Good afternoon.

I'd like to call this meeting in order at 2 05 p.m.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Absolutely.

Councilmember Dickinson?

Vice Mayor Telemontes.

Councilmember Fluckybaugh.

Councilmember Maple?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Gera?

Here.

Council Member Jennings?

Council Member Bang?

Here.

And Mayor McCarty.

Absent.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

And they'll be in momentarily.

So, uh, Councilmember Maple, will you please lead us in the land acknowledgement and the Pledge of Allegiance?

Yes, Madam Vice Mayor.

Please rise if you are able for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal land.

So the original people of this land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Maidu, Valley Plains, Newwak, Buttuan Wintoon peoples, and the people of the Welch and Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous People's History, contributions, and lives.

Salute and pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and invisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much.

Council member.

So closed session report.

Is there any report out for closed session?

There's not but the council's meeting in closed session later on this afternoon.

Okay, wonderful.

And moving along to our consent calendar, do any members have items for the consent calendar?

I'll just consent.

We have a motion and a second.

Okay.

Every seeing no other questions.

Okay.

Any public comment on this item?

No public comment for the consent calendar.

Everyone in support, please say aye.

Aye.

Abstentions?

No's seeing none?

Okay.

We pass the consent calendar.

And moving along to our discussion calendar.

We will be welcoming Cheryl Hodge and Matthew for our county development project.

Upper West Side Specific Plan.

Hi, good afternoon.

I think we're gonna hopefully have the presentation queued up that we have.

There we go.

Good afternoon.

I'm Cheryl Hodge, uh Principal Planner, new growth manager for the City of Sacramento, and our I'm with our community development department.

I am also the manager and responsible for the city's Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

This is a discussion item on your agenda, and this afternoon we'll be uh discussing Natomas Basin, specifically some pending county development projects with a focus on Upper West Side that has an upcoming Board of Supervisors hearing.

Sacramento County is planning the future of thousands of acres located in the unincorporated Sacramento portion of Natomas Basin, which is adjacent to the city of Sacramento.

Three development proposals are pending that total over 7,400 acres, approximately 34,000 residential units, and a combined estimated population of 80,000 persons on August 20th.

The County Board of Supervisors will consider one of these three proposals, which is the Upper West Side Specific Plan.

The development poses numerous implications to the city of Sacramento that remain unresolved.

It's been an interest of the city for over 25 years.

Notomas basin is for the unincorporated Sacramento portion of the basin, a little over 18,000 acres in size.

The Upper West Side Specific Plan Project, we also refer to it as the boot per a Notomas Joint Vision Plan from years ago, is approximately a little over 2,000 acres in size, 9,356 dwelling units with an estimated future population of just over 25,000 residents, and about 3.1 million square feet of commercial uses.

Upper West Side is bounded on three sides by the City of Sacramento, Garden Highway, Sacramento River, the I-80, and also near Fisherman's Lake.

Grand Park, which we refer to as the North Precinct per Notomas Joint Vision Plan, is been split up into two separate specific plan areas.

One is referred to as Grand Park Southwest, and the other one Grand Park Trails.

The status of these projects is that they've just recently filed applications with the county, revised applications to be two separate projects, and the PrEP of studies and the two different EIRs are underway.

The Grand Park area is a little over 5,300 acres in size with 24,645 dwelling units.

Grand Park is located and bounded by Elkhorn Boulevard, the 99, up by Sutter, the boundary with Sutter County, and the East Drainage Canal.

The green that is shown on this exhibit that follows Garden Highway in Sacramento River is a one-mile swing-ton-hawk zone buffer.

It is a protected buffer area per the city's habitat conservation plan and the city's incidental take permits issued by the wildlife agencies.

This is an aerial of the Notomas Basin area.

The entire basin is a little over 53 acres in size and includes portions of Sutter County, as I mentioned, the unincorporated area of Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento.

It is bounded by the Sacramento River to the west, Notomas Cross Canal to the north, East Drainage Canal to the east, and Sacramento River Garden Highway to the south.

In 2000, this the county and numerous times throughout the years has been invited to be a partner in our habitat conservation plan and the county, Sacramento County declined.

In 2002, the city and county did enter into a cooperative memorandum of understanding that was approved by the city council in December of 2000 and 2002 and also approved by the County Board of Supervisors.

In 2003, the city adopted the revised habitat conservation plan.

We just refer to it as the 2003 HCP, which established a 17,500 acre development cap with a conservation framework.

And then I'll fast forward to 2025, where we find ourselves today with a discussion item to talk about pending development proposals in the basin and the county's interest in pursuing urbanization.

As I mentioned, the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan does have an authorized development allocation cap that the conservation strategy is based on, which is 17,500 acres of authorized future development.

That development is primarily City of Sacramento, North Natomas, South Notomas area, Sutter County, and Metro Air Park.

The conservation requirements require preservation for of habitat lands for mitigation for all development that occurs.

It also requires protection of the Swingson's Hawk buffer zone, a one mile zone along Sacramento River, and then it provides for specific requirements for habitat for the 22 covered species.

To date, on behalf of the city, Sutter County and Metro Air Park, the Notomas Basin Conservancy serves as our operator and manager for these habitat lands in the basin.

So they go out and acquire the lands and they manage and protect these lands in perpetuity.

Currently, there's roughly over 57, I'm sorry, 5,374 acres that the Conservancy has acquired in Notomas Basin for protection.

There's been significant financial investment in these conservation efforts, with the city alone collecting mitigation fees over the years that total just over 54 million dollars to date.

Here's a few pictures of some species related to the habitat conservation plan.

In the far left is a burrowing owl up above a swingson's hawk.

The picture in the far upper right is one of the HCP reserves, marsh reserve out actually towards the Grand Park area, proposed Grand Park area, and then that's a northwestern pond turtle that you could see up there, along with the infamous giant garter snake who loves rice crops, and that's a picture of rice crops next to the snake.

The 2002 memorandum of understanding was very specific in that it stated the city rather than the county is the appropriate agent for planning new growth in Notomas and can better provide a full range of municipal services.

The county is the appropriate agent for preserving open space and agricultural and rural land uses.

The city county 2002 MOU established a framework for mutual interest that the city and county have.

This included the city recognizing the city would be the urbanizer.

The county would be the protector of open space and farmlands, airport protection, property tax revenue sharing frameworks, future growth and urban growth policies.

This is a graphic that shows the locations of the precincts when the Notomas joint vision process was underway between a group of landowners and Sacramento County in the city of Sacramento County.

Grand Park, as I mentioned up in the far right corner there in the yellow, a little over 5,700 acres, was referred to as the North Precinct.

To the left of that is the West Precinct, a little over 1,300 acres that is currently vacant undeveloped land.

The South Precinct, closer to the airport, 575 acres.

And then what we'll be discussing this afternoon, Upper West Side, also known as the Boot, a little over 2,000 acres.

The county's cooperation on the Notomas Joint Vision Area in October of 2010, the Sacramento Board of Supervisors reaffirmed a cooperative work between the city county and landowners and the phase four of the Notomas Joint Vision process.

These efforts include continued continuing biology studies that would result in a conservation strategy, creating an organizational structure to prepare a new amended habitat conservation plan, meeting with the county airport system staff, and working with the county's urban design specialists.

The county has specifically a land use policy 114 and implementation measure C, which was part of their general plan, and their general plan, which was the general plan adopted in November of 2011, did include an overlay district designation for the Notomas Joint Vision Area.

The land use policy states that Sacramento County that development and open space preservation and the Notomas Joint Vision Overlay occur in a comprehensive, responsible, and cohesive manner that best addresses land use, economic development, and environmental opportunities and the challenges in Notomas.

Implementation measure C indicates pursue comprehensive collaborative planning in Notomas Joint Vision Overlay Area, either through continued participation in the Notomas Joint Vision MOU, which is the 2002 MOU, or if determined appropriate, with the county serving as the lead agency for development and open space preservation.

The Upper West Side project, this is an aerial exhibit of it, and as I mentioned, is bounded on three sides by the City of Sacramento, Sacramento River, Garden Highway, and Fisherman's Lake, is a little over 2,000 acres and contains predominantly vacant open space lands with some rural residential.

This exhibit illustrates the existing and proposed county urban services boundary and the county's urban policy area.

These are not city urban services boundary or a city urban policy, rather it's county, but it establishes the growth limits for for the county.

The graphic on the left shows the current boundaries the county has for their for their urban services and urban policy area, and then the graphic on the right shows how it would be expanded with the proposed Upper West Side specific plan.

And as you can see from the graphic on the right, there's a fairly significant expansion towards Garden Highway, and in particular does encroach in the one mile swings and sock zone.

This is a graphic of the proposed land use plan for Upper West Side that will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on August 20th.

The Upper West Side project proposes water supply from the City of Sacramento per an agreement that the city and county would have.

That agreement does not exist today, nor has there been any formal commitment to provide that water supply.

Water retail services would be provided by the county, most likely SAC County Water Agency.

Fire and emergency would be provided through the existing contract we have with Natomas Fire Protection District, which is basically city fire.

A fire station that would initially serve the area is located in North Natomas.

It's fire station number 43 off El Centro, which is about two miles from the center of the proposed specific plan area.

For law enforcement, it would be county sheriff with a projected need for 25 officers, a future sheriff substation if deemed necessary.

Animal services and parks would be provided by the county.

City responsiveness throughout the county process.

The initial application for the Upper West Side Project was filed with the county in 2018.

Since that time, we've had more than 20 meetings with city-county staff and project representatives.

City staffs attended open houses, workshops, neighborhood meetings over the past six plus years, and we've provided numerous written comments to the county expressing various questions, issues, and concerns we have identified per reviewing of all the county documentation on the project.

Key concerns that the county is not honoring the 2002 MOU, which agreed that the count the city is the county is not necessarily the appropriate urbanizer for Notomas, but the city is, and that's mainly because the city has the best ability to provide municipal services to the area, and the county did agree to protect open space and agricultural lands.

This 2002 MOU, by the way, was in place before the city adopted our 2003 habitat conservation plan and agreed to very specific requirements of that HCP.

One of the other key concerns we've identified is a conflict with the city's habitat conservation plan.

Upper West Side would result in exceeding the development cap of 17,500 acres for Notomas Basin, which is the baseline for the success of the conservation strategy that we've been implementing for over 25 years.

And then as I mentioned earlier, it encroaches into the one mile Swainson's Hawk zone with impacts to roughly 975 acres of Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat.

Water supply, the project assumes water supply from the city of Sacramento, and service assumptions, fire, emergency implications to weather services, including uh city police, would result as with the implementation of the specific plan development, especially being bounded on three sides to the city of Sacramento and being fairly isolated from any other urbanized unincorporated county area receiving county services.

Also, a consideration is the potential economic impacts that could threaten cities in fill development strategy in our tax base.

Counties response to these city concerns that have been raised.

In your packet, it was provided as supplemental material, is a response to each comment that the city has raised.

So the details of that are included in that material that's been provided.

But to summarize our unresolved issues really kind of center around the habitat conservation plan, the 2002 MOU, water supply service, other municipal services, land use, transportation, and economic.

Key questions for the city of Sacramento.

Will the city provide water supply for the Upper West Side Project?

And should the city send a letter to the county opposing the project.

City staff's recommendation is to authorize the mayor to work with the city attorney's office to prepare a letter that communicates the city's opposition to the Upper West Side Project.

And that concludes my presentation at this time, but it's city staff is available for any questions you may have, and we also have representatives with the various multiple city departments here this afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know we'll have plenty of city comments and questions, especially from the two Thomas area council members, but all of us are invested in this area of the city of the area of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, actually, of course, not the city.

But before that, we will go to public comments.

Thank you, Mayor.

We have uh 35 public comments.

I will call five speakers at a time.

If you can please line up in the aisle so we can hear everybody's comments as expeditiously as possible.

Our first five speakers are Rita Donahue, Heather Fargo, Rob Berness, Ira Schick.

I'm sorry if I mispronounced that, and Susan Herve.

Rita.

Hello, good afternoon, Council.

I am a resident actually of West Sacramento, but a former 20-year resident of South Notomas at the time that Council Member Fargo was our council member.

During that time, I was also a member of the City Planning Commission when the North Notomas Community Plan was developed and approved.

So I appreciate the concise staff report giving the timeline, and of course, I was in that era between 91 and 99 when that uh North Otomas Community Plan was developed, and lands in that Notomas basin were the mitigation for the development of North Notomas.

I urge you to vote for the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

And Heather Fargo.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

Thank you for having this item on your agenda today, and thank you for hearing from the community.

It's a very important issue for the city, for the county, and for all of you and for citizens of Sacramento.

I'm currently the president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento, and I'm here today representing the 20 organizations that are part of that group, a part of ECOS.

And I was also the mayor when the infamous MOU of 2002 was approved.

So I'm here to answer any questions you may have on what was going on at that point in time.

And I remain a Thomas resident of District 3.

We ask you to approve the resolution before you and send a letter to the county clearly opposing the Upper West Side project.

We are your opposing this project project shows that you support in fill and oppose sprawl, that you support the city by protecting its resources, that you support the Natoma Space and Habitat Conservation Plan and the Toma Space and Conservancy, that you support the planning efforts of the city and the region, that you support your constituents.

This may be an unprecedented move for you to pass a resolution like this to send such a letter, but this project is also unprecedented.

I'll remind you that it is the size of the town of Gault.

It is too big to leave to any one person to make this decision.

The impacts of this project on the city cannot be ignored, and I appreciate your taking the time to consider them.

If you have any questions about it, I hope that you are paying attention to Ms.

Hodges' presentation and that you read her very well thought-out letter to the county in October of 2024 that you have in your staff report.

I want to thank you for your leadership, and thank you, hopefully, for supporting the resolution to send a letter of clear opposition.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rob Berness.

My name is Rob Berness.

I'm a retired county planner of 30 years with the county.

I was involved with the 1993 general plan that created the urban service boundary.

And I would like to point out in support of your adoption of a resolution that's proposed by city staff, that despite the joint vision process and various amendments of the county general plan that were outlined in the recent Todd Smith memorandum to you, the operative policy here is the urban service boundary policy.

And that policy requires a four-fifth vote of the Board of Supervisors in order to approve this develop this project, general plan amendment.

And it requires the finding that there are extraordinary benefits associated with this project.

So far, the only benefit that's put forward that I can understand from the application is the benefit of this project is it is located adjacent, close to at least the downtown area of Sacramento.

In other words, extraordinary benefit by proximity only.

Not the least of which six million square feet of office and commercial development in this project that would compete directly with this downtown area of Sacramento.

And as well as, excuse me, as well as a considerable addition to traffic volume on Interstate 5, which is already heavily impacted, will make it even more difficult for city residents in all parts of the city to get to and from the airport and travel that quarter, which is severely limited in access other than I-5 to downtown.

I would urge you to take this into account in your remarks and your communications with the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and actively oppose this particular project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ira.

Hello, my name is Ira Shake.

I'm here with ECOS, and we have a pink map that we're going to pass around for you guys to look at so that you guys can see why you should support today's resolution against Upper West Side with a housing perspectives.

First, the SACOG Blueprint states that of the 171,000 housing units that are expected to be built between now and 2050, about 48,000 of those are greenfield areas.

This is a third of all that's projected for the county.

This is a rapid increase in greenfield construction, especially at a time when compact transit served housing is required for smaller and low lower income households and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from from driving.

Additionally, we do not need more insufficient use of land, such as developments with average housing using housing densities that cannot support good frequent transit.

The county's greenfield projects average just three housing units per acre.

Therefore, these projects will not meet the requirement of a minimum 15 units per acre needed to support transit.

And finally, I would like to highlight that SACOX 2025 blueprint shows that the City of Sacramento's new general plan has a housing capacity of over 1 million units, which will have access to existing transit and key job and commercial centers.

We should not jeopardize the build-out of these areas by providing approving the greenfield developments like Upper West Side.

And I would also like to point out that of the nearly 10,000 unit units that are to be built, roughly 140 of those will be set aside for low income and affordable housing.

This is not enough to meet the affordable housing ordinance, which requires an allocation of 20%, in this case, 2,000 units for this project.

So I urge you not to fall for the argument that Upper West Side is needed for housing as it does not does not address Sacramento's current concerns or the city's agenda.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Susan, and after Susan, we'll have Rachel Guerrero, Eric Webb, Doyle Radford, Nick Avoy at our Advis, and Ross Olivera.

Again, if you could please line up in the aisle so that we can get through everybody's comments.

Go ahead, Susan.

Okay.

Mayor and council members, thank you very much for having this hearing.

The map that I'd like to talk about is on the flip side of the map that Ira was just talking about.

She had the pink side.

I think I have the orange side.

And in addition to the greenfields that were shown on the pink side, which were in are in the SACOG blueprint, on the orange side, you see additional greenfield developments that are being processed by the SAC County.

There's eight additional developments with a total of about 67,000 housing units.

So in Sacramento County alone, there are greenfield sites totaling 167,000 housing units.

And the projection is that thir after it after 2050, 30 years from now.

Too many greenfield developments are being entitled by Sacramento County, and the slow rate at which they are progressing is a symptom of the excess.

It's just more than the market can bear.

Many of these projects have been sitting on the books for 15 to 16 years.

So Upper West Side is not needed for housing, and it will not solve the housing problem.

And we know when we look at our region, we know it is much better to build in-fill housing in your own districts where there is plenty of capacity and where transit schools, parks, shopping, and jobs already exist.

So thank you for your leadership in opposing Upper West Side.

Thank you.

Rachel.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rachel Guerrero, and I have been a homeowner in the Thomas area for 40 years.

37 of those in South Natomas, and just recently three years in the Thomas Park.

I love living there.

It is a well-planned community.

Parks are within walking distance, bike trails, open green space that I can ride my bike within 10 minutes.

I am here to speak to you in support for your vote to the resolution against the Upper West Side development.

I'm with you.

I totally support City Council's opposition to the Upper West Side specific plan.

Don't let the county bully us.

I totally oppose future development on greenfield in our region.

I oppose urbanization of farmlands by the city and county.

Climate change demands we stop urban growth and focus on in field per the city general plan.

Water is a critical issue here.

Work with the county to support previous agreements.

Remind new county leadership to keep these agreements.

Open space is a high priority for people, and it really is a quality of care issue.

Keep the balance of farms and habitat in the Thomas I choose to live here because of the nearby open green space adjacent to Notomas.

I think the Thomas is one of the best areas in Sacramento to live in Sacramento.

Just think have you ever seen a Swanson Hawk fly over your head don't you stop always and look up or have you ever seen the beautiful red winged black birds fly overhead.

I grew up in LA.

I know urban and it is ugly let's not let Sacramento become another LA.

One of the best things about Sacramento is in 10 minutes I can ride my bike and be in the garden highway and ride along open farmland.

Let's keep our limited green space it's beautiful it what makes Sacramento very special.

Thank you and please vote for this resolution against the Upper West Side.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eric Webb.

Hello uh city council uh vice mayor I just want to say thank you for your leadership on this issue and and um I oppose Upper West Side and support the resolution um the letter um hopefully a sharply worded letter to our county partners um uh IRA and presentation uh was very outstanding um this project is the orange countification of our region and I would point the the city council to an excellent grassroots organization named Solana together who are opposing that California forever monstrosity and they have some really interesting um information particularly about urban boundaries and converting agricultural land for development outside of urban boundaries it generally does not pencil out for city and county governments in the long term um it enriches private interests for sure but it perpetuates that vicious cycle that we're in when it comes to sprawling development um also wish to say that this is a classic insult injury the insult is the project itself of course but the injury is our is you know in this era of portrayal of norms lawlessness um unilateralism and sadly capitulation um we need to stand up for ourselves and we need to we need to uh we need to this our our integrity is on the line here as a city so I I wish that and finally I just want to personalize the Nethomas conservancy plan I for a long time have been a volunteer for the tree foundation and collect acorns in that very very region and what I've noticed over the years and I'm sure the scientists of the tree foundation could test that maps have been shrinking and it indicates the lack of balance that we have between our open spaces and our our development so thank you.

Doyle good afternoon Mayor McCarty and respected counsel my name is Doyle Radford Jr.

and I'm proud to serve as a business manager for construction in general laborers local 185 representing thousands of hardworking men and women in this region I'm here today with a simple ask uh do not oppose the upper west side project we ask that you would stay neutral we feel that this issue is between a developer and Sacramento County and not the city we feel the council really knows how fragile that relationship has been in recent years with the county and we'd really like to see some connectivity instead of the infighting it's important for us as a region to move forward the city staff did a good job raising concerns about the Upper West Side project around a year ago during the EIR public comment period and the Sacramento County to our knowledge responded to those concerns in its final EIR and they've been available to the public for several months now.

So I guess we're just really here today to um not ask that we put a nasty letter to the county and um that uh we kind of let um the the county do their part and we start to actually rebuild what has kind of fallen apart over recent years, and we thank you for your time and consideration.

Next speaker is Nick Avdis.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, Nick Abdis, Law Office of Abdesacucci on behalf of the Upper West Side Project.

We submit a letter for your review and consideration.

Given my very limited time, I want to hit on some of the points made in that letter.

I'm here to urge you not to take a position on this county-led project and to point out the staff report before you and a lot of the public testimony that I've heard is incomplete in some cases misleading.

So a few things.

First off, the 2002 MOU certainly was not a non-was a non-binding agreement.

The county took the lead in the planning after the city chose in 2005 affirmatively not to advance development planning in the Notomas joint vision area.

That decision by the city left land landowners and the county to proceed under county policies that require high-density, transit-oriented, low VMT projects.

A high bar that's met by the Upper West Side Project.

It's the only project of this scale that has scored less than significant on VMT thresholds.

It is all electric and carbon neutral, and it's located within three and a half miles of this city hall.

That is very similar to distances to CSUS, Cal Expo, Tahoe Park, Southland Park, Executive Airport, and Southport and West Sacramento.

And yes, this project needs regulatory permits from the same agencies that issued and approved the habitat conservation plan and the city and the county of Sutters take permits.

It stands to reason that those agencies would not issue permits that would jeopardize previously issued permits in the same area.

And while the staff sub later supplemented the record with the county's responses to the draft EIR, they did not provide the urban services plan or public facilities financing plan, nor did they invite the county uh to come to attendance today as I do not see a county representative.

I think without all of that, there's a lack of a full picture of how this project will be served in finance.

I think 10 seconds, regardless of the outcome today.

I hope that the county and city can move forward in constructive dialogue, grounded in solutions, uh solutions-based approach, land use issues.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Ross Oliveira.

After Ross, we'll have Jennifer Chawala, Diana Wood, Joe Yeager, Josh Harmatz, and Karen O'Hare.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

My name is Ross Oliveira, resident of Garden Highway, and I'm here to urge you to vote yes to oppose the Upper West Side Specific Plan.

This project would add thousands of new daily vehicle trips to Garden Highway, San Juan Road, and West El Camino.

Streets that are already congested and overburdened.

It sits outside the county's urban services boundary, undermining a critical growth management policy, and it encroaches on lands protected by the Thomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, which safeguards vital habitat and floodplains area.

It also directly conflicts with the Natomas Joint Venture Plan, a cooperative agreement between the city and county to ensure growth in the Thomas is coordinated, sustainable, and infrastructure ready.

Some additional facts, my family has offered to purchase the farmland outside of the urban services boundary for this project at its fair market agricultural value.

Because we believe these lands should remain in farming, wildlife habitat, and flood protection, not be paved over for speculative development.

Yet at the same time, some farm landowners in this area are looking to sell for seven to ten times its agricultural value, banking on the possibility of urban development.

I've even been contacted by real estate agents asking if I'd be interested in purchasing parcels in this very area for about 150,000 an acre.

Approving this plan would erode decades of careful planning while imposing lasting traffic, environmental, and infrastructure burdens on our community.

Please protect our city's future.

Vote yes to oppose this project.

Jennifer.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Jen Chavla, 14-year resident of both South and North Natomas.

I urge you to vote yes on this letter opposing the Upper West Side Specific Plan.

This is the right position for our city, but it's also a moment to be clear about why we're taking it.

North Natomas infrastructure is already strained.

Our roads, traffic lights, overpasses, and public safety systems are not prepared for the volume these projects will bring.

Without addressing those needs first, we risk gridlock, safety hazards, and costly taxpayer-funded retrofits.

We also have to talk about water.

Upper West Side has a high likelihood of attracting water-intensive facilities like data centers, which, by the way, use up to 300,000 gallons of water a day.

That's up to 1,000 households.

Approving projects without usage caps or protections is reckless.

Finally, a matter of public trust.

A recusal from any council member on projects of this scale, on any of these projects, should involve more than just citing a Petrovic case.

The public deserves clarity, accountability from all of its representatives when major developments like this are on the table.

Sacramento's growth must match our capacity to sustain it, protect our roads, protect our resources, protect our residents, and not plan, Mr.

Abdis, around a light rail that may never come for which funding is already gone.

So yes, not only do I urge you to vote yes on this letter, but I urge you to take these things into consideration for the other projects that are pending as well.

Diana.

Both flood and the scarcity of water.

And various people from FEMA and uh other agencies came around to the local schools and told us where to evacuate and the whole business because we were in fact the second town to city area that was flooded susceptible.

I was not here in 86 or so when they you did have a big flood.

So I looked on a uh Topo map, a USGS there and found our residents and counted it out, and it was 12 feet of water in eight hours if the levees failed.

So I know that we stopped uh development uh, you know, for a decade while they reinforced the levees up in the North Otomas area, but with climate change, and we could just look at the news and see what's happening in the southeastern part of the United States.

Unpredictable amounts of water can come to us through our atmospheric rivers at any time.

We also have the opposite problem of drought, and uh just to finish my comment about flood, the upper west side is obviously a deep flood area.

So it's pretty in my mind, ridiculous to build there when we have flood issues and tried to protect people from flood.

The other thing is the lack of water, and like was mentioned about a data center in the Upper West Side, commercial area which draws a lot of water.

I mean, we had a horrible drought here just what, five or six years ago, where we all, you know, making sure we used only a little bit of shower water.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

So I encourage you to oppose.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joe Yeager.

Hello, council.

My name is Joe Yeager.

I'm a resident of the River Oaks community for over 15 years.

Um, the Upper West Side project, we think is a total betrayal to our community in Sacramento as a whole.

Uh the county's breaking its promises and ignored ignoring regional plans, as you guys, as was mentioned earlier, violates the 20-year agreement.

Um, what the Notomas joint vision was set out for.

Um, the county's abandoning its role.

The county is acting like a private developer, not a responsible government partner protecting our region's open space and agricultural land.

Um, and obviously environmental conflict.

The plan builds directly inside the one-mile protected buffer zone for the Swains and Hawks, undermining a critical part of the Nephomas famous and Habitat Conservation Plan that our city has honored for 25 years.

I urge you to vote yes on the motion to send a letter of opposition to the county regarding the upper West Side Specific Plan.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Karen O'Hare.

After Karen, our next five speakers will be Joe Brazil, Dan Ramos, Janet Damar, William Jackson, and Roxanne Knight.

Good afternoon.

Mr.

Mayor and Council people, thank you so much for considering this resolution and standing up for the citizens and residents of the city of Sacramento, our community, and foreign atomas.

I've lived in Atomas for 36 years.

I'm a former land use planner for SACOG and an environmental attorney, and I'm so happy that you are actually taking a stand or will hopefully take a stand on this.

The county's project is horrible.

It is violates the Nethomas Jury's MOU.

It locates development in an area that has no source of water and will be using a lot of water as previously said by one of the speakers.

It removes valuable agricultural land and open space.

It violates the habitat conservation plan and it cites development in an area where we don't have the infrastructure.

You can look at I-5.

It's got grid like almost all the time.

We can't take more people there.

Anyway, I urge you to vote for the resolution to send a letter to stop the surrender's project by the county.

Thank you very much.

Joe Brazil.

Um I think I got skipped.

I'm Josh Harmedz.

I was going to speak after Joe Yeager.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Okay.

All right.

Do I get an extra 47?

There we go.

All right.

My name is Josh Harmatz.

I live on Garden Highway, and I've been in the Thomas resident in total for 20 years, living in Westlake community before that.

I'm not a politician.

I don't work for the city.

I've learned a lot about this process, though, in the last year.

My very first meeting I had with the community on this project.

I got a call during the meeting about a drunk driver on Garden Highway that it rammed through my gate.

Today, as we speak, I'm not exaggerating.

There's a fire going on in Power Line Road.

This is right now happening.

These are the surrounding areas that have not been dealt with by the county's plan.

And I urge this city to not only write a letter in opposition but do more.

We need to stop this plan from the county from moving forward.

We know what they're going to do by approving this.

They don't have a full plan with four phases all funded and all dealt with the area.

I want to show you one other thing.

This is Power Line Road where the fire is happening right now as we speak.

That road is eight feet wide.

Trucks cannot pass each other on that road.

I'm scared to death of my daughter from driving on that road.

The problem is that the county is not funded enough to deal with all of the surrounding areas, and they have no plan for dealing with things like Power Line Road or Garden Highway, where we live.

On the final environmental impact report, the news came out that Garden Highway would need to be widened to 36 feet wide.

It's currently 20 feet wide.

Who's going to pay for that?

How's that going to be dealt with?

Have the Army Corps and Central Valley Flood approved going on the federal the federal setback levy that they're almost done building?

They haven't, they're not even aware of it.

And I know that because I spoke to them because they're willing to speak and listen to the community, unlike the county and unlike the developers, who haven't been willing to say we'll scale back the project.

We'll deal with the surrounding areas so that neighbors can live there.

And so this can work for everybody.

And that's our biggest concern.

This isn't about anti-housing, it's about dealing with the entire area in total.

And I'd really urge you to do more than just write a letter, please.

I'm in strong favor of that.

Start there and keep going, you guys.

We have to stop the county from the air.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Joe.

Joe.

Thank you, Mayor, and uh council members.

Uh my family owns uh land in the boot, which we've been farming for over 80 years.

There are some groups out there that will try to tell you that this area is prime farmland, but I'm here to tell you that in real life, it is not.

We're surrounded by urban encroachment causing theft, uh, equipment placement issues and limitations on farming methods due to nearby homes and businesses.

This makes farming in the area no longer practical, viable, or sustainable.

We literally lose money every year.

Upper West Side is smart growth, and it's the right move at the right time because it makes housing growth and conservation all possible at the same time.

It's the perfect balance in providing much-needed housing, yet still protecting open space and farmland.

For every acre of development, an acre of viable farmland in other areas of Sacramento will be permanently preserved.

The plan has a 542 acre ag buffer to preserve open space.

It is adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure.

Housing is within bikey distance of the downtown area and lots of jobs.

It provides wildlife corridors and habitat protections for species like the Swainson hawk and the giant garter snake.

As farmers in this area, we have served the Sacramento community wholeheartedly for many years, but we can't keep pretending that farming in this urban area still works.

Simply doesn't.

The time for change is now because Upper West Side solves literally every issue.

I ask you to encourage the County Board of Supervisors to fully embrace and adopt the Upper West Side Plan.

It's the smart move.

Tessio was always smarter.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dan Ramos.

Good afternoon, Mayor McCarty, members of the city council.

It's been a long time since I've been here.

It's uh been great to get to be able to speak here to you today.

Uh like to say my name's Dan Ramus.

I'm here tonight on behalf of my family.

We own about 35 acres on the very east side of this whole project behind the truck stop there.

And in that time, we watched this area change dramatically.

Because once a viable farmland has been we're surrounded by urban development, so it's really restricted our farming possibilities.

And it's uh it's these conditions could no longer farm.

And so we've we face constant theft, uh, vandalism, dangerous traffic, and major restrictions on basic farming factors like spraying.

Continuing to zone the property factory just as outdated and workable.

But I want to let you know, back we've we've organized uh three times uh a development project uh for that area, 284 acres came forward based on the county and city plan.

Uh brought, we had we had a uh Autumn, we've had Bass Pro, we had IKEA to come to this area here.

And each time we got rejected by the city, said no, this is uh this development area is our deal with the county.

We don't make uh we don't make enough money to go away.

So we we've tried, we've tried and tried to live by the way that you set this thing up, and it hasn't happened.

So uh that's why we went to the county and we've worked with them to do this great project, which is an infill project.

This proximity downtown, don't discount.

You talk to a lot about a green green areas around the Sacramento County will never get built because the infrastructure center.

This area has infrastructure, it has a regional sewer line, it has water, it the water goes with the land, and we could if we have to, we have to do our own treatment plant.

But I wish that you know that we get along here, and and I respectfully urge you not to uh uh process this letter opposing this project and stop this fighting with the county.

I see the uh councilman Dickerson here.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Jana Damar.

I'm not really a speaker, but I just wanted to uh have my presence here to tell you that I truly oppose this project.

Um I live in the garden highway area, and the people that have spoken against it, everything that they say I'm in agreement with, they have really researched, they've they've been working on this stuff forever, and um I'm glad that I've been able to learn a lot of this.

But um, on a more personal note, my husband and I decided to retire, and we built a house there in 16 years ago with the thought that we would be in an area that had, you know, the nature and comfort, and but yet being close to the city to where we would have to have resources like hospitals and doctors and whatnot.

If we wanted to live in the middle of the city, we would have moved to the city, and now we're at an age where we really can't just start over.

Where we're we planned this, it's done, and I do want to say that those who are uh for it and they're um wanting to sell out, which is not very, not that many, um, yeah, they're gonna get their money and they're gonna be gone, and they're gonna leave us with the mess with the traffic mess, not being able to get out on the garden highway.

Um, there's a lot of us that live along the garden highway that um the riverside that we have a hard time getting out right now because the traffic uh, like they said, guard uh highway five.

Anytime there's a wreck or uh any type of problems, it's like there's a train going down Garden Highway.

We just cannot support this project.

So I would appreciate it if you guys would take that all into consideration, and thank you for listening.

William Jackson, yes.

I got it.

Uh my name is William Jackson.

I've been on the Garden Highway for 57 years, and came here to sing you a song today.

I'm kidding, but uh it's a song from um elementary school on Del Paso Road, Nathomas Union School, and it starts like this uh Notomas, Notomas, the place of our schooling.

We treasure its beauty and render our thanks.

How lovely in springtime, the fields and the orchards, the wide open country, the green leafy banks, and so that sentiment has stuck with me my whole life.

I live in the area, I see the farming going on.

Um I don't even know who this farmer is because I don't see his hands get dirty out there, I don't know what he's doing.

But these farmers will be in the area forever if we treat the area like it's supposed to be treated.

It's a jewel to the city.

It is one place that there's not many in this whole United States.

Uh the Garden Highway is like a scenic road, it's a built on top of the levee that was built in the 30s, and if you build a community that is 80,000 people, they're all gonna be driving on the garden highway, and it'll be turned into 65th expressway or Florent Road or uh super highway.

And uh, if something isn't provided to accommodate uh bypass, not utilize this street because it's unfair to all the residents that live in the area.

There's over probably all the all the people live along the garden highway.

These farmers are only.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker will be Roxanne Knight.

After Roxanne, our next five will be Gary Damar, McKenzie Hollander, Lori Tenhope, Ralph Proper, and David Ingram.

Go ahead, Roxanne.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Council members and mayor.

My name is Roxanne Knight, and my husband and I live on Garden Highway.

The existing garden highway, especially between Power Line and San Juan, has become a dangerous, unregulated commuter, industrial, and commercial freeway alternative.

This is despite the fact that in the county's general plan, Garden Highway has been recognized for quite some time as a scenic route.

It carries traffic in the shadow of the Sacramento International Airport, the Natomas community, and downtown Sacramento, where 1.4 million airline passengers, their employees, service people, as well as Sacramento's region's workforce pass through our road each month.

And yet, this road and the Sacramento River it follows are treated little more than a drainage infrastructure, while the American River enjoys the stewardship of a conservancy board restoration programs and scenic protections.

Garden Highway and the Sacramento deserve, Sacramento River deserve the same respect and protections.

Even the Army Corps of Engineers has replanted riparian habitat in the wake of the miles of trees that were destroyed along the Sacramento River for increased flood protection for the region in order to continue development.

We have an incredible opportunity in the open space and proposed bike trail along Garden Highway, running from past the airport all the way downtown and beyond to make this corridor into what I'd like to call the Heather Fargo Wildlife Conservation Preserve.

For all the work that she's done.

We don't have anything after this leader.

After a leader who has worked tirelessly for open space parks and community well-being, it could connect communities, bring tourism, and offer cyclists a safe scenic route free from truck exhaust while honoring a community treasure.

The Upper West Side development threatens to turn this scenic corridor into an expressway, destroying it makes it as special as the American River.

Instead, we should embrace a vision that protects both rivers and their endangered riparian habitat, honors our leaders, and creates a world-class bike and pedestrian corridor.

I urge you to oppose the upper west side and work with us to preserve and enhance garden highway as a scenic, healthy, and safe space for all.

Next speaker is Gary.

My name's Gary DeMar.

I'm a resident of the Garden Highway too.

And you know, I'm a child of the 60s, but I guess I thought I was retired, but I have to start protesting again.

And I just want you to know this project is bad.

When somebody told me they're gonna build Little San Jose right across the road from me, I figured, why don't you go to San Jose and build it?

You can't even drive down there, you know?

I don't know.

And then we need uh to save our farmland.

There's not enough of it left as it is.

And I can't see why the county and the city can't get together and maybe buy some of this stuff up and make it a park and a buffer zone and a real ecological area like it should be.

We've got to have that.

I mean, what happened to land park?

You know, we need something like a land parks, New York Central Park, something like that.

It has it has it, and farming.

These guys that are the farmers, they're gonna fill their wallet and they're heading out.

You know, see ya, you know.

And I see I see corn, uh, you know, safflow, tomatoes, everything growing out there.

I don't know about you.

Drive down and look, stop at the little fruit stand on Hill Central.

You'll know that it's everything.

But anyway, I would hope that you would have enough sense to keep this a farm to fork community.

I would hope.

Thank you.

Speaker is McKenzie Hollander.

Hello, I'm McKenzie Hollander.

I'm a high school junior, and I've lived in Notomas for 13 years.

The issue of the proposed Upper West Side project is important to me because having grown up surrounded by our natural open space has allowed me to forge a deep connection with nature that has given me lifelong mental health benefits and a purpose in life.

A beautiful connection to nature that should be preserved for the next generations to come.

So I support your resolution to oppose the Upper West Side project because that project threatens our nature and its easy accessibility to it.

The Swainson's Hawk uses the Upper West Side area to feed and nest.

The area is also used by grassland birds, a group of birds which, according to the State of the Birds 2025 report, are the group of birds that are facing the steepest population declines out of any bird group in the world due to habitat loss.

As I've grown up, I've watched the burrowing owl slowly disappear from the fields in my neighborhood of land park due to rampant development.

All of these organisms have a right to exist.

Their presence on the upper west side area is so exciting because it means that we, the city of Sacramento, and the community of Natomas have the incredible rare chance to preserve their habitat and do something to save these species from peril.

We are the city of Sacramento.

We are known as the city of trees.

We are known for being a place where nature and people can coexist.

And developing on land that fish and wildlife spent decades forming an agreement to preserve for our nature is just not what the city of Sacramento stands for.

And so I support your resolution to oppose Upper West Side, not just to preserve our wild jet our wildlife, but to preserve our culture and part of our enjoyment of our unique place in the world.

Thank you very much.

Lori Tenho.

Lori.

Before I start my comments, I just want to say how humbled I am by McKenzie, a high school student who takes time to come here and share her passion for nature and kind of remind us of how important these decisions are that we're making, not just for ourselves, but for future generations and generations that come after her.

But I'll move to my personal comments.

This is the wrong project for lots of environmental reasons.

The plan also violates the cities and the counties' own commitments to smart growth and climate mitigation.

These values are critically important to me, and I've appreciated in my time living in Sacramento the vision that the uh council has had in putting these plans together.

But I only have two minutes.

Now I only have a minute.

Um I want to highlight two crucial issues to me and my neighbors as Notomas homeowners.

First is traffic.

As the staff analysis indicated, the upper west side plan does not adequately address the impact this growth will have on existing infrastructure.

A short commute to downtown was a major selling point when we purchased our home.

Imagine 25,000 additional residents driving on I-5.

That short drive to work will be already is kind of history.

It'll really be history.

Second is flood risk.

It's not news that Sacramento's in a floodplain, second only to New Orleans in major flood risk.

Our levies are getting uh strengthened, but our federal funding has been withdrawn.

We don't know when our levies will finish being constructed, and you know, the entertaining a development of this size makes absolutely thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Thank you.

Ralph, our next speaker is Ralph.

F of uh Breath California, Sacramento, which I'm a board member.

I uh I retired uh from uh the state uh as an air pollution resource specialist, and uh the last several years focused on near road uh pollution.

Uh it's true that the air quality has gotten better here over the years, but we're finding that the impact of uh near road pollution is uh is much more than we had previously thought.

The EPA last year uh lowered the standard from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter, considering uh what comes from uh tailpipes and tires and whatnot.

So uh this this project uh isn't tied in with the uh transit system.

So people would need to use their cars.

It would take a long time to fully develop to get services there, so people would use their cars far more than uh other areas.

It would sap the strength of development within the city.

But uh the main thing is uh people uh, you know, there's there's no provision for having uh transit oriented development here.

So uh the uh I thought I would uh also make the point uh working on uh climate change a lot at uh when I was working for the state uh on the research front, the uh we're getting far more extremes in terms of uh of rainfall, early year snow melt, and uh this means that the Notomas region is uh it's a good thing that the levees have been strengthened, but uh you know uh uh what one hundred year flood protection means you still have a one percent chance every year but it's probably more than that now and uh this area if it's not developed can flood but if it can't from development it would further jeopardize flooding in the in the new Thomas basin so uh along with all the other factors that you've heard I think this is not the project we need and I appreciate your considering this resolution thank you.

Our next speaker is David Ingram after David the next five speakers will be Steve Ardit Luz Lim.

Monica Sanchez Jim Pachal Patchel.

And Judith is it Lamar LaMaire.

Uh good afternoon thank you so much for hearing this very important uh session today uh most of you may know me from River City Waterway Alliance it's an all volunteer group that I've uh co-founded back in January of 2023 uh to deal with some of the pollution issues that we're dealing with in uh here in Sacramento area and uh we just passed three million pounds of trash removed from local waterways in two and a half years so that's not why I'm here today beyond that I'm a 31 year resident of Sacramento but for the fast past 15 years I found myself spending more and more time fighting attacks upon my ability to peacefully enjoy this area than I have actually been able to enjoy it from heroin camps and prostitution rings just feet from my office in midtown to a massive levee improvement project in front of my home to increase traffic noise pollution and destruction of open space throughout the region and now the proposal for a massive irresponsible and completely unnecessary development in my garden highway neighborhood that would if approved forever deteriorate the once prized Natomas basin habitat conservation plan.

Needless to say I am absolutely exhausted I have no financial stake in any of the stuff that I advocate or the work that I do as a volunteer unlike those who are speaking in favor of this particular irresponsible project so when I learned so my exhaustion so when I learned that the city of Sacramento might have some issues with the county's plan to pave over even more farmland in a very sensitive protected riparian corridor it was with a huge breath of fresh air to me that you were going to speak up and oppose it.

So please do so see the upper west side meeting that I attended last was with a planning commission before and at that meeting before the vote was even in we took a break and one of my neighbors who apparently look like a farmer's wife uh received a private whisper that don't worry we have the votes before the planning commission and sure enough they took a break and came back and voted in favor to pass it along despite all of the problems and deficiencies in that plan this is a half cooked deal it's already done right no thank you for your time your comment your time is complete Steve Mr.

Mayor and other distinguished council members my name's Steve Arditti uh my wife Melva and I reside on the Garden Highway I think I should begin by incorporating by reference that wonderful young lady's testimony I think maybe she said it better than any of the rest of us grown ups can uh you had a good good description uh by your staff and others of the very excellent plan that was uh put together uh the uh collaboratively and deliberately uh which has been in place since then this proposal blows right through that uh without evidence of any uh new compelling need other than that there's been since explosive development in other areas of the netomas generating already traffic air pollution and other kinds of difficulties uh the only other thing that's new is that there are some good folks uh who see an opportunity to make some money and under our system there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but that does need to be balanced against the welfare of the larger community.

And so we're I urge you to adopt this uh proposal from your excellent staff, urging the county to start over again.

This project is simply too much in the wrong place.

Thank you very much.

Luce.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Lou Slam and I'm the policy analyst with the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

I strongly support this resolution, and I applaud you, Mayor, Council, and staff for taking a stand on this project, which threatens to impact well beyond the county and the project boundaries.

Good planning should consider projects within context.

Although this project makes some pretty promises on paper, like low VMT travel to downtown Sacramento and housing.

All it takes is a look at the context of the project and a look around the room to know that this project is full of holes.

Consider the project's location on ever diminishing agricultural land and open space.

Consider the number of planning policies that would have to be amended to accommodate for the project, and consider the lacking transit infrastructure that currently services the area.

It quickly becomes clear that this land was never meant to be developed, and it would take immeasurable sacrifices to Netomas's biological resources and character to do so.

It would also fall on various entities to pick up the project slack and deliver on its unfounded promises, including you.

You've heard that the project expects the city to provide water services, despite the fact that no such agreement has been made.

The staff also listed other implied expectations for emergency services.

Another example is the burden put on the Natomas Unified School District, which has expressed significant concern regarding the lack of funding to construct the new schools outlined in the plan.

No answers have been provided on this matter.

When confronted with the concerns you've heard about this afternoon, the applicant team has repeatedly deferred decision making and transparency.

They've stated multiple times that they are in talks with various organizations, including city staff, to sort out the details, and yet they still have no answers to these fundamental questions.

This project is not ready.

It does not have the necessary foundation to deliver on its promises, and it will fall on you and other agencies to deal with the ramifications and sort out the answers.

I ask you to seize this moment and demand accountability and answers from the county.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Monica.

Yes, good afternoon, everyone.

As an Atomas resident for over 17 years and with family who has lived in various communities within the greater Sacramento for over 30 years, I oppose the various proposed urban development projects in North Notomas, such as the airport South Industrial and Upper West Side projects.

We need to look at all of the Notomas area development proposals, past and present, and consider the greater community impacts.

The massive and pervasive housing development in North Natomas area since uh the seven-year building moratorium ended in June of 2015, has resulted in increased crime in my neighborhood, traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, and road and highway deterioration.

North Natomas does not have the infrastructure to continue to build housing and industrial warehouses in existing open rural areas.

Thousands of community residents openly voiced concerns to the breach of existing urban and rural boundary lines and agreements between the city and the county governing bodies with petitions, presence at community town halls, Sacramento LAFCO meetings, and letters to Sacramento County Board of Supervisor and City Council members.

Listen to your constituents' concerns.

Do not allow North Nortomas to turn into the overly populated congested communities with poor air quality to similar fellow residents in Southern California.

I'm not speaking ill of Southern California.

I spent half of my life and my childhood in Southern California, so have personal experience.

Riverside County, like Sacramento County, has an international airport and industrial warehouse complex complexes in proximity of homes.

I ask you to oppose the development proposal to build industrial and warehouse complexes in open farmland near schools and communities.

Stop the urban sprawl.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Jim.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Jim Pachel, representing the Friends of the Swanson Hawk.

We are passing around a letter by the Nothomas Basin Conservancy, which addresses this very issue.

I do not represent the Conservancy or speak for them, but I have a great deal of respect for the Conservancy, which is an entity that has actually done the real hard work for the past 20 years of attempt of uh uh obtaining and uh managing habitat in the Thomas Basin.

I mean it's a tough job.

The letter in the letter of the Conservancy, he they address the uh decision of the federal court in the NWF versus Norton case.

Uh he the key findings were remain as to balance development with conservation efforts and maintaining agricultural uses to support habitat for uh lands supporting habitat, mitigation lands required under the HCPs must be in the Thomas Basin, and that's so that we can uh uh you know maintain the populations that use the basin.

As for Swanson Hawk zone, the court stressed that the HCP's effectiveness depended on preserving the zone to mitigate for habitat loss.

All of this was predicated on the assumption that development in the basin will be limited to 17,500 acres, which is the permitted total, and that the remaining lands will remain in agriculture use.

This is important, this is what this is about.

The conclusion of the conservancy was as follows on page three.

It is not a stretch to state that if not tempered, advancing.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Judith.

After Judith, our next five speakers will be Kevin McRae, Melanie Herman, Kyle Swarens, Justine Kanzler, and Carol Mark.

Go ahead, Judith.

Mr.

Mayor and members of the council.

Thank you for this hearing today.

And thank you for your patience because you're holding a public space for the people of Sacramento to express their concerns about development.

I'm handing out two maps, and I'll just speak briefly to the significance of these two maps.

The lines have been drawn, and lines do have to be drawn for conservation, and they have been drawn.

So we're asking you keep the lines that have been drawn to protect the resources that are near and dear to Sacramento's heart.

So this map I think was on top, and this is a map that ECOS prepared of all the mitigation lands in Notomas.

Cheryl referred to those that were protected by the Notomas Basin Conservancy under agreement with you and Sutter County, and those are 5,000 some acres, and those are really critical, of course.

But there's another thousand acres preserved in the basin, and I wanted to make sure that you understand this, and that there are many investments that have been made here.

The preservation of land, but also the buffer along Fisherman's Lake in the city of Sacramento, specifically designed to protect that habitat.

These are millions of dollars worth of investments to protect and implement the plan.

This is the Swainson's Hawk Zone, and it is a critical conservation area, as you've heard, and so we're here to ask that you maintain the conservation of this critical area.

Thank you very much for your time today.

Next speaker is Kevin McRae.

Kevin.

Yes, please.

Thank you for having me.

I was appointed by the city council to the board of the Notomas Basin Conservancy for five years, and after that, I was reappointed for another five years.

And then I served a bit longer.

I have a degree in science from Davis in agriculture.

I have an office downtown Sacramento for 30 years.

I'm a self-employed CPA, so I do business with the city.

I've lived on the garden highway for over 30 years.

This is not a good proposal.

This is not a smart proposal for all the reasons that you've heard.

But like the high school student, I will mention something that I haven't heard much of.

I'm a registered master falconer with Fish and Wildlife Service, and I always watch the wildlife.

So from my house, I see beavers every day.

Bobcats, foxes.

Overhead, I've seen in the past year a peregrine, osprey.

And a lot of it's out there, and it won't continue to occur if we narrow the wildlife area by the river.

I like the idea of creating, you know, an American river sort of conservation area by the Sacramento also.

All this as opposed to a big project that doesn't do well for all the reasons that you've heard.

Thank you.

Well, this is my uh this is this is our patio.

And we get this kind of stuff all the time.

We see the wildlife.

We're the ones out there seeing all this wildlife that this development is gonna destroy.

It's absurd.

We see bobcats, deer, believe it or not, deer.

Come into the mic a little bit.

We see bobcats, coyotes, deer, fox, raccoons, skunks, opossums, and then there's the bees, reptiles like the giant garter snakes, seasonal visitors include wood ducks, but we also have birds like geese and goshawks, swains and hawks and barn owls nested in our trees, and we still have the owls.

And then there's black Phoebe's herrates, eagrets, and osprey that feed right in front of our house along the river.

All this stuff really, much of it will just go away.

Cars will keep running.

We lost uh three foxes this year to uh road traffic, and that goes to the uh airport traffic and the warehouses out there.

Anyway, let me we're almost there.

Okay, so we would be happy to work with LAFCO and the city to protect it within your sphere of influence.

We need to submit the letter and work with LAFCO to get this going.

My friend and neighbor, Roxanne Knight believes and I agree that the city of Sacramento should consider honoring Mayor Heather Fargo by renaming this area the Heather Fargo Wildlife Conservation Preserve.

We can save a teeny tiny little sliver of wildlife, protected but close to schools and houses and accessible to the public.

When have you ever had that chance like this along our river?

Thank you.

The next speaker is Kyle.

Aidan Swarns.

He's four years old.

Um I've speaking at these meetings before, and actually, probably more nervous because my son's here.

Holy crud.

Um, but I just want to thank you for allowing me to come up and speak today.

Uh I've heard a lot of the residents here in Notomas and their concerns.

I back them.

I live in Atomas.

I moved to Natomas back in 2010.

Been a resident of Sacramento my entire life.

I'm here because of my little one.

I'm a construction worker, and a lot of times these developments kind of it's typically overlooked when these developments come to these cities.

When it comes to the blue-collared workers, Sacramento is a city of blue-collar workers.

Let's stop pushing them out.

We belong in this community.

We should stay here.

My son, I worked in the Bay Area for the past seven years.

It wasn't until October when I had a chance to actually work locally.

And my son went from, Dad, please don't go to work, crying hearing the door open because he knew he wouldn't see me because I would be commuting to the Bay Area.

To now he actually is excited.

He was excited to come to this meeting with me today.

Telling everyone, I'm going with my dad.

I get to hear him speak today.

So we need to take consideration when these developments come to not just Nethomas, but to the city of Sacramento.

We are the workforce here.

Stop pushing us to go travel to the Bay Area.

Allow these jobs to have good livable wages, apprenticeship requirements, health care requirements.

And again, I back what these residents are saying.

I live right there.

I live right off of Club Center off of uh Club Center Drive and uh Delhart.

That's where I live in the Thomas.

So please take the workers in consideration when these developments are coming through.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Justine.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Justine Kanzler, and I'm here as a member of the 350 Sacramento Climate Action Plan team, which includes members from various parts of the city.

On behalf of our organization, I would like to thank the council for introducing a motion to express opposition to the Upper West Side specific plan.

Sacramento County does not need more greenfield land developed for housing construction with over a dozen other projects that are still currently being built out.

The urban growth boundary established to preserve the county's natural resources and the county's general plan, which promises to prioritize infill will be breached by this project.

The staff presentation correctly acknowledged that this project could threaten the city's infill development strategy.

Infill will ensure more Sacramentans are close to their schools, parks, and jobs, while protecting our natural habitats, not just land that produces crops, and preventing sprawl-related auto emissions.

Other commenters have pointed to increasing strains on existing infrastructure, which will be exacerbated by climate change.

Sending a letter of opposition would further establish the city's support of infill and commitment to maintaining a healthy city and addressing climate change, which impacts us all.

To repeat, I urge you to send a letter to the county board in opposition of the Upper West Side Specific Plan as a representative of 350 Sacramento.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carol Mark, and after that we have our final three speakers, Gibson Howell, Melissa Brown, and is it Ketty?

Hello.

My name is Carol McKee Mark, and I am a board member and climate chair of the League of Women Voters, Sacramento County.

Our organization supports responsible land use that protects environmental quality, emphasizing sustainable, equitable development and climate resilience.

This project would pave over Natoma's farmland and habitat, undermine existing city and county agreements, and worsen greenhouse gases, gas emissions.

When climate chance change demands we do better.

Please join us in opposing the West Side project.

Thank you.

Gibson.

Hello, my name is Gibson Howell, and I've been a resident of the Thomas for a little bit over 30 years.

I'm really glad a government agency with some teeth is actually backing some of the longstanding agreements that have been made to get the past developments done.

I believe it was the attorney for what the landowners said that uh this land, this farmland, it would be for one for one acre, uh, so they would purchase some other farmland permanently.

Well, that's what this farmland is.

This was the stuff purchased and just designated long ago so that the current growth in the Thomas could have happened.

So you can't just do a shell game and say, Well, we're moving this land, this was to protect so we could make this growth.

Well, now we don't need that protected anymore.

We're gonna use that for somewhere else.

That's what they're trying to do.

It's just a shell game.

Now, I am personally not, I don't have a problem with development as long as it's done responsibly.

We're human beings, we're growing, we need to develop, but it needs to be done responsibly.

And this project, it has a huge major Achilles heel in the transportation.

It is bound on one side by Sacramento River.

We're not gonna build a road there.

I 80, it only has one interchange, West El Camino, and then I-5.

The other interchange would be Arena, which is a fairly decent-sized interchange.

West El Camino cannot really be expanded.

If you look at their own EIR, they say that they think Caltrans might have the um the right to be able to expand it.

They haven't even checked according to their EIR if it can be expanded, and it has an LOS of F, which is failure, even if it is expanded.

So, based on their new six-wide lane West El Camino, it has a level of service of F, which is failure, which does not count for EIRs, but it does for humans.

We should not plan a project that is.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker is Melissa.

Melissa.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor and members of the council.

First of all, I would like to thank Council Member Dickinson and Mayor Heather Fargo for the vision that they've had to protect our community and our environment for the last 25 years.

I'll bet you were as shocked as I was.

I've lived here for 40 years now to see to witness the chutzpah of the county to just blow that up to propose putting a development the size of the city of Galt in our habitat, a shopping center the size of the Roseville Galleria in Natomas, next to the Garden Highway, to blow up the one mile of protected area to protect our habitat and the environment, as you've heard from everyone else.

So I endorse everything that my neighbors have said, and just want to reemphasize that the impact of the traffic has not been considered.

At the Planning Commission, the response is well, we'll figure that out down the road, like phase four.

You've seen excellent editorials in the Sacramento B pointing out all of the issues and failures that this development has uh has failed to take into account.

You've read in the B, and you've heard seen other uh letters from school districts.

This project is gonna support the schools that the population would require.

There's no water plan, there's no traffic plan.

The safety, this fire going on as we speak, if we were to evacuate that area, you simply can't get there from here.

The exit onto the freeway, it's impossible.

The bottleneck on Garden Highway.

I drove home the other day a little early.

I got home about five o'clock.

I counted 50 cars in the span of five to six minutes speeding down the garden highway.

And as you've heard, you simply can't widen the garden highway to take care of that that problem.

So I urge you to support the resolution, and I thank you for your time and hope that our next speaker is Petty.

Hello, my name is Keddy Burrows.

My family has uh owned property on Garden Highway for over 30 years, and I've been there six years now.

Um everything I wanted to say, my very smart and wonderful neighbors has said, but one thing that I haven't heard them bring up.

Um I heard the farmers talking about their struggle about it not being farming land and wanting to sell it.

Nobody's addressed the current impact to homeowners on Garden Highway.

In that if anybody goes to sell their property on Garden Highway at this point, this whole development is going to have to be a part of disclosures, which is going to affect the property values all along Garden Highway.

So it's not just the farmers that are looking at financial consequences when it comes to property.

The other thing I want to say is that I spend a lot of time out on the deck, both riverside and the street side.

The amount of traffic, I bought one of my family members a speed gun so we could start tracking the speeds of people for entertainment.

But bigger than that, on Saturdays and Sundays, the Garden Highway is filled with bikers from Sacramento.

People come, they're going up and down, racing teams and so forth.

Sacramento, one of the things I love, it's a city with neighborhoods.

And the Garden Highway neighborhood is important to Sacramento and unique in and of itself.

Thank you for your comment.

Mayor, I have no more public speakers.

Okay, thank you.

We'll start with uh council members.

Council Member Plucky Baum.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, you know, we've all heard uh lots of reasons to object to projects uh, you know, today is no different, uh, whether it's traffic, parking, environmental issues, species issues, density, uh, but there is one fundamental reason to support projects, and that is we are vastly undersupplied for exactly this type of project.

And uh we there are a lot of um deal points that we need to work out with the county in terms of water, uh, public safety response and everything else, but none of these are from my point of view uh public health and safety findings or absolute deal killers for for this project.

I will not be supporting this letter.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

So I just want to start off with uh Cheryl Hodge and team, planning team.

Thank you so much for all your work on this.

Attending all the community meetings, county meetings, listening, and uh the briefings.

I know Councilmember Kaplan and I share a lot of netomas, and every single month we get updates on this project along with all the other ones that you covered in your presentation.

So you probably dream about habitat conservation plans, numbers and land use at night, but um just thank you so much for for all your work that you do, you're valued here in the city of Sacramento.

Um I do want to start off with raising the uh reading out loud the 2002 um MOU signed by both the city and the county board of supervisors, two people that signed this are here in this room today.

The city, rather than the county, is the appropriate agent for planning new growth in Nethomas and can better provide a full range to municipal services.

The county is the appropriate agent for preserving open space, agricultural, and rural land uses.

I know some have said that they don't take this as legally binding, but for me, I absolutely take it very seriously because it was a resolution that was adopted by two bodies of government.

If we in the county agree on something, I mean that's that's great for the residents of Nethomas.

That's great for the residents of Sacramento, and I absolutely take this MOU to heart as a council member representing our beautiful community.

So while we all want smart cornity growth, uh this proposal does pose serious risks to risk to our city's environment, infrastructure, and residents, not just in Natomas, but across the entire Sacramento region.

First, I'll start off with our habitat conservation complex.

This project directly conflicts with the Nathomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, the agreement that's guided our region for decades and will continue to hopefully guide our region for decades.

It pushes deep into the one Miles Wainson's Hawk Zone, cutting the protective buffer from a full mile to as little as 700 feet.

It would remove over a thousand five hundred acres of farmland that could otherwise serve as mitigation habitat.

As many have said during public comment, you can't just move one area to another area and expect it to be okay.

Most importantly, it exceeds the Nethomas Basin's HCP's 17,500-acre development cap, putting the entire regional conservation strategy at risk.

So, Cheryl Hodge, can you please go over our and our conflict and viability?

I know on page 36 it states that we're in direct conflict with the conservation strategy.

Who would we be in direct con?

Who we would be in like direct violation of to our agency partners.

Okay.

Well, as proposed, it would be in direct conflict with the adopted habitat conservation plan, which was agreed to by the city of Sacramento, Sutter County, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Federal Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and our operator who acts on behalf of the habitat conservation parties, the Natomas Basin Conservancy.

So there is very significant requirements that have to be met to be able to quite honestly finish the development that has already been authorized to the city in Sutter County and Metro Air Park, which require all mitigation to be in basin.

So if there is a point in the future where mitigation could be very difficult to acquire, it may put the city at risk at not issuing future grading building permits for the development we've planned, and that was to be mitigated in the basin.

The other conflict, of course, is what we've talked about earlier, is the one mile Swainson's Hawk zone.

The Upper West Side project encroaches in that zone.

That one mile buffer is actually specifically not only called out in the habitat conservation plan, just want to make sure, because there's a lot of documents involved in all this.

It's called out in the city's incidental take permits that authorize the development that's occurring in the city limits right now.

So we're supposed to adhere to protecting a zone, which we've done a really good job doing, but part of our dilemma right now is a good portion of that zone that we've been basically protecting for over 20 years is outside of our jurisdiction.

It's outside the city limits.

But our permits issued outright call that we will protect that Swainson's Hawk zone and has very specific the permits to mitigation requirements as well.

Thank you so much, Cheryl.

And you know, like there's a lot of concerns in this proposal, but that alone, I mean, we as a city of Sacramento have a legal obligation, and that's something to take very seriously.

It's a reason why we were able to build out Nethomas the way that we did because of all the agreements that are in place now.

It's it's why we're we're a community.

So secondly, transportation.

Uh the plan depends on so-called fair share funding for road widenings inside our city limits.

But there's no guarantee those projects will be fully funded or built on time.

The traffic study shows that 90% of new trips at the I 80 West El Camino Interchange will come from this project alone.

Yet the county hasn't ensured the improvements will happen when they're needed.

You can't build a bunch of housing and not have a way of people getting in and out safely, especially with that fire on the Garden Highway and the increased traffic and the lack of funding that we actually have for infrastructure projects here at the city of Sacramento.

Some of these widenings also run counter to our city's climate goals, which prioritize reducing lanes and lowering vehicles miles traveled.

And there's no clear process for ongoing transportation courting with the city.

As mentioned in many of the public comments, you know, you can't really widen Garn Highway right now.

We have REACH A that just started construction, and you know, our restaurants right now are trying to hurt, and we're trying to find detours for it.

And then West El Camino, I'm not sure if you can widen it either.

So transportation is really, really, really important to me.

And third, lack of services and infrastructure.

The county assumes the city will provide water to this project.

There is no agreement for that.

I know Councilmember Kaplan has is the water expert for our Natomas area, so she'll highlight that a little bit more.

But our policy is clear.

Annexation or a formal service agreement must come first.

There's no comprehensive plan for police or fire protection as mentioned in the plan.

We have one fire station, station 43, and it's our one station for all that entire area of Natomas.

And again, fire stations have gotten increasingly expensive, and it's important to finance these and have them ready to go before residents move in.

This would be a county island surrounded by the city, but far from county service hubs.

The park plan meets only the bare requirement of three acres per thousand residents, and well below our five acre standard.

And much of that space is not usable for active recreation.

Without proper funding, this project will place additional strain on our services without providing the revenue to support them.

That means that the entire city of Sacramento region will feel the impacts of development.

So this is not just about land use, it's about protecting our environment, safeguarding our infrastructure, and ensuring that growth pays its way.

Otherwise, it's gonna be on us, the taxpayers, to be able to finance the roads, the infrastructure and the development and everything that comes to with it.

So I'm not against any future development in this area, but I do urge my council colleagues to stand united in opposition to this Upper West Side project as it is in its current form.

And I've been asked several times in the media and by residents here in this room, will this letter have an impact on the board of supervisors?

I hope so.

I really truly hope so.

And so, with that being said, I'd like to pass a motion authorizing the mayor to execute and deliver a letter of opposition to the Upper West Side specific plan and giving city staff authority to work with county staff to address the city council concerns and the neighbors' concerns of our Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, land use, transportation, fiscal collaboration services, and water supply.

Please let's give the residents an opportunity to be heard and do better for our Netomas community in our Sacramento region.

I'll second that.

We do have a motion to second on that.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I want to take just a brief detour since it was brought up uh by public comment to say this in front of my colleagues because it's something you're going to have to address.

And let me make very clear because I now have an audience of Notomas residents of why I have to legally recuse myself from Airport South.

Um it is state law, and while some may be okay with a felon as a president, I don't wish to publicly take action so that you have a felon council member.

Specifically, I got an independent from the uh FPPC analysis because I live in Westlake.

And so when on Garden Highway you talk about walking out, I walk out of my house into the county area by Paso Verde and I see all of these species.

But what that means is I live within a thousand feet of airport south.

And state law, specifically section 87100 says that I am legally required to recuse myself, where they say I might have an influence on a financial decision.

And that financial decision they determine is the residence of my house and be it the increase or decrease in the value of my house.

And so that's why I do want to publicly thank our vice mayor came out last week and had a meeting with the residences so that they could have their voice heard as I am legally required to recuse myself.

Not an option.

I wish I could vote on it, I can't, I can't say anything, and nor am I allowed to say anything to my fellow colleagues about how I may feel.

So I just wanted to make that very clear on the record because there's been those who say I can unrecuse myself.

So uh turning the upper west side.

Cheryl question.

Um, how often or how long have you been meeting with the county in regards to the upper west side project?

That's a great question.

So this project was filed with the county, specifically Upper West Side back in 2018.

So we actually kicked off coordination with county staff as far back as 2018 and have had numerous meetings, you know, over you know, almost seven years on and off throughout the entire process, um, the planning process with the county on this project.

So, because many of us say, hey, why can't the city and county come together?

And a lot of times you want elected officials to somewhat stay out of it.

You guys are the experts.

How have those meetings gone with county planning in regards to addressing city concerns?

I think the meetings, well, let me start with saying that it's always good when county and staff meet and discuss these issues.

I think where we've come to is that the county and city staff have not been able to agree to any kind of resolution on these issues.

We've discussed them.

An example would be the habitat conservation plan.

The county's taking a very county staff, a very particular position, they're not subject to the habitat conservation plan.

The problem is the actions they would be taking directly impact the habitat conservation plan.

That's just one example.

Transportation, how those improvements would even roll out, how they would be funded, where is the um the actual commitment to fully funding them?

So that's where we're at.

And I think we want to continue working with the county, but we're just we've over the past six years have not been able to resolve many of these issues, and now the project's going to the board of supervisors for consideration, which would include a development agreement uh for developing in the first phase, which is along Garden Highway and I 80.

So that brings us here today this afternoon.

So I just wanted to be clear as you've been trying uh as staff for six years to address the water, the transportation, the Thomas Habitat Base and Conservancy, everything else, and those issues still remain, and that's why uh the city submitted a letter of concern when it went to the county planning commission that was 33 pages long.

Yes, and I would actually point out that the letter that's in this agenda item packet that was very lengthy letter in October, pointed out our previous comments that still were remaining that had not been addressed at the earlier stages of the project.

So I think we've been um very committed to trying to work with the county staff and resolve these issues.

It's just that the response that we've received has not been a resolution of those issues.

Okay, thank you.

That that's really important to just get that background in context.

So uh as I make my statements, and I actually look forward to my fellow council member uh Roger Dickinson, uh, who was on the county board of supervisors at the time the joint vision plan uh was passed, and I was a newly elected Natoma School Board member.

For those that that do not know, uh I was elected in 2002 as a Notomas Unified School Board member and spent 20 years as a board member, which includes dealing with Upper West Side since it first came to the county because of the impact needed and the mitigation for schools because of Notomas.

Uh I actually, as my day job as an attorney, represent school districts architects and developers in Southern California in and around development and mitigation.

So this is something I do for a living, and I might know a thing or two about still learning.

Um, I as an aside, I want everybody to know I've been in contact with our fire captain and PIO, the fire is contained.

It was 220 acres, and it happened in the protected area of farmland.

So it made it easy that they were able to control and get access to it.

Um, just imagine if this comes to fruition, the fire that happened in LA and Malibu, I'd say jump in the river because nobody's getting out.

Um, so I want to address my concerns on this uh that we need to talk to the county, because let me preface it this way.

I'm not opposed to any development because if you look at the protected area for the Swainson Hawk, Mr.

Ramos came up.

If you know the area around where the truck stop, that probably rixworth freeway next to the truck stop is not viable-esque farmland.

So let's look at reasonable development in the area that is outside the Swains and Hawk habitat.

That's a conversation we can have to do our part.

So, but my concerns with what is existing and proposed now, um, have to deal with water, sewer, flood control, schools, and our infrastructure.

So I want to address those.

Our general plan requires and very clearly states implementing the Nethomas joint vision that growth in the Notomas basin requires annexation prior to receiving city services.

City services means water connection to our sewer lines.

The current EIR does not address do we need to one, do they have capacity?

Two, what would the cost be to upgrade if it doesn't have capacity?

And who is paying for that infrastructure upgrades?

Because believe it or not, I think we already have several billion dollars in infrastructure backlog.

So I'm not sure where that's gonna come in, and uh we all don't want that flow to go somewhere.

Uh water.

Uh water is a serious issue.

We are the Notomas flood basin.

If you look at how Notomas was master planned with Heather Fargo, Ray Trethaway, Supervisor Roger Dickinson, and you live in Nathomas, all of our parks are a flood mitigation basin.

All of our canals, already 1,000, flood mitigation.

Where is the water going?

You look at as you head to woodland, that is farmland, flood mitigation.

The boot is basin flood mitigation.

And by the way, it took an act of Congress to get station 43, because it's in a flood zone and had to be built higher, and the firefighters, in order to get it approved, had to have their living quarters in the second floor.

So think about that.

Federally approved fire station that exists, for them to be protected, they had to have their research where they slept on the second floor.

So are we gonna build there and build all the residents up as high so they're out of the flood area?

So I it I'm trying to look at common sense that these are the questions, because when you look at smart development, these are the questions you have to ask.

And I'm of mind where I did watch the five hours of the county planning meeting, and I was disappointed with some of the representation.

There is not a water agreement with the city, nor should we ever make assumptions because we all know what assumptions mean.

They make an ass of you and me.

So let's not assume, plus the EIR says there's three alternatives for water, but they don't fully analyze all three alternates, and are they viable?

And if a development was to occur, how many residents could it really hold?

And what does that mean?

Because I believe, and correct me wrong if I'm wrong, Cheryl, when we look at plans and approve them, pretty much we know all the issues are resolved before it comes to council for approval.

Am I correct in that?

So if such an issue or plan was in the city, we'd already have water addressed, sewer addressed, transportation addressed.

So you would not as city staff bring us a plan that says, oh, we'll figure it out later.

Correct?

Okay, I just want to make sure that there's an understanding between the difference of the city and the county, and that's why I think very smartly the Nethomas joint vision says development rightly occurs in the city, and we must protect the farmland.

Um sewer, it says how do we fund and construct a sewer pump station and force Maine?

I am really, really, really concerned about infrastructure.

The cost of how to build it and is it gonna be put on the county or the city really concerns me because I will tell you this.

If you've ever been down El Centro, and many of us have because the strawberry lady is where you go, and by the way, she won uh at the California State Fair for the best strawberries.

Just fact.

That I remember as a school board member, just south of San Juan, a young boy lost his life riding his bike home from school.

And only then did the county upgrade El Centro to include a bike lane.

If this goes through, how many people are going to have to lose their life before infrastructure is added?

So that is a concern of mine.

Truly the lack of adequate evaluation of capacity for one, our water system and our sewer system.

And I believe these issues should be hammered out before anything moves forward because in reality the city and the county should work together.

I want to work together.

I want to have these discussions.

I want to enable our staff to figure this out so that something reasonable can come forward.

Putting on my uh 20 years' experience as a school board member, as an attorney, as an advisor to school districts and developers, it is a concern of mine that there is no signed mitigation agreement.

There was representation that things were good with the school district.

They are not, they have not signed anything.

They are being pressured to sign something before it goes to the County Board of Supervisors.

Um the cost and impact of 3K-8 schools and the cost of a portion of the high school, which I was part of Nethomas Unified, when we bought land off of San Juan, uh to build a third high school.

That third high school needs to be built now, not even with this development.

That high school needs to be built now.

And that's gonna be minimum, and I'm undervaluing this 700 million, more than likely, 800 million.

And for funding and the mitigation that developers have to give to schools, it comes from our school facility plan.

And that's why when you see on the ballot, sometimes they talk about school construction bonds because school districts generally have to have the money, and then the state matches it.

They always say with new construction, you get 50% down and 50% state match.

It's like maybe 25, 30% you get back from the state because the cost of construction of schools has skyrocketed.

From the point of when the flood moratorium lifted and we built a K 8 in the Thomas, 32 million.

Next one was 45, next one was 60 million.

They're now 88 million, and that's since like 2018.

So that's the cost minimum now to meet the specs.

Like we have a general plan.

School districts have a general plan, and the specs to meet the standards that our Natomas community expects in the construction of our schools, which by the way, we build this greenest schools in in California, is a minimum of 88 million dollars per K-8.

And what people don't realize is that the school district must purchase the land, and not always do developers work honestly with with school districts and give us a fair deal on that cost.

Come on, look at Paso Verde and being in litigation for seven years on false misrepresentations of Notomas Unified overpaid by half to purchase Paso Verde because people uh defrauded us.

So uh, you know, we also have to stand up for Nethomas Unified here because I will tell you, as a Natoma school board member, I was often frustrated that we were left to try and figure things out instead of the city working with us.

When we had to go to a grand jury to get the city to actually fund and build infrastructure next to Intercom High School that the city said is your responsibility, and the grand jury came back and said, Oh no, city, your responsibility.

I don't want to put that on the school district and those who have now come, you know, behind me.

We have got to work together and figure that out, and that requires before moving forward, there has got to be some sort of mitigation agreement that is signed between the school district and the developer.

Infrastructure, I want to highlight, I agree with my uh vice mayor.

Notomas, we love our parks, are, by the way, the city and the county policy is five acres per 100,000.

This development only has three acres per 100,000.

I'd like consistency.

Well, and we work that out.

Fire.

I'll say it again.

If we do not have another fire station, because by the way, uh station 43 is uh we cover uh the Amazon territory.

The West Side, I've lived on the west side since 2005.

Half the time station 43 is not around for us because they're up at Amazon in the warehouses.

We're in the process of building another fire station up there, but that's really expensive, and we'll need another one uh in Upper West Side to even be able to get to the fires to address it, because I gotta tell you, it's gonna be worse than LA and Malibu, because you better just jump in the river.

There is no ingress egress.

Police, we need to build a substation out there.

I'm very concerned, we are already over a hundred officers down.

Atomas likes our public safety, they demand our public safety.

How are we supposed to keep that when we can't even fund and find another 25 officers?

And this area is in the county.

Because do you really expect the sheriff's office to come to this area where it's not surrounded by any other county?

Because by the way, Paso Verde School is in the county.

Sheriff doesn't respond to issues at Paso Verde.

Thank God we have an agreement with the city of Sacramento and school resource officers that we can get the city out there, but if we didn't have that, County wouldn't respond.

We wouldn't get them out there.

So why do why are we moving forward with this when it's asked backwards?

It doesn't make sense.

Like, let's figure out those issues.

Uh in the joint vision, it talks about airport protection.

We must protect the airport, and it specifically says do not build an areas which will increase the complaints from residences complaining about the airport.

I live in Westlake.

We already complain about the airport.

Do you really think Upper West Side is not going to complain?

Um, Garden Highway.

I serve on SafeGa-the flood context uh protection board.

Uh Congresswoman Matt Suey has gotten us billions of dollars to upgrade our levies so that building can continue in Nethomas.

Because if you remember, we went through an up and a down, and there was a flood moratorium, and I can tell you at the time I was a school board member, we were growing by thousands of students.

We couldn't put additional portables down.

We actually had to rent commercial space to put kids in there because of the flood moratorium.

If we don't meet the Army Corps of Engineer standards, uh one schools can't get built, so how do we how do we handle that?

And two, we're going backwards.

So billions have been spent along Garden Highway.

Y'all know this.

You experience this every day.

But it bought land to the east, because to the west is the river in your houses, and it purchased that all from the farmlands.

Hundreds of millions of dollars that is required for levy protection, which by the way, hundreds of trees were taken down against us, which also took out some swaints and hockness that we know were already there.

Do you really think the Army Corps of Engineer is now going to say you can expand Garden Highway to 36 feet, which would take the protection of the area that we just spent hundreds of thousands, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to purchase for levy mitigation.

So in actuality, I don't understand how we can actually expand Garden Highway, because the Army Corps of Engineers would have to approve this, and they just made us at SafeGo.

We have to pay a lot of money to mitigate and purchase land and make it safe.

So that doesn't make sense for me.

And I will also highlight when you do development and smart development, you actually upgrade the infrastructure first before development comes in.

You don't do vehicle mile travel, you don't have a trigger, you don't say maybe because that's a great excuse.

Then say, oh, the trigger wasn't met.

I don't have to do that.

And then we have to end up in litigation.

That's just not smart growth.

That's just not smart planning.

And then also, we as a city don't have a choice on this because we were so proud of our 2040 general plan.

And there are several points in our general plan that this development conflicts with.

On the land use plan 1.4 requires city services for any growth.

So annexation has to occur first before you get city services.

We all approved that unanimously and applauded ourselves on a progressive city plan.

Well, we'd be violating our own general plan if we do not say we county, we oppose this as written and have concerns.

And land use plan 1.11.

We must coordinate.

We'd actually be violating what we approved if we don't protect the farmland in the Nethomas Basin.

And I'll always go back to I don't oppose development.

I think there's a perfect map that says where development can occur outside Swaints and Hawk.

I'm ready to have those discussions.

I hope my council member vice mayor in Atomas, we can have those smart development conversations.

But right now, I really just hope that the county comes to us and we start having a conversation to work out these issues, because this just is not who we are and what we promised.

And what we presented to Notomas and what was promised also if we're changing direction, you guys all deserve to have us stand up here and say why we're changing direction and why we disagree with what was put in place 20 plus years ago.

So for that is why um I second it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I suppose this is a circumstance in which I have sat and I'm now sitting on both sides of the table.

Not particularly the position I expected to find myself in, but but that's okay.

That's that's the way it works.

I would have to say uh at the outset that uh if there's a if there's a silver lining to this afternoon as far as I'm concerned, one way or the other, it's getting to see so many people from Garden Highway that I once represented for uh almost two decades, and it's and it's uh nice to see a lot of those faces and friends.

Uh the history, the history of Natomas is remarkable, uh in many in many ways, and it is uh incalculable how Notomas is so often, especially over the last three decades, so often ground zero for our discussions of so many different important and significant issues in our collective county urban regional network.

When I think about the work we did in the early 2000s to arrive at the joint vision, uh it was not uh an easy undertaking.

Uh, it took a lot of uh demanding uh give and take.

It took a lot of discussions, it took a lot of recognition of different civic uh and other interests that the two jurisdictions in that case uh had the city of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento, but also including Sutter County as well, and uh there's there's a reason why the habitat conservation plan uh is an agreement between Sutter County and the city of Sacramento as local agencies with the state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, and the county is of Sacramento is not a party to it because it was not contemplated that any mitigation by the county would be necessary since the county was going to be the agent of preservation of agricultural land, principally.

So there was going to be no necessity for the county to to mitigate the effects of development.

And that is an integral part of the structure of what we have assumed would be in application to the Natomas Basin, I think, if not in perpetuity for as long as any of us would be around to think about it, talk about it, decide what was in the best interest of all the different elements of how we treat the Natomas basin.

Now I have to say, from a personal uh standpoint, I haven't opposed all development in uh Natomas outside this the city of Sacramento, including Metro Air Park.

It's very nice to see Dan Ramos here and uh think about the work we did to lay the foundation for Metro Air Park, which is now I think a major uh asset to our to our region.

Uh I supported the development of what we called at the time Green Briar, but through annexation to the city, because that's what made sense under the joint vision, and that's what gave us the linkage that will one day, and I am committed eternally to this, one day bring us light rail to our international airport.

The argument that we need this expansion in order to accommodate housing which is in severely short supply, I think is appealing on the face of it, on the surface, but doesn't stand up from my point of view because we have more than enough capacity to accommodate the housing we need within the already existing footprint of the urbanized area of the city and the county.

And that is not a new phenomena.

That's been true for the last three decades, as a matter of fact.

Only the cities, but also the counties to encourage infill development, to take advantage of the transportation corridors that we that we already have to minimize uh the vehicle miles traveled and the greenhouse gas emissions that we must.

We need to achieve a 19% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in order to satisfy our requirements under state law.

So we can't just think about as it appears to me the county staff's response to the to the city staff's uh concerns that this project would be somehow uh integrated well with what happens in the city portion of Natomas.

That is not the universe here.

The universe is the entirety, ultimately, not just actually of our county, but of our region.

And when we take action that expands the urban footprint in a significant way, we undercut our own commitment, often made, to try to ensure that we have a livable, breathable future for the generations that follow us.

That also leads to my concern about what this particular project would mean for meeting our sustainable community strategies, commitments, and our blueprint that we have adopted locally, and we were the first to adopt the blueprint here in Sacramento in this region.

We led the state, and we led to the to the development and enactment of SB 375 that was authored by our Senate Pro Tem and former mayor Daryl Steinberg that expanded that concept to our entire metropolitan areas across the across the state.

How do we align this particular proposal that we're talking about this afternoon with our requirements under our SCS?

I think that is a question worth asking the SACOG staff.

I don't know that they'll be in a position to respond to that, but it certainly seems to me to be a very relevant question.

I too share uh questions about uh municipal services to be provided, although ultimately that's that's the county's issue to solve, along with uh at least in terms of capital facilities uh any uh development agents.

But I can't help but think that when I represented Notomas and someone on Garden Highway needed a deputy, that closest deputy was probably in Rio Linda, more than 30 minutes away.

Is the county in a position where it can feasibly undertake the kinds of improvements and service levels that are represented here?

That's not our question to answer, certainly not today, but it is a very relevant question, it seems to me, ultimately, to whether this makes sense moving forward as as a county project, if at all.

And it extends to the other municipal services mentioned by my colleagues, certainly fire protection, water, sewer, and the like.

So I took a great deal of interest in it, as had my colleagues before me on the board, and I'm sure as Supervisor Cernas does today, we have created a huge regional asset with Sacramento International.

We may be on the cusp of even having international service to Europe within the next year or two, we certainly have expanded the destinations that we can reach, and those who can reach us.

Anyone in the economic development realm will tell you what a core asset Sacramento International Airport is to our efforts to build our local economy.

Anything we do that creates any kind of jeopardy for those operations works against our own self-interest, and having served on the Board of Supervisors, I know very well the noise complaints that are received by the county.

So anything we do that might result in that, even though, by the way, this area is south of the current flight pattern, anything we do that might come into play in that regard doesn't make sense for us collectively.

And for those who say, don't worry, the flight paths are where they are, they're not changing, that's not gonna be overflights here.

Flight paths change.

They did.

It used to be that the flight path south for most uh takeoffs from Sacramento International went out over the river and then turned east if that's where they were going.

I know the Arditis can speak to this, among others, quite personally, and then and then the FAA changed the flight patterns.

That's something, by the way, we have no control over locally.

So that aircraft turn now, as anyone who's flown in the last few years out of international knows, taking off to the south, going east turns almost immediately, and of course, circles around to go north.

So we are putting ourselves at risk if we take any steps that may endanger or encroach on Sacramento International, something that I think has to be a prime consideration.

Now, this is ultimately the county's decision at this point in time.

It is the board's decision.

That those working on this project would consider the concerns that have been articulated, that we could have a conversation that could lead us to an outcome that serves uh all our interests to the greatest degree possible.

I know that just as Dan Ramos was talking about trying to do something about acreage around the tomato patch, and we tried a number of times to look at different ways that we could come up with something that was a better fit without I'm sad to say uh success in that regard.

Uh there are options here, but we haven't gotten to that discussion yet.

So I will support the motion today with the hope that we can all take a step back for a moment and reimagine what is the outcome that would serve all of us to the greatest and degree and maximum extent possible.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmir Vang.

Thanks, Mayor.

Just uh some comments and then a question to you actually.

Uh I'll keep my comments short because I know we've been here uh for a while.

I just first wanted to take this moment to thank all the speakers who came today, uh, those uh who turned out uh in support of the letter and those who came out in opposition as well.

Uh, what I will say is that North Sacramento definitely turns out for sure, um, and I really appreciate all of the passion from community members.

And then I also wanted to take this time to just thank my colleagues in the North area as well for for fighting for your community so fiercely, and really holding space for your community to understand all of the concerns.

Um I know that I'm in the South area, uh, but I also know that all projects are interconnected.

Uh, what happens in the north and in the north area impacts the south area and vice versa, because of our shared city resources, and so um I just really have a question for clarity.

I think for me in particular, I've been a city council member for about a term now, and I have never had to vote collectively to proceed with a letter, but there is a first time for everything.

Uh, I am in support of the letter, and I will be voting yes in the letter for the letter.

Uh, but I just had some just some questions in particular, um, especially after staff's presentation and meeting with community members about some of the unresolved issues from water to share city services to wildlife preservation, and um it was noted in the presentation that the next uh public hearing on this item with the county is on August 20th.

Um, and I just heard from council member uh Dickinson that there may be some options on the table, and us figuring a path forward if the board of soup so choose uh that direction.

And so um, in addition to the letter the letter that we're sending, um I'm just curious.

Maybe this is for legal or like this is for the mayor, is that you know, once we submit the let this letter, if if it gets approved by by this council, um, will we be reaching out to the chair mayor or I'm just curious?

Like, has anybody picked up a phone just to call?

I'll I'll address that.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, so that's that's the only question I had.

Um, but um, yeah, I'll be voting yes in support of the letter.

Um, and I think for me it's just um like I hate that we have to be in this situation when we could be in partnership, right?

I know that the mayor, the city, the mayor council, the city is gonna be having a joint meeting later on this fall on homelessness and housing.

Um, and when things like this happen, it really um just erode the the trust of the public when you know public entities aren't working well together.

Um, and so I just want to say I hear that.

I I you know, I I see that as I was listening to all the residents, and I also know my colleagues has done everything they can um to reach out as well, and so I I just want to thank them for their leadership.

Um, but I'm really hoping that once we uh vote to move forward with this letter that we figure out a way to really have a pathway to communication and a pathway to to true partnership, right?

Um, and that it shouldn't have to take a letter in opposition to hopefully get the attention of the county, um, and really looking forward to hopefully a true partnership after we submit this letter.

And so those are all my comments, and um perhaps mayor can follow up with my question.

Um, but those are all my comments, and thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilmember Guerra.

Uh thank you, mayor.

And I'm recognizing it's 4:31 p.m.

and we still have a closed session and a five o'clock meeting tonight.

So I'll just thank our our council members who very eloquently, I think explained all the concerns we see here today, and also to my other fellow council member who recognize that we do have a regional challenge on housing that uh has to that we have to meet.

But I think the city staff, I think for trade today that the city has a very clear legal obligation uh through the habitat conservation plan uh to respond to not only to the impacts to the existing residents uh and the environment in the Natoma Spain.

And uh and the a recognition that I heard today from many residents who uh who see that they will have uh the amount of vehicles going through not only the arterial streets, the existing streets, but even uh in the world of ways through uh the the local streets um in their community and those emissions can't be uh ignored.

So it's important for us to I think recognize that those still are issues that we want to resolve.

Uh and I think uh uh you know the motion here, as it was stated, uh gives the the mayor the opportunity to engage uh quickly, and so with that uh mayor, I'll go ahead and support uh the motion here to send a letter of opposition um uh to the county board of supervisors.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Maple.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'll be very brief because my my colleagues made a lot of the points that that I would have made um and and much better than I would have.

So I really appreciate that, the time that you spent looking into that.

And then of course, um Roger Dickinson, who was there originally on the county side when this was going to play.

Um I just wanted to share, you know, for me in the early 2000s, um, I lived on 4120 Garden Highway.

Um, and I remember getting a knock on our door on a piece of paper that showed how much water our house would be under if levees broke.

And that was very, very concerning to my family, to me.

Um, and uh I just recently watched there's a new docuseries about Hurricane Katrina on Hulu.

If anyone's interested in that, um I watched that, and it was very eye-opening to me how quickly a city uh can go from what you think is relative safety to being you know figuratively and literally underwater, um, and not having the appropriate plans in place to take care of that.

And so, you know, it's not lost on me that we're one of those very vulnerable cities.

Um, and so you know, I think about what these projects mean in in the bigger context of all of that in terms of what was mentioned in congestion and safety, um, but something like that is very real, um, and and there's still some unanswered questions, many unanswered questions from the city's perspective.

So I'd love to see those answered, and hopefully they will be.

Should we send a letter.

Um, the other thing I wanted to mention is is also about cars and vehicle miles traveled.

You know, you've got almost 10,000 new proposed units, and you know, as of right now, most people have at least a car, if not two, you know, and we think about adding those those vehicles to the roadways, adding um and not having a robust plan for public transit.

I know that um Council Member Caplan screams from the rooftops all the time about the lack of public transportation in um the North Nathomas and beyond, and and and that's very real, and so for me, I think any project of this size nature should have a robust public transportation plan to get people where they need to go, whether that be downtown or somewhere else, um, and not relying on their vehicles, because I think that'd be pretty devastating to the plans that we have in place.

And I, you know, set on the SACOG board or something on the regional transit board and so on, and um, those are very important topics to us.

So I'll be supporting the letter today.

I just want to thank thank the council members and the public.

Thank you.

I'll I'll try to uh to wrap it up here.

And um there is a motion a second, and and just to clarify, there was a confusion that you said you're accusing yourself not from this item but from another issue that's somewhere up in the Natomas area.

So you can, and you did uh make a second to to um Vice Mayor Tolamante's motion, and and I support the motion as well.

I just want to clarify what the motion is.

Um I think there are some in this audience that probably would say we want you to just oppose the project, period, nothing.

And there's probably some in the audience who say we want you to take no action, let the project continue with the county without the city meddling as all.

But uh I like the rest of the council view that the city has uh an impact here.

Our residents are surrounded by the area, and it was articulated over and over um what these issues are by our representatives north of the river.

Uh so this letter is a letter of opposition, as Vice Mayor Tolamante says, outlining our concerns, articulating that if these concerns are addressed, we'll we're mean able to work on something up there on the upper west side, but these concerns nonetheless are real.

So, this is what the motion memorializes today.

And there are plenty of legitimate questions.

I'm not going to repeat them, and clearly uh there are not enough satisfactory answers.

I know the applicant wanted to take the time to articulate where some of our issues are are lacking.

We don't have time for that today, but this is not uh the final uh court to decide this, and so there will be uh plenty of opportunity.

I just wanted to talk about one issue.

I know we're running short on time.

Um I was elected with you, Mayor Fargo, in 2000, not with you, but I I I was elected in 2004 and was sworn in 2004, right?

When you were sworn in your second term as mayor, and the joint vision I think was adopted just a couple years earlier.

So I've heard about this uh magical mile buffer for 25 years, and I know um it's gospel for some people, and and uh you know, we make changes here all the time.

We make changes on our general plan amendments.

So, as far as as far as I'm concerned, nothing is ever ever forever, unless it's our our are some of our our core core core values that um you know fundamental a lot of times, you know, federal issues and so forth.

But on on this, I I do hear what Councilmember Plucky Bomb says.

Our key issues that we're addressing is not this in our society, it's housing and homelessness, really homelessness, and housing is linked to that.

We need to build way more housing.

And I concur, as councilmember Dickinson said, there is plenty of infill land available to be developed, but for whatever reason, for the past 40 years it's not being developed, huge infrastructure costs, other issues, and we need to focus on more housing, not just for homelessness, but I'm deeply concerned about our next generation.

You know, my 16-year-old, almost 17-year-old kids.

Are they gonna have a place to live here in Sacramento or want to go away somewhere else where they can't afford it?

So addressing more housing is priority, you know, right up there one or two.

And as noted earlier, as Mr.

Rambo said, this is three and a half miles from City Hall right here, their state capital.

So if you look at the map that that uh Miss uh Lamar uh posted, look at the one mile muffer.

There are clearly some areas which I think are not sensitive habitat prime for development, the the land that Mr.

Ramos alluded to next to the truck stop, the labor hall.

That's right there next to a freeway, not far from downtown.

But if you look just to the um west of the one mile buffer, you know, at some point is it kind of okay?

Not okay.

Clearly 100 200 feet from the levee is something that we would say, no go.

Even the applicant probably would say too close.

But at what point, this is that maybe a question that I'll answer later on with people interested parties, but maybe a question to our city staff.

This is not a legally binding never can be adjusted one mile buffer.

So are there areas along this corridor where we can uh take a look and there'll be an opportunity, we don't make a decision, but as far as uh us um entertaining development within the one mile buffer, that is a great question, really appreciate that.

Yes, um, it is legally binding.

I'm sure our city attorney's office could uh weigh in on it as well.

It is we agreed to it as part of our adopted habitat conservation plan, but more importantly, we agreed to it to receive issued incidental take permits that allows for the development of eight thousand and fifty acres to the city of Sacramento.

Sutter County agreed to the same thing.

We agreed to it as part of not only those incidental agreements, incidental take permits, but as part of a settlement related to the lawsuit on the habitat conservation plan.

The wildlife agencies are holding us to that one mile buffer.

We cannot, right?

Today, we would not be able to put rooftops in that one mile buffer without going through some significant process.

So that's that's we assuming that all the other city of Sacramento are.

Yeah, assuming that all the other issues were addressed, and we have water issues, public safety, schools, fire, transportation, which are all legitimate, which are going to be outlined in our letter.

And yes, council member Vang, you know, if and when we do this letter, we will submit it.

Folk is will zero in on the the issues that we think are still outstanding.

Um, in addition to taking a look where we wrote a letter in the fall, and we will meet with the county um leadership to go over these issues.

But assuming that you know the county went along, how could they legally do anything within the one mile buffer as well?

Whether or not they were, you know, a tenth of a mile in from that buffer or all the way to the levy.

Well, they haven't got to that point because they haven't received any kind of approvals from the wildlife agencies, they will have to go through a process to be able to do that, and there's a direct conflict currently with the adopted issued permits to the city and Sutter County that the wildlife agencies agreed to also.

So just hypothetically, I know we're not the county.

Assuming that that did how would that happen?

Kind of paint us a picture how what the process would look like.

I don't think that has been, I think there's probably different answers depending on who you ask.

It could be that the wildlife agencies require the county to do a new habitat conservation plan to carefully look at it.

They may require some kind of amendment to the city's habitat conservation plan and incidental take permits.

We know though what's been approved by the wildlife agencies, and that is to be adhered to today, conflicts with what the county may want to do in that area, although the county's not a party to it, the wildlife agencies are, and the city and Sutter County.

So that would have to be somehow resolved before that development could proceed in that zone in that protected zone.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Um with that, that uh concludes the questions from the council, and we do have a motion and a second to the item.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, any no's or abstentions?

Oh hearing not hearing one, a no or an abstention?

A no, a no item passes eight to one.

Mayor, we do have uh three speakers for matters not on the agenda.

Okay.

So this is a special meeting.

Oh no, it's not a special meeting.

We have three speakers.

Can we can't see them?

Yeah, no, no.

I was asking Marvin.

Oh, yes.

Okay.

We do have uh two speakers for matters not on the agenda.

Athol Wong and Linda Middlesworth.

Are you still here?

If you could please keep are you, Linda?

Here we go.

Here we go.

Okay.

We could please, if we could please exit the uh chamber or keep your conversations to minimum or no conversations.

We have to continue our meeting.

Please proceed.

Go ahead.

Okay.

My name is Ethel Wong.

I live in Midtown, unlike the Thomas area that you've spent the last three hours on.

It's a very different housing arrangement.

And the houses are close.

I live at 1311 22nd Street.

1315 is five feet away, give or take.

And it is in two in four years ago, there was a fire that started in 1315.

My house, because of the wind caught fire.

It was restored within two years.

Nothing has happened at 1315.

The only change in our neighborhood is that I am fearful of the danger every day because homeless people and vandals are going in because the tarps that have been tied on that house flop in the wind and keep me awake.

And I am not the only one in the neighborhood that feels that way.

That house and the lack of any progress on either restoring it or condemning it has not happened in over four years.

And while there have been several responses from this group and other city staff members as well as from the police department, the city has only been monitoring a non-existent progress on a four-year problem.

And it needs to be decided.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Linda?

Yes.

Mr.

Plucky Bum.

City staff's aware of the issue, and we'll be following up.

Yeah, I believe that.

Go ahead, Linda.

Hi, everybody.

Thank you so much for sticking around this long.

Um, Mayor McCarthy and council members.

I'm here to help Sacramento get healthier and have a more sustainable environment.

He's handing out flyers for you.

I'm I'm a food for life instructor, licensed food for life instructor for Dr.

Neil Bernard, physicians committee for responsible medicine.

I have been eating this way for 37 and a half years, and I've lived in Sacramento for 38.

And it wasn't until I got to Sacramento that I got healthy.

I would like Sacramentans to get healthy too.

I'm here as a volunteer for the plant-based treaty.

It's a worldwide global campaign, nonprofit, and what they're doing is having governments sign on to this as well as cities.

We've had like over a thousand elected officials take on this plant-based treaty.

We have um 44 governments around the world who have adopted this plant-based treaty.

It will help us get more plant-based options into our city.

We are the capital, we need to be leaders in sustainability and healthy clients here.

Healthy Sacramentans like me now.

I'm 81, I'm healthy.

Okay, I was very sick with cancer and heart disease and everything before.

I have no longer any of that because I changed to a plant-based food system.

I would like to help the Sacramentans do that.

Hollywood has adopted the treaty.

West Hollywood has adopted the treaty.

We need to be an example here in Sacramento as the capital of Sacramento.

So we really need to help put these campaigns together so that we can provide outreach to the community and have them know how to make healthy plant-based food.

They need to know how to make it and do it, and I can help with that.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is complete.

Your time is complete.

Thank you.

Mayor, we have a closed session to adjourn to.

Yes, thank you.

Let's please uh adjourn to closed session.

We'll now adjourn to a special meeting for the purpose of a closed session.

We have a quorum of council members in chambers.

There is one item on the agenda.

The item is conference with legal counsel for anticipated litigation government code 54956.9 section D for one potential case.

We have no speakers on this item on the closed session agenda.

Mayor, you may adjourn.

It's 449.