Yeah, it's just.

Ready when you are.

Okay, let's call this meeting the order of the Sacramento City Council on Tuesday, April

22nd. Thank you for roll call. Councilmember Kaplan.

I expect councilmember Dickinson momentarily. Vice mayor Telemante.

Councilmember Pleckey bomb. Councilmember maple.

Mayor Pro Tem getta. Councilmember Jennings.

Councilmember vang. Mayor McCarty.

You have a quorum. Thank you.

Can we have vice mayor Telemante's lead us in the pledge and land acknowledgement.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the regional people of this land.

The Nissanan people, southern Maidu, valley and plains, me walk, Patwin, wind to peoples and the people of the Wilcham Rancheria.

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came with forest and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today and the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history,

contributions and lives. Thank you.

Salute.

Hi.

Congratulations 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.

Mayor we did not have a closed session prior to this meeting so I'm assuming our city attorney has no closed session report out.

So we went to the consent calendar.

That's items 1 through 19 and I have one speaker for the consent calendar.

Are there council comments?

Anything to pull?

Councilmember Kaplan.

Seeing no one else queued up, do you want to make your comments on item 19?

Yeah.

This is the ordinance that we had discussed regarding limit on storefront cannabis dispensary permits.

You know, we had a robust discussion here about the extension of the additional, three additional core permit tees to become operational to start that process.

I just want to make sure we follow up and get a six month check in with those that we did give the one year.

Will they make it, will they not?

And then as we proceed with the next steps, you know, and I've spent a little time thinking about it where we did move from three years to five years to allow businesses to open.

I mean, that was kind of made a little bit on the fly.

Didn't necessarily have a lot of background information that, you know, I'm reserving potentially bringing this back up as a question of what are we trying to accomplish?

What's our policy goal?

Does this further this in light of cannabis and store permits?

Especially when we're looking at does the current permit process stand or are we creating a new process?

So I think whether how long it takes to open a business should be part of the new conversation.

When we look at are we starting a new application period and what does that look like?

Especially with title 17 changes potentially may be coming.

And so I'd like to keep the five year, three to five year discussion back on the table because I think that should be included so it's a comprehensive conversation.

Okay.

So we'll get to the comments, maybe take public comments.

Yes.

I have one speaker.

Mac worthy.

I'm going to buy a truck for us.

It's many told trucks here.

Now somebody came to me with some and I had asked somebody something on those tow trucks and now I see that this is on the page.

So, you know, I don't know.

And Medical Center, rehab.

Now, why would the city council put money out to the rehab?

As much money as the medical world is making.

See, this is why I tell you, Trump is doing the right thing.

This is waste of money.

This is waste of money.

If you don't own, that's the Medical Center.

And if you've got at least, and at least he cannot keep it up

as much money, medical make something wrong.

So just be aware of what is coming out of you

and what I heard this morning.

I'm going to keep laughing.

Mary have more speakers on the consent calendar?

OK.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Do we have any abstentions?

No one mentioned their motion.

Mary, I didn't hear the second.

That would be a Council Member Plexibon.

Thank you.

Nobody mentioned the abstentions.

Or anything earlier?

No.

OK.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

No abstentions noted.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstentions?

Hearing none.

Passes unanimously.

Mayor, we move to item 20, which is presentation

by Sacramento Area Council of Governments,

SACOG, on 2025 blueprints.

Yes.

We wanted to ask Council Member Maple, who's

our SACOG representative, to introduce this item.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

And I'll keep my comments very brief,

because I know you're going to be standing up there,

and we're all eagerly awaiting this presentation.

But I did want to take a moment.

I'm really proud to be one of the two representatives

from this body on SACOG, including Council Member Jennings.

And just wanted to take this moment to introduce James

Corliss.

I know he's been before this body before.

We probably, I'm sure, everyone's met and talked with him.

But just for the audience to know and for the newer members

here, how important it is our relationship with SACOG

and our role in the region.

So first of all, you're here to talk

about our long-range transportation and land use

plan, otherwise known as the 2025 blueprint, something

that you've been working on for a long time,

but also unacknowledged our incredible staff and team that

has been working on this for many, many years

in partnership with the SACOG staff.

And it's really important, in my view,

that we have a holistic view of what we're doing.

It can't just be in the city limits.

It's got to be, what are we doing as a region?

And that doesn't just even mean in our county.

It means how do our counties all work together

and how does the plan that we have in place make sense?

And how do we move people around the region

in a way that's good for them?

And so to me, that means that we need more vibrant and connected

communities.

This is quality of life for the folks who

live in our districts and beyond.

And we all know that just because you live in Oak Park

or Meadowview or Land Park or whatever it may be,

you're also traveling all throughout the region

for work and for play.

And so we need to make sure that all these plans

and all these efforts that we have in place make sense.

I'm just really, really proud to be on the Saacog board

along with my colleague.

And looking forward to this presentation.

Thank you for being here today.

Thank you, Council Member Maple, Member Cardi,

Members of the Council, James Corleys, Executive Director

of Saacog.

Great to be here.

I often, we do these presentations.

We're going to every city council in County Board

of Supervisors in the entire region,

the first half of this year, to give you an update

on the long-range plan.

And we think a little bit about how can we show you or tell you

or explain to you why this regional plan is so important,

and Council Member Maple was saying,

but also the kinds of actions and strategies

that you put forward locally that help support our regional plan.

And the good news is it's not hard to do that with your city

and with your amazing staff.

Your general plan update that you have adopted about a year ago.

And the whole revision to that is a great example

of how that supports our regional plan.

A lot of your infill and your affordable housing

along transit corridors is a great example

of how you support the regional plan.

So the list goes on, but I just want to tell you,

I think we have a great working relationship with your staff.

So let's dig into the long-range plan.

I think you all know this, but we are the council of governments

that represents the six counties and the 22 cities.

And one of the things that's unique about this region

and SACOG as an entity is every single local jurisdiction

sits around our board table twice a month.

It's very hard to have a regional multi-county agency,

regional planning agency like ours,

and have every single jurisdiction represented.

That is really by the coincidence of having only 22 cities.

So you all sit alongside Colfax and Woodland and Ubisiti

and Eilton and Sacramento County.

And it may sometimes feel like you don't have a lot in common

with those places.

But I would suggest we rise together as a region

or we fall as a region.

And we have more in common than what divides us.

We started this plan two and a half years ago.

We actually came here two and a half years ago

to kick this plan off.

And we've started with a foundation, sort of fundamental

bottom line of equity, economy, and environment.

So we are trying to maximize all three of these things.

Through a long-range plan, we're calling the blueprint,

that looks out over 28 jurisdictions,

looks across 25 years, and really nits together

infrastructure, transportation, housing, jobs, land use,

air quality, climate change.

And it is the plan that has to meet a lot of our state

and federal mandates.

But it's not just a top-down plan.

It's a plan that also we use to go back to Washington, DC,

to go to Congress, to go to the state capitol,

to lobby and advocate for the things that our region needs,

and to prove to the state and our federal partners

that we are investment-ready, that we're investment-worthy.

In this plan, we have done more outreach and engagement

than we've ever done in any other plan before.

And partly, we've done that through some, I think,

great learnings that we've had on our side.

From our staff, we've partnered with a lot of community-based

organizations and nonprofits.

We, rather than do an RFP process,

we've provided mini-grants across all six counties

to community-based organizations who then turned around

and went out and engaged and surveyed

a lot of their members.

So we've done every kind of engagement

that we've known how to do.

We've done polls.

We've done focus groups.

We've done multiple pop-up events in every county,

working alongside your staff.

And we had a big workshop in Folsom about a year and a half

ago at the midpoint of this plan.

And we distilled all of that outreach

and what we've heard into these seven themes

that won't sound that dissimilar, perhaps,

to the things that you hear here locally in the city.

People wanting housing, and not just any kind of housing,

but really housing for all life stages and all income levels.

People want safe and convenient transportation choices

and options.

There's a lot of concern about natural disasters

and making sure that we are ready

and that we're resilient for a changing climate

and finally protecting and conserving

a lot of our open space and our working landscapes

and our agriculture.

In our focus groups, we heard a big theme

around public transportation.

People really want to be able to use

a public transit system that's safe and clean

and reliable and frequent.

We don't have enough people yet, literally living

and working within an easy commute.

But that said, our transit systems

are bouncing back from COVID.

We're now at where we were before the pandemic

on bus ridership and we're slowly climbing back

on light rail ridership.

I mentioned the other themes we've heard here

in the survey that a lot of our CBO partners

administered across the six counties.

The number one topic by far, not surprising again, is housing.

So when we've gone out and surveyed on a plan

that largely governs transportation investments,

the first thing we heard back is the people's concern

about lack of housing, lack of affordable housing,

lack of housing for all life stages,

and the ability of our kids and grandchildren

to be able to afford to live in this region in the future,

followed by public safety, a lack of transportation options

and traffic congestion.

So what have we learned as we've done this plan

over the last few years?

Again, you may know this, you may know this

if you're out and about in our region,

if you're stuck on I-80 or US-50,

and I can't answer any questions on the construction

on the US-50, that's gonna have to be a partner of ours.

But we are the fastest growing region in California.

As the 2020 census, we surpassed

the other major metropolitan coastal regions in California,

and this chart will show you that we don't show,

we show that pace of growth,

higher than the average rate of growth

in the state of California,

higher than the national growth rate,

population growth rate, continuing.

So we're gonna be outpacing California

and outpacing the nation for the rest of this plan cycle,

for these next few decades.

Now it is gonna slow down.

So we're gonna have the same demographic trends

that have happened to their places happen in our region,

but we are, frankly, we've been at a housing deficit,

we were at a major construction deficit,

all through the Great Recession.

We haven't caught up from that yet,

and we're still gonna be outpacing other regions.

What does that look like here in the city of Sacramento?

Well, if our region right now, across the six counties,

is 2.5 million, the way that we often think about this

is, roughly speaking, city of Sacramento

is about half a million, the county of Sacramento,

including all the jurisdictions, 1.5,

and our region is 2.5, we're gonna grow

by another 600,000 people in the next 25 years.

So that's a population then of 3.1 million.

That's the current population of metropolitan Denver,

which is why we took our board out to Denver last summer

to go look at Denver and actually explore

the kinds of decisions that Denver leaders made

20 years ago when they were basically us,

and they were faced with a lot of really tough choices.

Here in the city, that looks like

quite a bit of population growth.

Another 162,000 people over the next 25 years.

Fingers crossed, another healthy 55,000 jobs in the city

at all income levels, so we can balance that growth

and keep the urban core vibrant,

and keep jobs available at all income levels,

which then requires 83,000 housing units.

Region wide, that's 278,000 housing units,

that's 25 years, that's a clip of about 10 to 11,000

housing units a year.

We fell under that beginning in 2007 in the recession,

and we only have just come back above 10,000 units a year

across our entire region, so again,

that's that deficit that I mentioned earlier.

Now, how and where are we going to grow?

So the blue in this map, which is a little bit harder to see,

but basically the blue represents

the existing urbanized footprint,

and we project about two thirds of that future growth

happening in our urbanized footprint.

That is along a lot of our, we still have undeveloped land,

vacant parcels, underdeveloped land, commercial corridors,

but then about a third of that growth is in the light blue,

which is in our new growth in kind of greenfield areas

that are sometimes closer in,

but sometimes on the edge of our urbanized

and developed footprint, so about two thirds

in our existing urbanized footprint,

and about a third in our new growth areas.

And that balance has been about the balance

that we've struck the last five or so years,

and it's very important from the perspective

of environment and climate goals,

so one of our mandates I think as many of you

are familiar with this plan is to reduce carbon

greenhouse gas emissions.

I know Councilman Brigira is very familiar with this,

sitting on the California Air Resources Board

by 19% per capita from 2005 to 2035,

and the way in which we will do that is to make,

yes, a great public transit system,

actually to get people to actually continue teleworking,

actually from the pandemic,

but largely across our six counties

to have people not drive as much or as far,

because we're still largely a suburban region

and people will drive, but if we can get this land use right,

and the reason we're calling it the blueprint

is it goes all the way back to 2004,

and the region's blueprint from then

is to balance housing and jobs,

economic development so that if you do drive,

you're not driving as far.

You're not stuck in your car all day long.

So where are we going on transportation?

We obviously, this plan governs and guides

a lot of our transportation investments

from roads to transit to trails to intercity rail,

and the truth of the matter is,

even though we have some really important

and big ticket items to get done in transportation,

our revenues and our funding for transportation

is already declining.

The gas tax revenues are declining,

and we're gonna have to think more strategically

about the big ticket items,

and we're gonna have to think very strategically

about lower cost, and I congrats again to the council

on really prioritizing quick build projects

and things that you can do quickly and at lower cost,

because that's gonna be the name of the game

for the foreseeable future.

So prioritizing safety, prioritizing maintenance

and repair, complete streets, safe streets,

lower costs, quicker projects,

and using technology wherever we can.

So just to wrap up, this plan that's been under development

the last two years will be released in May,

at the end of May, it'll be released

for two months of public comment and review,

along with an EIR.

We'll bring that back to the SACOG board

and review a final plan draft in September,

and we look to adopt the region's long range plan

in November, along with the EIR.

So we don't wanna just develop a plan to have a plan.

We wanna develop a plan so we can actually do something

with it and implement it.

And a lot of our implementation again,

really relies on all of you at a local level

and your staff, among all the cities and the counties

and the transit districts.

And again, these are some examples

of what we need to kinda double down on

to make sure that we can reach the goals in our plan.

The top left is our Green Means Go program.

That is the program the city has taken great advantage of

to basically prioritize and incentivize

in a field development, the rail yards, the river district,

our commercial corridors throughout the city

and throughout the region.

We have a plan that Council Member Jennings

is very familiar with called our Regional Trails Plan.

That plan, if we can connect and fill in the gaps

in our regional trail network, we can have

at the end of that completion of that plan,

a network of a thousand miles of bicycle

and pedestrian and walking trails

that will connect every single corner of the region

and in every neighborhood within it.

And then we have a lot of really important

equity programs and programs that are really driven

with a goal of racial equity

and involving disadvantaged communities

like our Engage in Power Implement program

and our Mobility Zones program.

Finally, to zoom back out and to think actually

even more holistically about not just the Sixth County

region but Northern California.

We've got a lot of very important projects

that we work on with our partners in the Bay Area

and the Northern San Joaquin Valley.

In this case, Valley Rail and Ace Rail,

bringing that up here to Sacramento

where we can have a city college and a midtown station

and an airport station going north.

The Yolo 80 project, Council Member Talamante

is very familiar with.

That is part of a regional express

and management lane network.

And then finally getting more capacity

up to Roseville on Capital Corridor

so we can expand the very successful Capital Corridor

service and get more frequency on those trains.

We do have an open funding round right now.

We work very closely with your staff on key projects.

At the moment we have what we call our STIP funding round.

Next year we'll have our federal funding round.

And I'm gonna close on this idea.

We have to be a team as a region across those six counties.

We have to be a team that works together across

not just geographic divides but partisan divides.

The fact that we have a bipartisan delegation

in Congress represents our region.

The fact that we have a bipartisan delegation

in the state capital is an asset.

And we need to think of it as such

and we can be a team if we just use a little color.

So with that I'll close and I'd be happy

to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have a public comment for this?

May I have only one speaker, Mac Worthy?

You hear that first.

Mr. Worthy.

It's good to listen to a theater.

Good to listen to theater, that's what he give you theater.

Same thing Trump doing with his controller money.

And I encourage Trump to keep cutting the money

from California.

Say if you keep cutting at a mission of league,

some of the things I heard this morning,

I'm gonna laugh all the way to the bank.

Because anyway, I can get an attorney

from the East Coast to come in here.

He gonna show you that this city,

your previous mayor said it was what somebody told me.

He is sitting on a boat that issues to license attorneys.

You see why we got so many stiffs in administration.

Just we say three more come on.

And when a city needed, he just a guy recommended city.

I know what two of them are now.

So these are the things that safe hog got the money.

Safe hog, now when I come into contact with these hogs

behind city college, that rail trail,

which is a guy that I knew well,

had to dig it up big money, big money we put out.

Clean that tops it up.

Now he's a Greek guy, close friend of mine.

We sit down and laugh and talk.

He said, yeah, man, he made it.

But late that saw he was tied up in a suit here.

Just by this here.

And I was with me straight now.

A Raji, he called me a robber.

We got like Trump said, the snake in the doll.

You got a lot of snakes here.

That right in the doll, Republicans and Democrats.

What is your biggest employee here?

The hospitals and government.

Private sector built America, now the government.

Thank you for your comments.

Mayor, I have no more speakers.

Okay, thank you.

We'll start with Mayor Pro Tem Gira.

Thank you very much.

Mayor, first, thank you James and all the great team

at SAICOG for all the work that they've done

and the advocacy that they've done, not only here

and for our state, frankly,

and I'll bring that up in a minute here.

But I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge

that that team photo was taken

at the Sac State Alumni Center.

But that's just a hornet here saying something.

But, and that was a good example

of how the region can and has pulled together.

I wanted to highlight a couple things.

And what, you know, I don't want this to be

just a presentation where we hear it and then we move on.

But I think there's some action items

that I'd like to see our city take on here.

Number one, a little bit of commentary,

which many of us know that the two most impacting costs

to households, to families is housing

and transportation costs.

And because of the inability to have local housing

or close enough housing,

their transportation costs increase,

which cuts into the third, sometimes the second highest

depending on if you're buying eggs or not,

costs which is food and groceries, you know.

So this conversation, I hope, when we go out

to the community that we bring it up into a point

of what the real costs to families are.

And there's been an unfortunate negative pushback

on our conversation sometimes about infill,

our conversations about thoughtful growth,

making sure that we're looking at

how do we bring more time back to families?

I think those are important factors.

I'm very proud, you know, again, I want to say that,

you know, Sacog through the green means go

not only did it a tremendous benefit to the city

to help create what's REAP 2.0 now,

at the state level, every jurisdiction in the state

benefited because of the advocacy that Sacog took on

through REAP 2.0 and green means go.

And that funding is making things possible

like the redevelopment that's happening

in Stockton Boulevard, that's both city and county.

That's money we didn't have.

That's money that came from the state,

from this advocacy and from this process of the blueprint.

It's also making impacts in areas like Del Paso Heights,

where, you know, improving an old sewer line

actually brings capacity to vacant lots and land

that were never going to be considered

for higher dense housing near transit

without the ability to cover those infrastructure costs.

The, all of the wet stuff that they say,

the sewer water, stormwater runoff that are expensive.

So number one, I think here what I'd like, you know,

my colleagues to consider,

and then I'm sitting next to the chair of law and ledge,

is asking whether our contracted law advocacy team

is actively engaging in what's in our policy platform

to look at REAP 2.0 being in the budget.

My understanding that it is not, was not included

in this year's January budget.

And I don't know, James, if you have any information on that,

but I think not having REAP 2.0 eligible or available,

particularly a city of Sacramento

that has so many of the green zones in the region,

you know, again, we improve our regional efforts

by lowering the cost of infill here.

Lowering the cost of infill in Sacramento

prevents for, prevents, you know, farmland displacement

by making sure that we make it easier

for the choice to be done here.

So I don't know if you have a response to that.

Yeah, Council Member Garra, I can tell you that,

sort of what we call a REAP 3.0 program,

another tranche of that is a top priority

for all the COGS across the state.

It's in our advocacy platform,

obviously not in January budget.

We'll see what happens with the state of the state budget

and wildfires and the fair plan,

but also cap and trade, as you know,

is getting reauthorized this year.

So that's another opportunity through cap and trade for that.

I also just want to thank the mayor

when he was in the assembly for obviously putting

your bill forward on Green Means Go

and helping make the case here,

that it really was that whole idea

was hatched here locally in this region.

And frankly, it's helped even other jurisdictions

that wouldn't have the capacity.

I mean, without Green Means Go,

I don't think U of C would have been able

to improve their little downtown, which is a cute place,

you know, but I think that's a critical one.

The second piece that I wanted to bring up was,

you know, on the city outreach side,

I think it's important that we talk about,

and this is how all of us have community events,

we have food truck events,

and I'd like to see better coordination

between our Streets for People campaign and this effort.

And I'll bring up the aspect of, say for example,

the Rails and Trails, the regional trails

and bike trails project.

The evolution of e-bikes and the ability

to have a larger distance for folks,

and people who would have mobility challenges

now can take advantage of an alternative

form of transportation,

but our biking infrastructure is disconnected and dangerous.

And so I think that when you're having those discussions,

because at the moment, we do have folks

who are still commuting to places outside

of a local biking area,

although except our interim city manager

probably can do 100 miles in a day.

But outside of that, I think that most of us

could benefit from that connected trail system.

And I think it's important for our city residents

as we're doing outreach, how that benefits us.

So the second thing is asking our city outreach team

to maybe coordinate with your office.

We already have planned events,

there are already a number of them out there,

and how do we just plug and play versus replicating

another meeting or another thing

to try to drive attendance to.

And the last thing is a request from,

again, from Seacog and you have been involved,

but it's in ensuring that we can pass

what I think is a responsible and a viable

transportation measure that looks at both

addressing the needs that we have

through a local Green Means Go program

that improves our biking and roadway infrastructure,

safety infrastructure for local residents,

but also addresses those larger safety challenges

that we have because it's interconnected.

So I think we would ask that Seacog support us

in that effort to ensure that we're able to achieve

both a responsible and also viable transportation measure

in order to achieve those goals.

So I'll stop there, but to start off with the first one,

I think we gotta be aggressive on the REAP 2.0 funding.

And Council Member McGeer, as you know, AB 1223,

right is the bill by Senator Bernouin with the STA,

and we are very much supporting that bill,

which hopefully at the moment anyway,

has some ability to fund Green Means Go and all of that.

And then just on trail, Saturday is National Trails Day,

and May is Bike Month.

So you got a lot of opportunity to get the word out

in the next 30 days.

Those are soft.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm sure it comes as a complete shock to everybody

that I would wanna talk a little bit about this subject.

And I will spare everybody the history of Blueprint,

but James, to your comment about Denver,

I would just make note that,

and a little bit in line with what Council Member Guerra

was just talking about,

that Denver is one place that has multiple tax measures

that are region-wide,

and that have helped them finance any number of things,

starting with Coors Field,

among other notable facilities.

It would be interesting to have,

I'll put interesting quotes,

to have that kind of discussion in our region,

as particularly as I think it's gonna be a necessity

to look increasingly to local funding

to achieve what we wanna accomplish over time.

So I just, that Seca could be a venue potentially

or a forum for that kind of discussion, it seems to me.

I have a few questions,

and another thought or two,

but I was curious,

on the extent to which the change in work habits

and patterns as we've all watched it evolve

in the last few years,

has now affected Blueprint as we originally adopted it

and where you see it going with respect to housing,

transportation, employment, and any other factors?

Yeah, it's a really, boy, talk about a hot topic, right?

Is not just the change in work patterns,

but what's it gonna be in five years

and what's it gonna be in 10 years?

Is it settling into sort of a new normal?

So I can tell you actually,

this has got the attention of Congressman Matsui

and Congressman Behr in terms of,

are these work patterns now both reflected

in our forecast for the future

and our greenhouse gas emissions?

And is the Air Resources Board going to accept that?

And I can tell you,

that is a very live conversation right now

with us back and forth with the California Air Resources Board

because while we don't see the peak of say 2021

in terms of work from home,

we do see something settling out that is different,

regardless of the governor's order to come back

to the state worker state offices.

And actually that is unbalanced,

that is beneficial to reducing carbon emissions,

unbalanced if we can get a hybrid schedule.

Now, it isn't as good for your downtown economy

and so you're gonna need to think about

more housing in your downtown.

It isn't quite as good sometimes for transit

because you don't have workers five days a week,

you got them three days a week or four days a week.

But actually from what we're trying to accomplish

in the region and reducing that amount of traffic

and people driving so many miles,

it actually is beneficial.

And we're gonna have a task in front of us

to get the California Air Resources Board

to accept our forecast.

And also at least, I mean, if you look at what

they're observing in the Bay Area among other places

that transportation habits are changing

in terms of spreading out,

instead of having a couple peaks a day,

it's spread out throughout the day and throughout the week.

I'm curious about what kind of modeling you're doing

at this point, what are the assumptions

that you're making with respect to looking out

or showing those peaks spreading?

That 10 or 20 year horizon on these kinds of elements.

Yeah, and we'd be happy to share,

we've actually got a lot of really interesting data

even just in your downtown.

So we've got both the forecast of what's gonna be happening

from your outer edges, the city and the county

into the downtown, but even what's been happening

over the last couple of years.

Because we're seeing as you are probably more activity

coming back downtown, but it's coming in very different forms.

It's not coming in a nine to five commute.

So we're happy to share that with you.

Yeah, I'd be interested to have a further discussion on that.

The same question really with respect

to the changing environment, literally,

with respect to wildfire risk,

the wildland urban interface,

the availability, if there is any, of insurance

as time goes on, and that's a little bit more recently

arising to a more critical level,

but how are those factors influencing what you're doing

with respect to modeling for the next decade and 20 years?

We don't forecast a ton of new growth

in wildfire risk areas.

Not, it's de minimis.

What we do worry about in forecast

is the need to evacuate.

And so that's the thing I think if you talk to anybody

in foothills or the mountains or the wildfire risk areas

is getting a lot of people out on limited road space,

which were never designed to evacuate people

in a matter of hours.

Now that said, I will tell you, US 50 in El Dorado County

had this great project called Trip to Green.

And they actually, they have three traffic lights

in downtown Placibill.

You've probably been stuck in them

if you ever go to South Lake Tahoe.

So they've signaled them up and wired them up,

and they can actually turn them green and divert traffic

around them so they get people out.

The first pilot project was the first week of the Calder fire.

So they were actually able to turn that on and evacuate

people out of El Dorado County during the Calder fire.

They're trying to now get the money to make that

a permanent project so that it can actually

turn those lights green in any evacue.

But we've got a lot of places in the region

that are at serious risk in terms of evacuation.

But and even beyond that, I mean,

just the availability of insurance,

I'm sure you're aware, Berkeley, this last week,

told those who live up on Grizzly Peak in their Tilden Park

that they've got to clear five feet.

Nobody from their houses in terms of open space to plantings.

I don't think anyone would have imagined that five years ago.

We've got areas, people who live along the American River,

people who live in other spots that

may have the same conditions.

I'm curious whether this is an element in the thinking

about how you're trying to model what happens both from

an existing, a built environment standpoint,

as well as a development standpoint.

What I'd like to do is get back to you

with some a little bit finer grain detail on the answer there

in terms of how much the uncertainty in the insurance

market has affected any of our forecasts.

Like I was saying, we haven't forecast really

a lot of new growth in certainly wildfire risk areas.

But we'll be happy to respond and get you some more details.

Yeah.

I just think these are going to be continuing

to emerge as major considerations.

You referenced the consideration in your slides

and your remarks on equity.

Admittedly, in 2000 to 2005, when

we were developing the original blueprint,

there was not a lot of conversation, not expressly

anyway, about equity.

And I'm curious about how equity now factors into, again,

the modeling you're doing and the work you're

doing with the update of blueprint.

Yeah.

We're trying to factor it in in a number of ways.

And I want to just congratulate and thank Council Member

Jennings for leading our race equity inclusion working group

for the last four years and leading a lot of our efforts

on that and through the whole board and the whole region.

We have now a few programs I mentioned

but didn't get into the details mobility zones.

So what's been fascinating about it

is rather than, because I think one thing people don't want

for any of these subject areas is a one-size-fits-all.

So we don't want to come in and say,

we're going to give you your depth.

I think that's a higher definition of disadvantaged

in your community.

So mobility zones has actually allowed

these community councils and tables of organizations

and leaders to develop their own values

and express their own priorities and where inequities show up.

And then we've come in and provided data on top of those

and suddenly neighborhoods pop up across the region that

don't pop up on a state map, don't pop up on a federal map.

And now we're using those areas to then drill deep

with some pilot projects on transportation projects

that the neighbors and the communities themselves

have identified.

So I would say we're still in the early stages.

And again, Council Member Jennings knows this

because the working group that he leads for our board

and our public members has really had a deep dive into this.

So it's sort of slow and steady.

But I'd say it's going to be a very different treatment

even to our last plan around equity and disadvantaged

communities that it has been in the past.

Well, thank you.

And I appreciate the work that Council Member Jennings is

doing.

Look forward to seeing the product of that work incorporated

into this plan.

Because looking back, I think that was a short coming

in what we did the first time around.

Certainly it was appropriate then and certainly justified,

but it was not on the radar screen in the same way

as it is now.

And so I appreciate that work.

I'm also interested in the consideration of how we treat

assets that are particular to jurisdictions

but are truly regional assets.

And perhaps the most obvious example

from a transportation standpoint is Sacramento Valley

Station, which is a city of Sacramento responsibility.

One of the most heavily used stations on the Amtrak system

nationally obviously draws patrons

from throughout the region.

I suppose although it's funded by an enterprise fund,

you could look at Sacramento International

somewhat the same way.

But actually the distinction there

is the users, not entire, not 100% of course,

but users do pay for that airport.

And we don't have any kind of same mechanism

for these other transportation assets

that are regional in nature.

I mean, I also think about the farm to market study that

was done led by Helen Thompson when

she was a member of the Seychoc Board in the late 2000s.

How are you, if at all, trying to address these kinds of,

as I said, issues that are particular to a jurisdiction

but nonetheless regional in scope and character?

Perpetually.

I think this is in an era of shrinking resources,

and a lot of anxiety around federal funding.

And will federal funding continue to flow?

It's a very natural reaction to say,

I'll take a smaller share of guaranteed money, absolutely,

rather than the chance to compete for anything

at any level.

But I think you just described the farm to market.

What's interesting is let's take our Yolo 80 project

across the causeway.

Yolo County could never pay for that by itself.

That's another regional asset in many ways,

much like Sac Valley Station.

So I think the job that we have as a regional entity

is to balance local interest and some desire

to get some guaranteed funding to advance your projects

with a regional sense that we're kind of all in this together.

And that a fair share doesn't necessarily

come just by how many people live in the facility

or use the facility, but it's really

the benefit it provides the entire region.

I mean, that is the, you know that.

That is the, I don't think we've figured out that nut

and we haven't cracked it yet,

but I think even the regional managed lane

and toll lane network is a great example of that.

We're gonna have to do that together, not as moan offs,

not by segment or county by county.

Yeah, that's where your, I guess your team photo comes in.

Exactly.

Metaphorically and a useful way.

I appreciate the time, Mayor.

I just had a couple more things I wanted to explore

a little bit.

You showed the diagram of projected rail expansion,

inner city rail expansion in the region.

And I've recently had some conversations with the CCJPA

staff about the third mainline track,

which I hate to tell you, I went to Omaha about in 2007,

2008, but it doesn't seem to be much closer to reality.

Is there anything you can do from the Saacog perspective

to help advance?

I mean, I know everyone's all in on this,

but what, if anything, do you think Saacog

can do to be helpful there?

We'd have to get back to you on the latest challenge

on the third track project.

We definitely, when the last few years,

our board has done quite a bit to swap some money,

put some money down for leverage on the federal Chrissy money

that has come into that project.

So I'd need to get back to you on what the next,

what the next move is on that because of the issues

that you're raising.

And it's not the only project that we've got those issues on.

Yeah, and I mean, it's just somewhat in the same bag

as the expansion of the San Joaquin's.

Right, exactly.

That's what I was thinking about.

You mentioned the midtown and the airport

which you left out North Sacramento.

But in any case, how do we get that expansion

more quickly, sooner rather than later?

Any thoughts on that?

We've got to use the, I think, the bipartisan support

in naturally in Congress for conventional regular

medium speed rail because while high speed rail

is a flash point, there is bipartisan support

for conventional rail.

It cuts across both parties.

I mean, I do think as it was with the original blueprint

implementation is gonna be the biggest challenge of all.

That's not part of the plan, but it's always on the horizon.

And finally, coming back to the REAP 2.0

mentioned by Mayor Pro Tem Guerra,

obviously we were also in the midst of discussions

on cap and trade reauthorization.

That's something I think for our law and ledge committee

to talk about as well.

Is SACOG engaged in that effort at all?

We're engaged through some of the associations.

We're part of the statewide associations.

But not singly, just SACOG on its own.

At the moment, one of our big things,

in addition to supporting the AB 1223,

is to work on SB 375.

So the climate law that governs a lot of this plan.

So we're trying to update that with,

that's really our board has given us that direction.

That's our number one priority.

But we are engaging on the cap and trade

through various other channels.

I just, I think that that's one of the biggest sources

of potential money looking out in the years ahead.

So we don't wanna be left behind in that discussion.

Anyway, thanks, Mayor, for the time.

I appreciate it.

Thanks, James.

Thank you, Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Hi, James.

I'll always kind of bring it up

because while I trust my colleagues, this is my one time,

I get to see you publicly and express some things

that we're dealing with in North Nathomas, Roble area,

that I wanna have you keep in mind

as you're addressing the blueprint,

especially as we look at bikes and connectivity and transit.

Because currently, I am working with SACRT,

but North Nathomas only has two transit lines.

One, if you're able to get to a certain part,

it might take you a half an hour to get downtown.

And another one, especially if you're over in Roble

and North SACRT, but you're not the right area,

take several connections and an hour and a half

to get downtown.

So when we talk about equity, that's one thing I would hope

that you can keep in mind

because we see the biggest growth in Nathomas.

And then as you're talking about traffic patterns,

I can tell you just going downtown

where it used to be a morning and an afternoon rush,

it is now all day because we are seeing more people

coming over from Placerville and Roseville

and taking a couple of Riego over and then 99 down.

And I don't know if that was really looked at,

or planned as as you're looking at traffic patterns

and how things change, of why bringing in more support

of transit to get people in that route to downtown

has occurred.

I can tell you that Placer County has really popped up

since our last plan and we have adjusted a lot of our

growth assumptions and Riego Road accordingly.

Okay, and then one of the things on your presentation

which shows your growth footprint,

I don't know if we've got tech staff that can bring that up,

it shows just where the dark blue and the light blue

of where growth is gonna occur.

I mean, on your presentation attached, it's page 15.

But when you look at it, there's two significant projects

that haven't been included so that I hope that you could go

back and adjust, which I know my fellow council member,

Karina Telemontes would agree within the county,

just north of the city lines, there's Grand Park,

which could be up to 10,000 units and Upper West Side,

which could be 10,000 units.

And they're actively going through the county at this time,

but they're not included in your growth footprint.

And that has me concerned because that will have

a significant climate environmental transportation impact.

Yeah, yeah.

As you know, neither one of those are approved yet.

They are marching through, maybe Upper West Side

is a little bit in front of Grand Park.

Here's one of the, and council member Telemontes,

started this conversation, you said we should have

this conversation somewhere, at some table,

perhaps at a regional table.

So two thirds on the existing footprint,

one third on the growth areas, right?

If it's, let's just say 270,000 housing units

next 25 years, take a third of that, that's 90,000.

So 90,000 new growth areas.

The capacity of our greenfield areas all over the region

is 400,000 plus units.

In other words, they will not all go.

And so that's the challenge that we have

at a regional table is we know we are not gonna grow

much more than 600,000 the next 25 years.

So where is that growth gonna happen, right?

And you may well say, I know it's gonna happen

in Grand Park, it's gonna happen Upper West Side.

But what we have to do when we come to this plan

is to basically make projections and make bets.

So it's not that we don't see it, we're very well,

we work with the county very closely on this.

There's a number of those new growth areas

around the region that are not in the plan yet.

If they start to move and they break ground,

they come in the plan.

The plan is not set, nor will it actually

halt or slow down any of that growth.

It's just, it's our job to project.

And one of the many challenges is not all of that will happen.

So we've gotta make some bets.

Yeah, and I hear you and I appreciate that

because you can look at development

which you've actually included in Sutter.

That's been 20 years in the works.

It started and stopped.

So that's where is there a way to look at our blueprint

a little differently?

Because I would say Upper West Side in Grand Park

is more likely to happen than the Sutter development

which I personally worked on.

And so I know there's the lawsuits

that the school districts have with the developer.

So how do we, where you've made a guess,

is there maybe an appendix that can be added?

Because I hear you, when you know it's for certain

you'll add it, but sometimes that's too late.

Because when you're certain, it's been on the books

for five, 10, sometimes 20 years.

And have there been measures looked at is

if we know this is going, these are the things

and the impact it will have, but we know as elected,

we changed, new people get elected.

Where is that appendix so that people can see

this is potential growth that will happen in the area

so that policy makers can just have that in mind?

Happy to follow up with you on ways we can address that.

And then I've heard rumors of a conflict

between Sake Hog and SacRT on transportation funding

and what's federally viable, not viable.

I'm interested in hearing what's the update on that.

Don't believe everything you read, number one.

Number two, we have to have an MOU,

a federally required MOU between Sake Hog, SacRT

and all the transit operators that serve

the Greater Sacramento Urbanized Area.

So we're in the middle of negotiating that, right?

And so that hasn't been updated since 2015.

FTA has asked us to update it.

We really have to do that this year.

In an era of shrinking resources, yeah, are there challenges?

Are there some debates and discussions

on how to divide up a shrinking pie?

Absolutely, right?

But we are at the table,

we're I think working very well with SacRT.

We've just started to bring the other operators in

because we've got to figure out,

it's a little bit of what I was responding

to Council Member Dickinson's question about what's fair.

There is no one definition.

SacRT carries 90% of all the riders in the region,

but those other operators serve the Urbanized Area

and provide really important services,

sometimes very services to disadvantaged communities.

So I guess I'm saying standby.

We had a great board workshop last week

with in partnership with SacRT and brought our boards together

and went to look at TOD down the gold line.

So we understand and we're actually working very closely

with them and the other operators, YellowTD,

the EBSetter Transit look at a longer term

financial sustainability plan and strategy

because the other thing that I didn't say

in this regional plan is we have to actually

significantly increase transit ridership

across the region if we're gonna meet our goals.

Awesome, thank you.

And then last, I will advocate for both District One

and District Two.

Robla in North Sacramento has a significant amount

of incomplete streets.

As North Sac was its own area, many which lead to schools.

So would love as Sacog keeps that in mind

and believes as you invested in West Sacramento

on areas that are transversed and need complete sidewalks

that Robla and North Sac be considered

because there are many dangerous areas

where these were houses that were more farm-esque-like

and then came into the city but don't have sidewalks.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Council Member Maple.

All right, thank you.

And I'll be very brief

because I know we have a closed session.

We need to get to in a bit

but I wanna say to my colleagues

that are not on the Sacog Board that I hear you

and I really appreciate hearing it in the setting

so that I can go forth along with Council Member Jennings

and make sure that we advocate for the things

that we need across the city.

So really appreciate that.

And I think I'm a regionalist and someone who believes

that we can do so much more by working together.

Even when it seems like maybe we don't have

all that much in common, we really do.

We have a lot more in common than we don't.

And I think ultimately if you get at the core

of the issues that matter to people,

it doesn't matter where you live,

they all want the same things.

They wanna live in safe communities.

They wanna be able to get easily to where they work

and where they live and be able to recreate

and spend time with their families.

And so those things may mean different things

depending on where you are

but they're the same types of things.

And so I think having a coordinated plan to do that

is the right thing to do

and really proud to begin to be a part of it.

Though I know there are many other people in this room

that have been doing it for a long time,

including yourself.

So I really appreciate the presentation.

I just had a couple, I guess more very specific comments

because I align myself with a lot of comments

who already made, especially around active transportation

and public transportation, you know,

where my heart is and all of that.

One is around the state workers.

So obviously there is a big conversation

that's happening in the capital right now.

There may be state workers coming back to work

anywhere between somewhere, maybe five days,

maybe three days or whatever.

So is that, I mean, obviously a major job center

is the government and including the state government.

Is that baked into any of this at all of any of those changes?

Assumptions are very much baked in,

as I was saying earlier.

And they're not, we don't think that work

is gonna look the same as it did the last 10 years, right?

So we do see some more return to work

and we haven't gone completely wild

on projections of work from home.

But there is some of that baked into our plan

which actually has a GHG benefit.

Yeah, so stay tuned.

Again, our congressional delegation

is actually really interested in this piece

because of the sort of change in travel patterns.

So, yeah, so stay tuned on that.

I think it's again that balancing act, right?

Between what's healthy for your downtown,

what's healthy for SACRT, getting more people riding,

especially light rail, has not come back

to the pre-pandemic levels

largely because of the lack of state workers.

So we do want more activity downtown.

We want more people riding light rail.

But as you well know too, you probably need

to really encourage more housing downtown, right?

Because we can't just rely on state workers

to bring it back.

Perfect, that's exactly my thoughts.

Is no matter what happens, I think work has changed.

And whether that means that everyone's gonna come back

or not, I think that the government, the state,

and all of us needs to be competitive

with the private sector, which is gonna say,

hey, you're gonna have more flexibility.

People wanna work from home.

That's just a reality.

And we've seen that it actually can be much better

for the environment and reduce our carbon emissions

and so on and so forth.

And so I think that whatever,

the planning that we have in place,

which I know does this, but continues

to really enforce the idea that we have housing,

your job centers, and in the urban core,

and that it doesn't matter.

It shouldn't decimate our downtown.

If people are working from home,

we should just have more places

where people can work from home

and still go to the coffee shop down the street, right?

And still patron the local businesses.

And to me, that's the future of downtown

and probably the future of a lot of other places.

I don't know the answer to this,

but the other interesting thing that has come to mind is

when some people were hired during the pandemic,

they were hired and told,

hey, you can work for such and such department of the state,

but live wherever.

And then they live maybe somewhere else

in the Sixth County region or beyond.

And now they're being told to come back

and they're having to decide,

oh, do I move to be able to accommodate my job now

in Sacramento?

And I think we might see some uptick of people who come

because they maybe wanna keep their job

and wanna stay.

So just something to keep an eye on

and see how that is impacting any of the plans

that we have going on.

The other one was I was really inspired by Councilor,

I'm sorry, Mayor Pro Tem,

Gara's comments around lobbying and REAP three

and cap and trade,

obviously two really big things that we wanna push forth

and to the extent that Saekhog's lobbyists

and the city of Sacramento's lobbyists

and let's say any of the other, you know,

government, local governments

that might have their own lobbying teams

either in house or a contract agree with those things.

I think you get a lot more power on numbers

and those kinds of coalitions.

So I don't know if our government affairs staff

coordinate to that degree,

but that might be something worth exploring

to make sure that we really have the power

and the oomph behind what we're trying to accomplish.

One thing I know for sure is that our staffs

work really well together,

but I will definitely, given the comments,

go back and make sure that those teams are really,

we're firing all cylinders, right,

that we're really synchronized.

I will tell you when the legislature

and the governor proposed to cut the original REAP funding

last year for Green Means Go by 50%.

It was an all hands effort by this entire region

and jurisdictions in this region showed up

in great numbers in the state capital, including the city,

and we beat back that cut

and only made it a 10% cut, not a 50% cut,

and that's a great example of teamwork.

Love it, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

I know we have to move on,

but I just wanna say stay the course.

I am curious to meet and come back and tell me,

when Roger and I were local elected officials

and we learned about the first blueprint in 2003, four, five,

just to see where we're at today

and just kind of our perspective.

But the issue that council member Maple brings up

is so key because as you talk,

when I worked on the legislation with you

and I know Council Member Garry was pushing this,

is Sacramento, we don't have as much might

as the 30 member delegation from Los Angeles.

There's three to five of us right here.

Bay Area is 15 to 20, so our strength really is our numbers

and even with our numbers, we're at a massive disadvantage.

So we have to make sure that we're nimble

and effective and work as a team, so thank you.

So thank you for presenting this.

No vote, correct?

No vote, right?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, next.

So Mayor, can we move to public comment

for matters not on the agenda?

I have two speakers.

The first is Mac Worthy, then Joe Cadeljo and Angel Diaz.

I'm gonna assume we can skip council comments

for our next meeting.

Yes.

You know, people have been going about two minutes.

How many public comments been on that guy's record?

He's me.

Think about it.

See, those are the types of things

that I admire Trump to do, cut that shit out.

That's where you waste money.

Then we look at Ecclid Trust.

Yeah, Gail said, well, you saw what was on that film?

Oh, that was in front of Psych State.

Did you see a black man's face?

No, that's ignorance.

See, that's ignorance.

What do Rick Jennings know about race?

I said, he only experienced going south

and over here with the racers and guys ass busting.

They sewed him up and got no record in that.

These are things, put people on there.

You can find those people, they don't have to live

in the state, you can find those people

that will come on there and get the benefit of the doubt.

Properly made to our parents, the Sixth Amendment,

post-integration with a thug,

Martin King, the leader, is a thug, a preacher.

That's why we lost our way as a post-integration.

Now we've talked about equity now.

Who talked about equity now?

How I come here and go into business

for the last nine years, I must say.

Never got nothing from nobody.

Every time we turn around somebody over here begging

for a dollar, non-profit, all corporations

have non-profit clothes because you got to put a little money

inside that you can go back and get.

I believe in trust funds.

Give you a three and you can borrow a sixth.

The best thing could have happened to black folks.

Go to trust funds.

No, they weren't integrated.

I'd have to take a crap on a stew

where a white man took a crap at.

In my business, if we had two daughters over there

for $100 each, wouldn't that be $400 come to me for one?

Think, use your head in figures.

Not in literal stuff, this stuff here,

this guy talking here, it's bullshit, man.

You'll never see it.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker, Joe and Angel.

And I'm assuming you wanted two minutes together

or two separate, thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Joe Cato Lago of an Angel Diaz with Waste Management.

Your partner's over on Fruit Ridge Road.

We just wanted to drop by and help promote

Earth Day Today, Happy Earth Day.

And also our dump day that we have

with the City of Sacramento on May 3rd.

So May 3rd, it's dump day for all City of Sacramento residents,

for all districts and all residents, not commercial.

So it's just the residential community.

They can come by, bring all the trash

and anything that can be recycled will be recycled

at the transfer station,

at the materials recycling facility next door.

But the hours will be from 8 to 11 a.m. on May 3rd.

So we'll leave flyers here.

I believe the City is also helping promote it.

So we just want to hope to see you all there.

Yes, we're aiming for 75% diversion during that event.

Another thing that I wanted to speak on, Angel Diaz,

I am the district manager for the Sacramento recycling

and transfer station.

I've been there for 10 years.

And over the last 10 years, we've done a lot of upgrades

to the facility.

Most recent, we did what we call a SOTA,

State of the Art.

So we moved the recycling plant

to the new evolution of technology,

maximum recovery.

And today, we're achieving a high level of capture rate

of the recyclables that we take in

from all of the City of Sacramento.

We take in all the city's curbside

and the majority of the city's commercial.

So I want to extend a warm invitation

to come out and tour our plant,

look at the great things that we're doing

at Sacramento recycling and transfer station

for the community of recycling, recovery,

and repurposing the materials that we handle.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Plochibom.

Would like to jump in here.

Just real quick, I couldn't pass up an opportunity

to talk trash.

I love it.

Not today, and maybe not even before the summer.

If you all could come back and update us

on where we're at with the Organics Diversion Program.

I'm curious about that.

And then also if there are anything that we can do

to help support the work you're doing

around reducing plastics and the waste stream as well.

Just not urgent, just putting those out there for the future.

Thanks.

Absolutely, thank you.

Mayor Pro Temgata, you had comments?

Yes, I just wanted to thank Joe and Angel.

They did an amazing tour.

We did a great celebration of their,

of the inauguration of their new state of the art facility

on Frut Ridge Road.

And it was impressive.

I mean, one of the things that struck out to me,

which with plastics, it's a difficult issue,

how their facility is able to separate up

to I think 19 different plastics through optical sensors.

And because of that, we can actually,

one, reduce the amount that goes into the waste streams

and landfill, but second, have a better output

of how those plastics get processed.

So, and it was great to talk to all the workers out there.

You know, I think Angel, I think you said you started,

moved your way up through management there.

And so it's great to see a lot of folks there,

local folks who are in district six

and they're employing folks there in the community.

So I just wanted to thank Waste Management again.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

This concludes our 2 p.m. regular city council meeting,

but we do have a 3 p.m. special meeting

for the purpose of a closed session.

So we would like to adjourn to that special meeting

for the purpose of closed session.

We have a quorum of council members here in chambers.

There are three items on the special meeting

closed session agenda.

The first is public employee performance evaluation

government code section 54957, title city attorney.

The second is public employee performance evaluation

government code section 54957 director title

as director of the office of public safety accountability.

Item three is pursuant to government code section 54956.9d1

to discuss matters pertaining to pending litigation.

Schmidt versus city of Sacramento,

Sacramento County Superior Court case number 34-2021-00300793.

We have no speakers on any of these items

on the closed session agenda.

And Mayor, you may adjourn to closed session at 312.

Close.