actually um see the property with their own eyes.

I see.

So I uh uh uh obviously you've got a lot of demands on the code enforcement staff, and so I I uh infer that uh the follow-up on the non-registered lots is is done as they can.

Is that is that a fair inference to draw?

Yes, and we have improved that um when we reported last year on this, um, the uh registration rate was significantly lower.

Um, but by issuing the penalties and started doing that part of it, we did increase that level.

So we we are we do believe that if we had enforcement staff dedicated to the program to make contact, go to the properties, do the research investigations, find the people that we would substantially increase um our registration.

Um thank you.

I mean, as a first point, I do think uh it's worth spending some time figuring out how how we can be more complete in getting those who have vacant lots to register that as that that's the starting place.

Um you know, more broadly, uh I almost think that that we all um to a certain extent see two different worlds.

And uh there are those who see vacant properties as something that people want to want to develop, they want something productive, um, they're working on them doing that.

They may be they may be uh deterred or prevented by market conditions or other factors not of their own, not of their own making that prevent them from doing uh what they would hope to do with the property.

That's that that's that's one set of observations.

The other set of observations are the lots that uh stay vacant for years and nothing happens uh for decades.

And I can take you to some of those, uh, and there appears to be no activity by an owner to to do anything uh other than uh probably take uh uh write-off on their taxes for having that that property, and those and those properties often become the ones that that uh attract the kind of effects or impacts that are that are uh detrimental to the neighborhood and from and in fact those those lots remaining empty for years and years and years uh are in themselves detrimental to to an to a neighborhood or to uh uh commercial uh area.

And those and those properties often become the ones that that uh attract the kind of effects or impacts that are that are uh detrimental to the neighborhood and fra and in fact those those lots remaining empty for years and years and years are in themselves detrimental to a neighborhood or to uh uh commercial uh area.

So uh it's a little bit of a challenge to try to reconcile those two two different uh world views, it it seems to me.

Uh personally, uh I I think we we do need to do more.

Uh I don't know that uh it it uh makes sense to go as far as a program that would that would look at every lot once a month.

That that that is that would be an extraordinary extent to to reach uh regardless of of anything else such as adding the the staff to do it and the rest of the fees that it would take to support that.

Um but but what we're doing now is not enough.

And so uh you gave us something of a uh of a uh uh menu of options.

Uh and I I think that that we need to look at a program that's that's more robust uh uh while at the same time recognizing that in those cases where there where there is identifiable activity to try to try to produce something productive on the property that we don't we don't inhibit that.

Um so it you know if for me if someone's submitted plans to the planning department uh and those are in process, if they're in the building department trying to yelling at get a building permit, if there are other uh tangible identifiable uh indicators of actual activity to try to do something.

They're they're marketing the property, they're um uh uh improving improving the property and looking for tenants.

I mean, there's a I think we could come up with a list uh of those things that that we would agree would reflect good a good faith effort to make good use of of the of the property.

In those cases, let's uh encourage that activity uh and um and not uh potentially uh add a road uh something of a roadblock by charging fees on on that on a continuing um basis.

The point of this to me is to try really to in the end to incentivize people to develop their property in a responsible way, or occupy the property in a in a responsible way, to develop uses of the property that are consistent with what we want to see in terms of vital neighborhoods uh and active commercial uh areas.

And so um as I look at this I I'm thinking about how you parse that in order to reach the goal.

Uh the goal here is not to penalize people or punish people.

The the purpose is if uh in my view to try to get um people to do uh what is constructive with their with their property, which will continue which will contribute to the the benefit of the of the community and the and the city.

So uh I think there's a there's um a middle course here.

I don't think what we're doing is enough based on what I see, uh certainly in my district.

Um I think uh going to looking at every property every month is uh a step too far.

Um but but um be more active uh in terms of registering the one the properties that aren't uh uh uh putting uh a burden and to a certain extent uh on those that are not making any effort to to make improvements um but recognizing that we want to not uh inhibit people from uh doing something that's positive.

That's the kind of outline of uh approach that that I would favor.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I agree with um uh uh council member Dickinson.

The uh fee burden here that's proposed is too high, and especially as we're going up uh in into the budget cycle that we currently have, I wouldn't be uh supportive of um uh hiring uh new staff only to have uh an uncomfortable conversations about uh reductions.

Um that said, if there are ways for us, I mean we're we're talking about you know uh a little over a hundred um you know nuisance uh parcels if there are ways for us to be more uh strategic about how we're addressing those parcels, if there are um things that we can do to um you know enhance or improve uh that you know I'm open to those suggestions, but uh uh right now given where we're at in this budget, um I can't support uh any additional uh fee burden at this point.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I'll make a few comments uh unless okay.

Um and I will make them quickly given the timeline.

Uh I think Councilmember Dickinson um framed it and summed it up very well of how I feel, which is that um there is a problem.

Uh it exists, we have it in our communities, it's pronounced in district two, but I can certainly bring you too many properties in district five where uh we have uh vacant lot in particular, uh, those some parcels are the those some buildings as well that have been vacant for decades and have zero uh plans or any hope of moving forward in the near future that I am aware of, and I am very proactive in my outreach.

Um, some would say persistent slash annoying.

Um at cold calling property owners and asking them what their plans are.

And so uh I think there's approach that is needed uh that is more than what we're doing.

Um, but I agree that is not quite to the extent of the the top level that you've identified in your um in your proposal because uh I I am also aware of our budget constraints.

I do also not want to put an undue burden on Ma and POPS as an example because we do know that there's also a lot of just small property owners that are Sacramento based as well, and that um I don't think it's our goal to penalize them or make it harder for them to do the right thing.

So if you not said I check uh again, this aligns with uh council member Dickinson.

Uh strong coordination with our planning and building um departments to understand whether or not a property is in some kind of active development phase.

Do they have an application?

Do they have a permit?

Have they inquired about something?

Are they trying to figure something out?

Are they working with their well, you know, the city in some way to determine a path forward?

I think that's really important because we don't want to stop them in their tracks because now they're they're paying a higher fee or something like that.

We want to encourage them to do something.

That is the goal.

Another thing that came to mind for me and as it relates to properties is uh when I uh was thinking property initially, I was thinking empty storefront.

That's kind of like the visualization that I think a lot of us have.

But there might be other examples, like there might be a vacant, you know, uh big big commercial warehouse, for example, that's a problem.

What I don't think that I at least I can speak for myself, but I don't think I'm trying to capture is residential because I think of that separately.

We we already have um our tenant protection program, we have rules around residential properties, and so I I personally don't think that that should be incorporated in this.

I and I and I'm not aware of a bunch of empty residential like apartment buildings laying around, though I do have one in my district that we talked about.

Um, but those it's kind of a separate case.

And so um I think as you're trying to as we weigh what types of actual physical buildings that we're trying to look at as a part of this, um, that that we kind of narrow that down a little bit more and maybe not include residential.

One thing that I'm interested in is how long properties have been vacant.

I think that tells a really important story.

Um, and I'm assuming that we can figure that information out by the assessors contacting the assessor's office or looking, I don't know, I'm looking at you to see Mr.

Limous to see if that is possible to take a look at some kind of database and determine how long something has been.

Um, at least in the case where you have a a lot with something that hasn't been built on it, how long it has been that way.

Is that the case?

When we looked at the we did some research on vacant properties, we looked at um utility usage.

Um, we looked at case history.

There's a lot of cases that we have cases that have opened dozens of times since our records go back to 2008.

We might go there two, three times a year.

We go, we we do, we leave.

And this has been going on for you know close to 20 years.

Um residential properties, we have a significant amount of vacant residential properties with absentee owners.

We have a significant amount of vacant residential properties with um uh investment groups that are land banking.

Um so there is a significant amount of um residential properties we we know of, we just are not taking actions against them because there's you know, unless we have a complaint, um if they become insecure, we go ward them up and um that's it.

And then because we don't have a registration program for buildings, most of the time we're out boarding up securing addressing a property, we have no contact information.

So we look for you know, we have direct access to it because we do the building permit inspections also because we're looking to see if they have any history of building permits and see if there's any contact information there.

We're looking at um previous code cases, so we do a lot of research.

Um, but most of the time we we don't have a way to identify these owners.

Um, so they're so that we can identify how long property's been vacant.

Uh we do know there's significant amount of time for some of the properties.

Um and ultimately, you know, we we don't the the model that we presented.

We we didn't think after talking to the stakeholders that a blanket approach would be good that we needed to focus on those properties that are in violation.

So all of them register, of course, but focus on those that are in violation.

So if somebody has entitlements, somebody's getting building permits, somebody's in the process, that's all perfect.

And as long as they're maintaining their property during that during that time period, we wouldn't be there.

There wouldn't be ongoing charges, fees, things like that, because they're just gonna register their um property annually and maintain their property.

Um vacant lots are required to be maintained year round, even though everybody has a focus on fire season because that's when we have time to address them.

But ultimately, we respond to complaints year round.

It could be in you know, in the middle of January and a vacant lot, somebody complains about if it's overgrown.

Um we tell them they're gonna have to maintain their property.

Okay, that's really helpful.

Um, okay, so I'm hearing that there are there are some issues with residential, and so that might be something where we we want to have some kind of approach there potentially for vacant uh residential properties.

Okay.

Um how long is it vacant?

Um the other thing that I I'm curious about, and this is gonna take um this will be probably a separate track, but I'm really interested in why.

Um, and uh I've done some of that work myself in my own district where I you know, to the extent I know how hard it is to get a hold of the property owners, by the way.

I want to state that as a as a fact.

Um searching through databases, trying to figure out you know, you've got an email address, might have a phone number that connects to something, you don't have a name, maybe it goes to an LLC.

It is very, very difficult to identify at times who owns a property and actually get a hold of them and done some of that work in my my copious amounts of spare time, um, and uh reached out to folks, and then usually what happens is I get I end up a conversation with them that um includes you know barriers that they face in some way.

Well, I tried to do something with the city 10 years ago, and then I have this X, Y, and Z issue, or you know, the economy or something else.

And so while I know it's a lot of work, I'm very interested in understanding for those who would be on our our registration lists to the extent that we can, whether it be a survey of some sort, understanding why, you know, do they you know do they truly have no plans?

Is it something that they um you know use as a tax write-off, as was mentioned, or is it something where um they want to do something and they just maybe they maybe they don't have a connection to a the right developer, and that's something we can help them with.

Maybe they um need help understanding what financial resources might be available to them, whatever it may be.

Um, because I think the status quo right now is that everything just sits as it is.

They sit there as uh as they are with their land and go, well, you know, I guess there's nothing available for me or any way I can help.

You know, we sit here and we go, oh my god, we're so mad at them, they haven't done anything with their lots, overgrown lots, and there might be something in the middle where we can connect them to something and just we haven't had the right conversation yet.

I know that takes a lot of work, but I'm very interested in understanding the why.

Um, whether that be my own research or some some way that for the city, I think this would probably happen after we have a robust registration list with contact information that we're able to then do outreach to those people and figure out what's going on.

But something I wanted to say out loud.

Um something I've heard from some of the folks that I've talked with is demolitions.

Um so for example, we might have vacant lots where uh they want to do something and they've uh filed per an application to demolish a building that they that is a code enforcement issue for them, um, and then they've been denied that permit and they feel like they're stuck in between.

I don't know how prevalent that is, but that is something I've heard from at least a few people who contacted me coming up to this item.

Um, and so I think those are maybe that can go along with the first part that I mentioned around that coordination with planning and building to understand like whether what's the actual case with these properties.

I don't want us our our departments operating in separate spaces, but working together so that we can have a holistic view.

Um, and then I want to agree with councilmember Dickinson on compliance um of the unregistered lots.

So we I mean, having over 50% of the lots that we know of not be registered of our current ordinance is I think problematic.

I hear you on education, um, and I think that we need to continue to do that.

But I also would love your thoughts if there are other ways that we could be doing a better job to get people to be compliant.

Sure, when council passed the ordinance in 2018, the idea was to get the properties registered, figure out how many would register, what these properties are, where they're at, and then come back to add enforcement staff to address those that haven't registered, those that are a nuisance, those that are need monitoring, and to uh move forward with that part of it.

Okay, so today the conversation we're having today is an acceptance.

That's really good to know.

Um, and then the last point I'll make is just more of a general one, less related to this.

But I know that enforcement is important because we do have um, we do have some number of bad actors.

That is just the case.

I mean, uh, but I am heartened to see that of the lot the great number of lots, um, we have 150 of the registered lots that are truly nuisances under our definition.

Um, so that tells me that most people are trying to get in compliance most of the time.

Um, and you know, if that if we are able to get the full compliance for people registrating in this in this, and these numbers hold true, maybe we have 300 total in the city of Sacabano.

Um, and so that shows me that we do have a more narrow path in front of us to try to like that.

We talked about um at the at the beginning of this conversation months ago when um we first brought this up that we wanted to have a scalpel approach.

Um, and I think to me, this the numbers help us figure out how to do that, like that really how do we identify those truly truly problematic ones and get them into compliance versus um trying to do a blanket approach.

So that's really helpful to me.

And then the last thing is uh incentives.

Um we can't just like find and fee and tax and everything our way out of this problem because uh at the end of the day, there's all kinds of reasons why people may or may not be doing something with a property.

Um what we really need to be talking about is incentivizing people to do things as well.

Um, and so that's a bigger conversation that will have that has to do with economic development and our budget and all kinds of other things that we we won't be able to fix it here.

Um, but I am certainly interested in that.

And I know um I've mentioned that my office is coordinating a trip to go to San Francisco to learn about their vacant to vibrant program and talk about how we can do a better job at incentivizing at least on the vacant storefront uh spot, how we can incentivize some of the things that are um that we want to see instead of um the enforcement and the penalizing being the only approach.

So with that said, what we need to do right now is we need to have a motion that directs staff to do something.

So um based on I don't know if anybody wants to make a motion, or I'm happy to try to figure it out.

Well, I'm I'm happy to to make a motion, but um I I want to ask Peter first whether uh we've described a number of things that we think um are the ones that focus on in this, and I so my my question is do you have enough in in this conversation to give you direction to to develop some some form of uh draft ordinance that could be presented to the council?

No.

Um do we want status quo or do we want to stop doing something else in code enforcement to dedicate staff to our current program um because you have to realize the number of nuisance vacant lots we have right now, those are the only ones that have been declared because we tested using admin staff to issue notices, issue penalties, which probably outside their job class and such, and and didn't work well, and then we stopped because we did not have enforcement staff to address them.

There could be 10 times that many nuisance properties out there we don't could because while we're doing is addressing them and and closing the case.

Um so it it's do we stay status quo only registr and just address our current program, which is vacant lot registration for only vacant building or only vacant lots, continue the dangerous building issues where we only address those that are most dangerous in our city.

Um and figure out how to rededicate staff in current code enforcement to look at the 51% that are not registered and those that have already been identified as a nuisance.

Yeah, I'm at my view is we can't do what we need to do with the existing staff.

I mean, they've just they they're stretched now.

So uh it would be a uh I I think it would be an illusion to to say to you go take code enforcement staff and have them spend more time going out and looking at uh lots.

Now maybe there's some efficiencies uh that can be achieved.

Um maybe something can you we go out, we have staff that goes out and looks all the lots looks at the lots regarding weed abatement.

I mean, maybe there's maybe there's some uh operational efficiencies that can be achieved in that regard, but I do not think that we can get to the level of of activity that we we need with the staff we've got, and so there's gonna associated with that have to be some uh addressing of fees.

And I heard I heard council member plucky bomb is he he doesn't sound enthused about new new things and new fees, but you know that that that that that can be worked on.

Uh but aside from that, uh maybe we're not ready to send this to the to the full council uh chair, maybe maybe it's uh a matter of um some of us uh you know, a couple of us sitting down with Peter and having a conversation about trying to shape something that then can come back to the to the committee for consideration.

I think that's a great idea, and that would um be my thought too.

It sounds like based on the comments that I heard up here, and I'll pass it over to you, Councilman Jennings, in just a moment.

Um, I see your name popped up, but um I'm getting the sense that we still have have some details that we want to work out.

We're headed in the right general kind of direction, but um we want to make sure that we can go through it with a fight finer touch on some of what we think we can stomach in terms of um staff additions, obviously in the context of the budget.

I think maybe some more um conversations with some of our um stakeholders.

I I do it was um well noted earlier in the earlier item about um not just property owners, though obviously that's an important um constituency because this is ultimately impacting their property, but um talking to also some of the businesses that might be located within the properties and um it might be a great place.

So I think we go back to uh we have more discussions, maybe um a couple of us uh talk with Peter, and then I think it should come back to this committee um after those discussions, and then we can talk about moving it forward to the council.

And so for now, I'll pass it on over to Council Murgenz.

I and I'll be quick because we are out of time.

Um there's something that was said earlier today um as far as what we're doing now is not enough.

It's not working.

So my question is is are there places in Northern California or in the state of California that do have a program that is addressing some of the issues that we see right now that can be a best practice for us to go take a look at?

Is that a trip that we some of us can decide to take together in order to see how they're utilizing technology or whatever resources they're utilizing in order to address this problem?

Is that something that we've done or something that we should do?

Currently, we have been looking at several ordinances, several policies we look at recently passed um policies.

Um, and that's what we kind of incorporated that we needed stronger ordinances to define um what the violations are.

We looked at um registering a property, so we have real contacts, we know what we're dealing with.

Um so that's looking at you know nine or ten different jurisdictions, bringing a small amount of their best practices, speaking to them, see what was successful, what wasn't, and incorporating that all in into what we've uh what we brought forward.

So you have cities that you actually feel have best practices that we can implement.

Yes, emulate.

That's what we brought forward.

We we've looked at a few things from each city that we felt would address our our city without being over aggressive to deal with every property, um, to say, you know, what what is a what are clear ordinances that say how do you maintain a property, where do you maintain it, what is vacant, what are exemptions, and bring that forward and then address your properties who um are in violation.

Um the only thing that we're lacking is um one staffing and two is our abatement process we currently have, which is slow.

Other cities do abatements much faster.

I think those are the things we want to learn from is what are other cities doing better than we are, and then try to incorporate that.

That helps us to make policy, it helps us to help you.

And so for me, I I need to go on a road trip.

I need to go somewhere where I can see that something that we're not doing is working somewhere else.

So I'll stop there.

Okay.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is we will convene a small working group.

I'm gonna suggest myself and council member Dickinson, unless there's any complaints from this group or anyone else wants to join.

Um that will include code enforcement, um, economic development, and then we can decide if there are others that make sense.

Um this uh what comes out of that will come back to this committee at a time uh not yet decided, and then we'll go from there.

All right.

Um with that, do we have any public comment for matters not on the agenda?

I have no public comment for matters not on the agenda.

Okay.

Um and so then what we are going to do is we're going to agenda adjourn into closed session.

Madam Clerk.

Thank you.

We will adjourn to a special meeting for the purpose of a closed session.

We did I did I miss something important?

We'll soon have um and so um our lovely clerk is going to sing us a song while we wait.

I was kidding.

You certainly don't want me to do it.

Uh I can tell you that much.

We'll wait for our illustrious city clerk to arrive with the materials that we need.

We need one more.

Oh, that's right.

The quorum that we need.

Okay, we have a quote of council members and chambers.

We have a quorum of council members.

Thank you for catching that.

There are six items on the agenda.

Um, public employee performance evaluation, government code section 54957B1, title acting director of OPSA.

Two, public employee employee appointment, government code section 54957B1 title acting director of OPSA.

Three, conference with labor negotiators, government code section five four nine five seven point six.

Agency designated representative mayor Kevin McCarty, unrepresented employee, acting director of OPSA.

Four conference of legal counsel existing litigation government code section five four nine five six point nine D one.

People of State of California versus City of Sacramento, Sacramento County Superior Court case number two three C V 008658.

Number five, conference of legal counsel, existing litigation, government code section five four nine five six point nine D one.

And six conference with legal counsel existing litigation government code section five four nine five six point nine D one.

We have no speakers on any of the items on the closed session agenda.

Chair, you may adjourn to closed session.

We are adjourned to closed session at 132 p.m.