COMMUNICATIONS
IN RELATION TO THE
C
ITY OF ELK GROVE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.7
09-24-2025
Interoffice Memorandum
September 24, 2025
................................ ..............................................................
Date
City Council
................................ ..............................................................
To
Cindy Tiffany, Finance and Budget Analyst
................................ ..............................................................
From
Agenda Item 7.7
................................ ..............................................................
Subject
Honorable Council Members,
Since the publication of the agenda and staff report for this item, an error was identified in the agenda and report title. The corrected title should read as follows:
“Adopt resolutions declaring intention to: 1) annex territory to Street Maintenance District No. 1, Zone 3-AU (Annexation No. 58) and to levy a special tax to pay for street maintenance for the Sage Glen Project; 2) annex territory to Street Maintenance District No. 1, Zone 5-AE (Annexation No. 34) and to levy a special tax to pay for street maintenance for the Tuscan Ridge South Project; and 5) annex territory to Storm Water Drainage Fee Zone 2 (Annexation No. 75) for the Sage Glen and Stonelake Landing Dutch Bros. Projects pursuant to the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982”
In addition to the title correction, an error was also identified in the summary section of the report. The Tuscan Ridge South Project is already located within Storm Water Drainage Fee Zone 2; therefore, annexation into the zone is not required for that project.
A corrected version of the summary table previously shown on page 2 is provided below for your reference:
Summary
Development &
Landowner # of Units/Acres Finance District Annexations Sage Glen
Richmond American
Homes
49 Single-Family
Units
• Street Maintenance District No. 1,
Zone 3-AU (Annexation 58)
• Storm Water Drainage Fee Zone 2
(Annexation 75)
Stonelake Landing
Dutch Bros.
PDF Development, LLC
0.76 Non-
Residential Acres
• Storm Water Drainage Fee Zone 2
(Annexation 75)
Tuscan Ridge South
SSP-HS Lot Option
A Pool 01, LP
114 Single-Family
Units
• Street Maintenance District No. 1,
Zone 5-AE (Annexation 34)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.4
09-24-2025
2 of 2
2. The Staff Report is Misleading— Please Read the Appeal Itself, FIRST! (See, p. 12) For some reason, the Staff Report, which should be an objective presentation to you of a balanced neutral framework of the issues regarding the disqualification for bias and prejudice of the Appeals Hearing Officer, is actually written by the prosecutor, the City Attorney. Again, another demonstration of staff’s unfairness in this process: they are both going after the business to shut it down (using a biased hearing officer) AND giving you the supposedly neutral and objective report, which recommends that you give them what they want: approval of a biased hearing officer. It then leads with their argument about why “there’s nothing to see here.” It applies the wrong legal standard to how you the City Council gets to decide the facts of what is bias or prejudice using your own common sense standards as authorized by the Municipal Code at EGMC §1.11.070(B)— which are different than the standards used to disqualify judges, and for self-disqualification of hearing officers, under EGMC §1.11.0 80 and state law.
3. Please Consult with Your Independent Attorney Regarding the Legal Standards to Use in this Matter and as to All Your Options Under the Circumstances.
Your options include:
• Disqualification of the Hearing Officer;
• Continuance (if you need more time to consider all the issues); and • Direction to staff to rescind the Notice of Revocation and work with the business to achieve compliance (as requested by the business)— not trick them into losing their livelihood.
4. In Conclusion, Please Consider All the Evidence of Staff Unfairness and Hearing Officer Bias, Apply Your Common Sense and Ethical Standards as Allowed Under City Law, Consult Your Independent Attorney— Disregarding the One-Sided “Legal” Advice of the City Attorney as Prosecutor; and Do the Right Thing: Direct Staff to Rescind the Notice of Revocation.
Thank you. Be well.
Yours very truly,
James Anthony
Partner Emeritus
Armada Law Corp.
Counsel for Appellant Yaser Alnajjar
From: James Anthony
To: Bobbie Singh-Allen; Darren Suen; Rod Brewer; Kevin Spease; Sergio Robles Cc: Jason Lindgren; to: James Anthony; EG City Clerk; Brenda Haggard; Amber Smidebush; Suzanne Kennedy; Julie Andersen; Jonathan Hobbs; Jason Behrmann
Subject: Re: 9/24/25 Agenda Item 9.5: Please Treat Small Business Fairly Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 5:04:04 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hon. City Council:
Please know that I am available by phone at at any time this evening if you have questions or are willing to receive my oral testimony that way.
I don't see a zoom option. I
was driving up but the traffic is so bad (over 2-1/2 hours! From Oakland), that I'm hoping that there's some other way I might be available to council.
Also, as I sent my email before 4pm,
I know that it "will be provided to the full Council
and staff prior to the meeting" as provided in the "how to participate" section of this city
website:
https://elkgrove.gov/city-council/council-meetings
Thank you all again for your public service. As a former Community Prosecutor in Oakland City Attorney's office, I know it isn't easy.
Be well.
Yours very truly,
James Anthony
**NOTICE: Please cc my paralegal Amber
Smidebush, [email protected] on all emails. Failure to cc my paralegal may result in your email being unread. **
James Anthony
Partner Emeritus
ARMADA LAW CORP.
5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 360
Pleasanton, CA 94588
[email protected]
WWW.ArmadaLawyers.com
This electronic-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.5
09-24-2025
or forward this electronic-mail message. If you have received this electronic-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 3:43 PM James Anthony <[email protected]> wrote:
September 24, 2025
VIA EMAIL AND HARD COPY AT HEARING OF FULL CITY COUNCIL
Mayor and City Council
City of Elk Grove
8401 Laguna Palms Way
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Email
Re: 9/24/25 Agenda Item 9.5: Please Treat Small Business Fairly
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
1. Please Treat Tobacco Businesses Fairly.
I speak on behalf of Illusion Smoke Shop. I understand that tobacco is now a greatly disfavored, though still legal, commercial product. And that as the terms of its legality continue to shift and shrink, the City is clear on its policy of enforcement to force compliance or disappearance.
Nevertheless, in keeping with good government, and your recent commitment to fairness through your newly adopted Code of Ethics, I ask that you direct staff to rescind the Notice of Revocation and treat the business fairly, working with them to help them understand and comply with current law.
The approach of Police Department (PD) and City Attorney (CA) in enforcement against this business has been shockingly unfair. Through trickery in June 2023, PD and CA conjured up a “tobacco” violation based on the sale of legal cannabis pipe (during a 30-day voluntary suspension of the tobacco retail license)—which they characterized as “tobacco paraphernalia. Be clear: the business had refused to sell the PD undercover any tobacco-related items at all and only sold the legal cannabis-related item. Nevertheless, CA prosecuted this relentlessly.
The CA supported this bizarre argument with “evidence” consisting of a satirical YouTube video posted by an adolescent nerd, "@jacobfuckingjones," who blew his own mind by smoking out tobacco out of a cannabis pipe—which nobody ever does! Incredibly, the "independent" hearing officer bought this ludicrous surrealist assault on a small business that had bent over backward to follow the rules. This hearing officer must be disqualified from any further role.
City staff is violating your own Code of Ethics fairness directive, to act only with “consistency, equity and non-discrimination.” Rather, PD and CA are taking a “gotcha” approach of tricking businesses into situations that threaten their very survival. That is not right. Instead, the City should be working with these businesses to educate them into compliance with the increasingly confusing and complex web of state and local law and regulation (age limits, “flavor,” etc.)
2. The Staff Report is Misleading—Please Read the Appeal Itself, FIRST! (See, p. 12)
For some reason, the Staff Report, which should be an objective presentation to you of a balanced neutral framework of the issues regarding the disqualification for bias and prejudice of the Appeals Hearing Officer, is actually written by the prosecutor, the City Attorney. Again, another demonstration of staff’s unfairness in this process: they are both going after the business to shut it down (using a biased hearing officer) AND giving you the supposedly neutral and objective report, which recommends that you give them what they want: approval of a biased hearing officer. It then leads with their argument about why “there’s nothing to see here.” It applies the wrong legal standard to how you the City Council gets to decide the facts of what is bias or prejudice using your own common sense standards as authorized by the Municipal Code at EGMC §1.11.070(B)—which are different than the standards used to disqualify judges, and for self-disqualification of hearing officers, under EGMC §1.11.080 and state law.
3. Please Consult with Your Independent Attorney Regarding the Legal Standards to Use in this Matter and as to All Your Options Under the Circumstances.
Your options include:
• Disqualification of the Hearing Officer;
• Continuance (if you need more time to consider all the issues); and • Direction to staff to rescind the Notice of Revocation and work with the business to achieve compliance (as requested by the business)—not trick them into losing their livelihood.
4. In Conclusion, Please Consider All the Evidence of Staff Unfairness and Hearing Officer Bias, Apply Your Common Sense and Ethical Standards as Allowed Under City Law, Consult Your Independent Attorney—Disregarding the One-Sided “Legal” Advice of the City Attorney as Prosecutor; and Do the Right Thing: Direct Staff to Rescind the Notice of Revocation.
Thank you. Be well.
Yours very truly,
James Anthony
Partner Emeritus
Armada Law Corp.
Counsel for Appellant Yaser Alnajjar
**NOTICE: Please cc my paralegal Amber
Smidebush, [email protected] on all emails. Failure to cc my paralegal may result in your email being unread. **
James Anthony
Partner Emeritus
ARMADA LAW CORP.
5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 360
Pleasanton, CA 94588
[email protected]
WWW.ArmadaLawyers.com
This electronic-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this electronic-mail message. If you have received this electronic-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.