Okay.

Thank you.

Please call the meeting to order.

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan.

Here.

Council Member Dickinson.

Here.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Here.

Councilmember Plekibom.

Here.

Councilmember Maple.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Guerra is expected momentarily.

Councilmember Jennings.

Here.

Councilmember Vang.

Here.

And Mayor McCurdy.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

I'm going to ask our interim city manager Milstein to lead us in the pledge and land acknowledgments.

Thank you.

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

To the original people of this land, the Nisanon people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwood Winton peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

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

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City Attorney, do we have a report out from closed session?

City Attorney, do we have a report out from closed session?

No report out?

Thank you.

So, Mayor, we now move to special presentations, and we are, Lucinda Wilcox is retiring, and Councilmember Pluckybaum has a presentation.

Thank you.

Lucinda, we, yeah, thank you.

This is the last time we're going to call you up.

On behalf of the city, we want to say thank you for all the decades of service.

Is there anything you'd like to say before we start in on you?

I just want to, you know, I was reflecting upon everything that I've been through.

I've been here for 29 years and had so many great opportunities and experiences with the city.

And I was remembering my very first time presenting to the city council.

I was a young planner and I was presenting to the late, great Mayor Joe Cerna.

and it was in the building next door because this building didn't exist at the time.

And we were, I brought some code amendments forward that were to allow housing in the

central city without a conditional use permit, which was considered a really kind of progressive

approach at the time.

And so I just, it's amazing to see the strides that we've gone through in all that time.

And so I've just had really some amazing opportunities to work on so many different things and be a small part of so many important things in the city.

And I also just want to acknowledge all the fantastic people I've had a chance to work with at the city.

There's really some dedicated employees, many of whom never come up here and you don't see them, but they're really the unsung heroes.

and especially most recently my amazing public works team are just an unbelievable set of folks

to work with so just want to thank you for all the years yes councilmember Guerra I just want to

thank you know Lucinda Wilcox here for not only an amazing tenure I think she was very humble

in her work here.

Most recently, and in fact

where we're at now, one of our biggest

largest projects is the I Street Bridge

bridging two cities, two counties

together. We're very

close on that. That is

a major milestone of getting

us to where we are today.

I know you're retiring, but we hope to bring

you back when we walk across that

bridge. Sacramento

is the city of trees.

Forget what's

on the water tower now. It's still the city of trees. Okay. And one of the things that is most

important is that Lucinda Wilcox worked on, and it was one of the first things I got an opportunity

to work with her on, was the urban forestry master plan. And we just approved it this year as part of

our general plan and really making a long-term commitment of how we're going to make sure that

every part of our city has that level of equity, of shade, of environment. It's something

revolutionary and that urban forestry master plan I have to say a lot of credit

goes off to the work of Lucinda Wilcox with that congratulations and here's

Lucinda Wilcox from the City of Trees everyone

Thank You Lucinda I also want to acknowledge your service thank you for

what you've done to our community in City of Sacramento I remember you when I

I first was elected to the city council 21 years ago.

So 29 years of public service.

And as Mr. Plucky bomb stated,

we are all here to recognize you tonight.

I just want to recognize one piece of it.

So on your proclamation here from the city of Sacramento,

it notices that in 2025,

you were the American public works association manager

of the year.

So in your final year,

you went out with a bang and made sure that you were recognized

for your hard work,

importantly moving Sacramento forward. So thank you.

Oh, that's amazing.

Yeah, I'll take one.

Ready?

One, two, three, four.

Okay, one, two, three.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next item.

So, Mayor, we now move to the consent calendar.

That's items 1 through 24.

I have two speakers on the consent.

Shall we take those now?

Yes, please.

Dard Hunter on item 6, then Richard Barton on item 18.

There we go.

May I start?

Please.

Thank you.

Greetings, council members, mayor, staff.

Thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you tonight.

My name is Dard Hunter.

I am a board member with the Heritage Park Homeowners Association in North Natomas.

I'm joined this evening by many members of the Heritage Park Veterans Club

and a representative of the local VFW chapter.

We are here to speak in support of consent item number six.

First, a word on Heritage Park Veterans Club.

Our club represents the full spectrum of the military experience.

We have representatives from all major branches of the military and all missions as well, combat, peacetime, and support.

Our club was founded by Bob Hilchick ages ago, now led by Steve Werner, who I know many of you know.

Neither Bob nor Steve can be here.

I think they're both watching on TV tonight or they'll catch the replay.

So I'm pinch-hitting.

The Veterans Club at Heritage Park provides a deep sense of community enrichment at Heritage Park

through fundraisers, community events, social activities, and it's not limited just to us.

it also includes a lot of activity for the city of Sacramento.

It's long been a goal of the Heritage Park Veterans Club to leave a lasting legacy.

For years, they have been working on a project that would convert the name of Willow Park to Veterans Park.

The group has worked four years with your predecessors, many of you here in the room right now,

and many from the state assembly as well.

The group conducted a fundraiser which is required in order to fund...

Thank you for your comments. Your speaking time is complete.

Our next speaker is Richard Barton on item 18.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Richard Barton. I'm the Director of Housing Services for the Sacramento LGBT Community Center.

and I want to thank the council, the mayor's office, and the Department of Community Response

for your collaboration in navigating the HHAP funding reductions

and identifying a path that keeps our TAY shelters open serving 18 to 24-year-olds

without reducing the number of beds available to the most vulnerable youth.

While these reductions are undeniably difficult and will affect the level of services we can provide, we deeply appreciate the city's commitment to maintaining safe, affirming shelter options for LGBTQ plus young people and supporting their journey toward long-term housing stability and self-reliance.

We remain committed to working closely with the city to ensure every available resource is used effectively and to pursue future opportunities to strengthen and expand funding for these critical programs.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your continued partnership.

Thank you.

No more speakers. Council Member Kaplan, you had comments?

Yeah, I'll speak on 2, 6, 8 and 18.

Vice Mayor Talamantes?

Comment on 20.

Council Member Vang?

Comment on number 17.

Okay, I see no one else queued up.

So, Council Member Kaplan,

I'm going to start with you on 2 and 6 and 8.

I would just like on item 2,

District 1 is getting a brand new

youth commissioner who is here. Kevin, if you would stand up and say hi. Kevin has been part of my one

youth summer at City Hall. Many of you may recognize him, and I think he's going to be a great addition

to our one youth. So welcome to your service here in the city. You have been on me for a year

to see if a seat will open up, so I'm glad that I have one for you. So congratulations, Kevin.

And on item six, I just want to follow up and thank all the veterans who I've had the opportunity to say hello to.

You're right, Dard.

Four years is a long time, but there's a city process.

If we could just go renaming city parks, it would happen all the time.

So I want to thank, because of our veterans and your perseverance, not only in service to our nation,

but in service to the community and making sure that you have a place that is a place for remembrance,

for honoring, for acknowledging the sacrifices, but also a place for joy.

And so it is an honor.

You guys did raise a majority of the funds to get the big sign that needs to be out there.

I put in a little funds, and Senator Ashby confirmed that she will close the loop

so that the amount that we need to put into parks is there to do that name change.

But I'm really happy that our veterans now can work with our local ROTCs to be able to have a place

to honor the service of those who have served our country and alive today

and as well as honor those who have lost their lives in the sacrifice.

Because if we do not remember history, we are doomed to repeat it,

and our veterans need to be honored and our history needs to be remembered.

So thank you for all of your dedication and support in making this happen.

Do you want to speak on item eight also?

Item eight is the digital signs for large entertainment venues.

Is there anything new we need to know as we're all talking about digital signs for the rail yards

and anything else is there anything unusual that the community needs to know light pollution all of

that good fun stuff of new of what we're doing hi council member Matt site senior architect the CDD

there are there is nothing new specifically on this this this item is strictly this is

password publication for digital marquee static digital marquee on the paint shop building that

is the only part of this.

We're still, again, as last week mentioned,

we're still maintaining the same light levels

as any other sign within the city.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I just wanted to make sure that was on the record

because questions are being asked.

So thank you.

Yes, Council Member.

Council Member Vang on item 17.

Thanks.

I just wanted to take a moment just to comment on this item.

In particular, I wanted to thank Mayor Pro Temp-Era Guerra

for starting this effort back in 2017.

This item will actually approve our funding

for implementation to support our incredible partners

on the ground through the Phil Network

and under now the California Immigrant Project.

And we have so many incredible organizations

on the ground doing just work every day

to hold the line, protect our families,

and ensure that residents know their rights.

And so this funding is of utmost importance

and critical to ensuring the health and safety

of all of our communities

and just really wanted to thank all our partners on the ground.

Council Member Kaplan on 18.

I just want to point out on this is our disbursement of homeless housing assistance

and prevention grant funds for sheltering transitional age youth.

I think it's really important to point out while we are getting less state

and less federal funding for this, and I know we need to look for ways to cut,

I'm a little disappointed we cut so much in this program

because transitional aid, homeless youth, actually has the greatest impact on making sure that we find ways to get our youth off the streets permanently.

And it is shown more effective than what we are doing in getting adults off the streets.

And I want to point out on the record, I think the city staff are negotiating, but I am disappointed that because of the cut in funding,

while they say they can serve the same amount, in reality, it's not serving the same amount for 12 months.

The savings and the money came about that this money is only lasting nine months.

And so I think we need to, when we talk about this, really look at the effectiveness of housing and our programs,

and we're actually seeing the best return and positive impact with our transitional age youth.

And while it might cost a little bit more, we're changing a life forever,

not an adult that takes longer and needs more mental health.

When we help our youth get there and get stable housing

and create a life for themselves, it really is saving the city money.

So I am advocating.

I know more HAP funding is coming,

but I do not and will not support any additional cuts for transitional age youth.

In fact, we should probably be funding them more

because the data shows that they're actually doing the job that we are looking for.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Talamantes on item 20.

Yeah, so I'll be supporting the consent.

I'll be moving the consent calendar.

And then I just want to state for the record that I've had concerns from the community in Natomas

asking for, you know, why the MOU came back.

Such a quick turnaround.

The community got the report on Thursday and had over the weekend to review it.

and so they are just feeling like we aren't listening to them and they aren't being feeling

heard so just want to put that on the record but I'll move consent calendar

and then on consent I thought item 20 wasn't I'm recused Mabel's recused and I thought it wasn't

going to be on yeah I'm punched up yeah so recusing myself from item 20 thank you so for

the record council member Kaplan and council member Mabel are recusing from item 20 I have a

motion by the Talamantes and a second by Vang. Yes. Yeah, I just want to, uh, to, to, to note,

we have a motion to second the consent calendar, busy consent calendar last week, uh, the year

before our holiday, a lot of, um, uh, good items on here. I did want to, to note our, our veterans

club out here in the audience from, uh, up in the Natomas area. Uh, thank you so much for working on

this. It's much, uh, cooler today than we had the, uh, the dunk tank out there in, uh, in the summer

We did a little fundraising out there, but all jokes aside,

this was an issue I heard about when I was, you know,

trying to run for mayor and was certainly proud to support making this a

reality.

And I look forward and we have the finality out there at that park.

So thank you to Dard and Teresa and Steve for your work as well as the entire

group out there.

So with that, we have a motion and a second on the consent calendar.

We note the two abstentions for item number 20.

All's in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

He knows her abstentions.

We heard the two.

Thank you.

We move to item 25, which is a public hearing,

an ordinance amending sections 15.08.070 of and adding chapter 17.868 to the Sacramento City Code relating to ministerial approval of development projects of 10 or fewer dwelling units on urban lots.

And at this time, I will open the public hearing.

Just wait till they clear the room.

Okay, please proceed.

No worries.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner in the Community Development Department.

I'll be writing tonight's presentation on an ordinance to implement Senate Bill 684.

As an overview, I'll provide some background information on this law, outline what the

state law requires along with what our few state or local options are, and then conclude

with the recommendation.

So as some background, SB 684 created a statewide ministerial process for subdivisions in housing

in housing developments that meet certain requirements and it became effective last summer.

It's been amended twice by two bills that became effective this summer. Essentially

it establishes requirements that all cities and counties in the state must follow and

allows jurisdictions just a few limited options for their implementation.

We first brought this ordinance to the Planning and Design Commission last fall where they

requested that we get stakeholder input on those local choices. So we conducted

a focus group meeting in the spring of this year with people that were interested in the ordinance such as

housing advocates and local developers to get input on those options. This informed the

revised ordinance that we brought to the Planning and Design Commission along with the Law and

Legislation Committee this fall, both forwarding the ordinance to City Council for consideration

tonight. So what does this law require? It requires the city to ministerially review tentative

maps with up to ten lots and housing developments with up to ten units within 60 days. Additionally,

it requires the city to issue a building permit upon approval of the tentative map before the

final map if the applicant submits a complete and compliant application.

This law applies where land is owned for single unit or multi unit dwellings.

These are also intended to be infill projects so the site has to be surrounded by urban

uses.

The legislature also passed this with the intent of creating more starter home ownership

opportunities and so there is a maximum average unit size for those units.

They do have to comply with objective development standards.

Another couple of things to note, these projects can't alter any affordable housing or housing

occupied by tenants in the last five years.

And affordable units are required as a part of the project if the site is designated for

them in the housing element.

The purpose of the local ordinance is really to codify our administrative procedures and

so we know how to process statewide applications locally and so both applicants and staff know

what to process and how to process it.

The ordinance also allows us to codify seven choices on local standards.

The choices are listed there on the screen and are included in the ordinance presented

and included tonight.

Our rationale for these is really based off our housing element policies and goals to

reduce uncertainty in the permit process, increase overall housing production, and to

the extent we can with a state mandated process maintain consistency with our existing local

permit process.

This is consistent with feedback we got from both the planning and design commission along

with our stakeholder focus group.

Our recommendation tonight is to conduct a public hearing

and upon conclusion, move the staff recommendation

to adopt the ordinance.

That concludes my presentation

and we're available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have two speakers?

Chris Valencia, then Ben Radershoff.

I think it's the...

Hello, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Chris Valencia and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry

Association.

I just want to express our support for this ordinance and, you know, we really do appreciate

that the City Council is considering this, moving this and making it so that we can continue

to build things here in the City of Sacramento.

more easier, far quicker, far cheaper. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Ben?

Thank you Mayor McCarty and Council. Ben Raderstorf for House Sacramento. We're an

all-volunteer pro-housing advocacy organization. Just here to express our

really strong support for this implementation. As many of you know,

there's been a really productive symbiotic relationship between pro-

housing cities like Sacramento and a lot of the things that have happened at the

state-led level especially legislation like this. I see this implementation is

functionally expanding and building upon and creating a new avenue that works in

parallel with our missing middle housing ordinance that all of you passed last

year. This was definitely a process and we really appreciate staff. The initial

version of this I think there was some concerns that it wasn't really going to

work in practice and where staff landed on this it's it's really excellent. They

heard the feedback from all sorts of stakeholders and planning commission in

particular. So just a lot of gratitude for the way that staff is able to work

so productively and correct collaboratively with the community.

This is going to be the best implementation ordinance of this in the

state. We are going to be the model that the,

that the state legislature is going to be pointing to as other cities work to do

this too. So thank you all strongly encourage and I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. I have no more speakers on this item. Okay.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

You open the public hearing, right?

Okay.

I'll close the public hearing and move this item.

Second.

Okay.

The motion is second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any nosed or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes.

We move to item 26, which is B-Shine Car Wash and New Multi-Unit Dwellings Rezone.

And at this time, I'll open the public hearing.

Okay, please proceed.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I am Danny Abbas of the Community Development Department.

This item is a request to rezone a 0.36 acre parcel

from the C1 to C2 zone to relocate and expand

a legal non-conforming car wash and oil change facility

and to construct 48 new apartment units at Stockton Boulevard immediately south of DS Avenue.

Staff finds that the proposal aligns with general plan land use policies related to efficient parcel utilization,

a compact urban footprint, a balance of uses, and increased housing near transit service,

and recommends project approval.

That concludes the presentation.

Both staff and the applicant could be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One public comment?

No, I have no public comments for this agenda item.

Thank you.

Mayor Patum Gatta.

Thank you very much.

I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, open and close the public hearing, and also thank staff for working with the applicant here.

This is an example where we have a combination of a bad lot, vacant area, an old outdated business, a model that has been kind of an ISR for the community,

and we're going to be able to improve the property and increase housing along the most popular transit route in the area.

This is a good project for everyone.

Move approval.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

Thank you.

I second that.

Mr. Dickinson.

I have a question.

Is the car wash better?

There.

I was just curious.

I don't have an objection to the project, but I was curious, and I didn't have a chance to check.

Was there a noise analysis done in conjunction with this?

There was not a noise analysis done in conjunction.

The car wash is existing there.

It's relocating to the corner.

But it's going to, the distance is going to, well, there's not housing there now.

So there's going to be housing added with the car wash relocated, correct?

Yeah, there would be housing added to the, I think that's the, yeah, the southern portion of the site.

The reason I ask this question is I've seen this, I'm going to hesitate to say I've seen this movie before,

but I've seen car washes next to housing before in proximity, and car washes are not generally quiet operations.

And they can, depending on the operating hours of the station and the car wash, can go quite late into the evening.

so I don't know if that's been considered in this analysis or not.

Yeah, as part of the conditions of approval, there are limited hours of operation.

Also, I'll just add in, also, they'll still have to follow the noise ordinance that the city has,

and if we do get complaints from that, we do go to those businesses,

and they do have to alleviate anything that exceeds the noise standards.

I'd hate to say that we don't enforce our noise ordinance,

but probably not out there each and every day.

I do think this is something you may want to bear in mind as this,

as this project goes,

goes forward to make sure that it doesn't become problematic for the future

residents of, of the location.

I have no more speakers.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Gerda and a second by Mayor McCarty.

Yes. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any no's or abstentions? Hearing none.

Item passes. Next item. We move on to item 27 which is workshop on the mixed

income housing ordinance.

Gretta Seuss, Senior Planner in our Community Development Department.

I'm here to present to you on our mixed income housing ordinance.

The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the work completed to date

on the project, present updated feasibility analysis findings, and present new proposed

ordinance modifications for Council's consideration.

I'll first begin with some project background.

The purpose of the mixed income housing ordinance is to aid in provision of affordable housing

options in the city.

Our housing element directs the city to evaluate the effectiveness of the current ordinance

and considered changes to the ordinance with the goal of increasing the amount of affordable

housing while not posing a constraint to overall housing production.

The city initiated work on this project in the summer of 2022 and released a report in

2023 that contained a feasibility analysis, historic performance of the mixed income ordinance

and case studies of other jurisdictional requirements.

on the ordinance modifications were then released in 2023 and early 2024.

RIC was then paused to review additional proposed policy alternatives that were brought forward

by stakeholders and decision makers. Additionally, significant inflation that had occurred over

2021 through 23 had since stabilized. And because the most recent financial feasibility analysis

was based off of spring 2023 data, the city commissioned an update to the feasibility analysis

based on spring-summer 2025 data and interviews to inform decisions on new proposed modifications which are being presented today.

Many jurisdictions in California have adopted affordable housing requirements to ensure that new residential development contributes towards meeting local housing needs.

These requirements typically take one of two forms.

The first is an on-site affordable housing requirement or inclusionary requirement that requires a certain percentage of affordable units to be provided as part of the project.

Inclusionary requirements must also offer alternatives such as in-lieu fees or land dedication, particularly for rental housing.

The second common option is a requirement for new market rate developments to pay an impact fee, which generates funding for affordable housing to be built elsewhere.

Our current mixed income housing ordinance serves as the city's version of this policy and is currently an impact fee model.

The original ordinance, which was established in 2000, was an inclusionary housing policy that applied only in new growth areas of the city, shown here in gray.

Projects were required to provide 15% affordable units on site, which was met mostly through large multifamily projects or inclusionary for sale units within the project.

The ordinance was then amended in 2015 to a citywide impact fee.

The fee was established with two exemptions.

The first was through the establishment of the housing incentive zone where the fee was

set at a lower rate.

And the second was a $0 rate that was established for high density housing.

This was established in order to incentivize denser infill housing development which was

not occurring without subsidy at the time.

The ordinance also requires a mixed income housing strategy for projects of 100 or more

acres.

I'll now briefly review some of the findings from the draft report that was previously released

in 2023.

The first part of the report was an analysis of the performance of the current and previous

ordinance.

The takeaways from this analysis were that the ordinances were developed under different

market circumstances.

Similar affordable housing production resulted under each ordinance and the current ordinance

should be reevaluated considering current development trends, market feasibility, and

our policy goals. The performance of the prior and current ordinances are listed side by

side here. And the council and audience should note that an error in this table was updated

and posted via supplemental materials today on the agenda. In the 2000 ordinance, most

large-scale developments chose to satisfy the inclusionary obligation by partnering with

with an affordable housing developer.

And an average of 132 affordable units per year

were produced as a result.

Looking at our current ordinance,

we've generated about 11 million in revenues through 2024.

And as of 2024, SHRA has committed 7.3 million

of these funds to assist six different

affordable housing projects.

There are a total of 721 affordable units

in those projects that SHRA has funded

with the housing impact fee funds.

And in addition to that, 407 units have also been produced

under mixed income housing strategies

in the North Lake area and rail yards.

This has averaged about 125 affordable units per year

as a result of the ordinance.

The next part of the report included a survey

of requirements in other jurisdictions

and deep dive case studies on seven jurisdictions.

Some of the themes found in our region

are a 10% affordable requirement or varying options,

fee payment being allowed in lieu of the onsite requirement,

fee structures varying per square foot, per unit,

or a percentage of sales price,

incentives for higher density development,

and impact fee reductions for affordable units.

Among the larger city themes,

we saw a menu of compliance options being offered,

including variation by market area,

in lieu fee being allowed per square foot fees

and incentives for onsite units

such as density allowances, parking reduction

or impact fee reductions.

Provided here is a summary table of program structures

and fee amounts from the larger case study jurisdictions.

Among these we saw an average of about 10% requirements

with some going higher.

and in lieu fee amounts ranging from 6,000 to 10,000

per market rate unit, 250 to 478,000 per affordable unit

or per square foot fees ranging from 19 to $45.

The updated feasibility analysis findings

as of spring, summer 2025 are included in the staff report.

The findings show that for sale housing is generally feasible

with exceptions in North Sacramento and South Natomas, identified as marginally feasible,

and townhomes in the central city submarket were found to be infeasible.

Rental housing was found to be generally infeasible citywide.

In addition to the release of the draft report in 2023, the following policy objectives were also established

to guide our decision-making in this project.

These objectives are to increase affordable housing production, ensure long-term affordability,

affirmatively further fair housing, prevent displacement, promote mixed-income communities,

and to not pose a constraint to overall housing production.

I'll now provide an overview of the previous recommendations that were released in early 2024.

The previous recommendations were an on-site citywide affordability requirement

with an in-lieu fee option, with in-lieu fees varying by market area

and also tying the fee rates to housing production.

On-site affordability requirements were set at 7% at 80% AMI

or 5% at 60% AMI for rental projects

and 70% at 100% AMI for sale products.

In-lieu fee rates at max phase-in range from the current fee rate

to $10 per square foot, depending on the geographic area of the city.

The in-lieu fee rate was proposed to phase in over three steps and projects that were

proximate to transit were proposed to have a 25% reduction in in-lieu fee rates.

When market rate housing production excluding ADUs surpassed 2500 units in a given calendar

year the fee was proposed to go up one step rate and when production was less than 1250

units it would go down.

Lastly, the previous recommendations proposed a higher requirement for large projects that

included 750 or more units and a site size of 15 or more acres.

Those were listed here.

Moving on to the new proposed modifications.

The new proposal is to maintain the current ordinance framework with a few key changes.

The new recommendation is to make a few minor changes to our impact fee application and

the current mixed income housing strategy requirement.

For the housing impact fee we recommend removal of the housing incentive zone shown here in

yellow where we currently charge a reduced fee rate.

And we also recommend removal of the zero dollar rate for high density housing.

For the mixed income housing strategy we are recommending reducing the acreage threshold

from 100 acres to 50 acres or more in size and requiring a minimum of 10% affordable housing

be met on site.

This chart compares the current ordinance to the previous recommendations and the new

recommendations.

The previous recommendation was an inclusionary approach with an in lieu fee whereas our current

approach proposes to maintain our impact fee approach.

The previous recommendation had a much wider range of fee rates based on market area and

proximity to transit and would adjust according to housing production.

Our new proposed change would modify our fee to be one flat citywide fee.

We propose no change in the current fee exemption option of 10% at 80% AMI and in terms of projected

revenue comparisons the new proposed modifications would likely yield double or triple the amount

of revenue that the current fee generates.

This chart compares the cost of compliance for projects under the new proposal and under

the previous recommendations.

The light blue bar shows the cost of the proposed citywide impact fee at the $3.56 rate.

Projects may be exempted from paying this fee if they provide at least 10% low income

units on site at 80% or below.

The cost of this on site fee exemption option is shown in dark blue.

The previous recommendations are shown in light yellow and dark yellow.

The light yellow shows the in-lieu fees at both the lowest and highest application rates

as well as the cost to comply with the on-site options of 7% at 80% AMI or 6% at 60% AMI.

And this slide shows the same information by geographic area for sale housing products.

As the council considers the recommended changes to the ordinance, it's important to note how

Sacramento's housing production has compared to statewide housing production trends. The

bar graphs here show Sacramento's housing production under the previous ordinance in

green and under the current ordinance in dark yellow. The blue line shows statewide housing

production for comparison, showing that our local production has largely followed statewide

trends. Additionally, it should also be noted that Sacramento continues to be the top producer

of housing per capita when compared with similar sized jurisdictions.

Among these jurisdictions, Sacramento is also the second highest when it comes to percentage

of affordable housing it produces as part of overall housing production with San Jose

coming in first.

Pending council direction on whether to move forward with the proposed modifications, staff

will conduct outreach on these modifications reviewed as part of tonight's workshop and

return with the findings of that outreach along with final ordinance recommendation.

We hope to bring forward the ordinance language for adoption in summer of 2026.

To conclude my presentation I would like to remind the mayor and council that we are seeking

direction on whether or not to move forward with the proposed recommendations or whether

to conclude review of the mixed income ordinance without making proposed changes.

I am available to answer questions along with Greg Sandlin, our planning director, our consultant

David Dozema of Kaiser Marston Associates, Christine Weicker, Director of Housing Finance

at SHRA, and Yaya Nile, our city housing manager. Thank you.

MS. I have nine speakers and council members signed up to speak. Which would you prefer

first?

MS. We will do the speakers. Greta and Greg, thank you so much for all your work

on this. It's been many years in the making. Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll

We'll do the speakers first.

I have nine speakers.

Karina Raimondo, Matt McDonald, Aaron Teague, Madeline Noel, Michael Turgeon.

My talkaya, Karina.

Buenos dias.

Buenas tardes.

Good evening, Mayor McCarty and Councilmembers.

Karina Raimondo here on behalf of the Midtown Association.

We're a property-based improvement district representing more than 1,300 properties and business owners working to make Midtown the center of cultural creativity and vibrancy in Sacramento's urban core.

We appreciate city staff, hard work, and thoughtful effort that went into this update.

These conversations are important for the future of our neighborhoods.

We absolutely support the city's goal of producing more affordable housing.

That remains a shared priority.

However, adding more costs during a time of increasingly difficult market conditions does not create affordability.

It reduces production and delays the growth of the mixed income neighborhoods we are collectively trying to build.

The city's own feasibility studies show that building rental housing across Sacramento is not financially viable right now.

And forest sale projects are extremely sensitive to added costs.

When the market exists, strained, even small increases can make the difference between projects moving forward or never breaking ground.

Removing a high-density assumption, increasing fees, particularly in infill development,

risk making it harder to deliver exactly the homes that support Midtown's identity.

That is because infill housing development is more than construction.

It brings new neighborhoods, food traffic, and energy that supports the restaurants, galleries, cafes,

and entertainment venues we're collectively trying to build and are the economic drivers in our city.

Infill is central to the city's climate goals.

Walkable and bikeable communities like Midtown reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve environmental quality.

Removing the $0 fee for infill sends the opposite signal and unintentionally makes sprawl more attractive.

That works against our climate goals and the kind of compact, sustainable neighborhoods Sacramento says they want to grow.

Midtown had had success delivering affordable units because the ordinance allows.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Matt McDonald.

Good evening.

Matt McDonald with the California Apartment Association,

representing owners of nearly 42,000 rental units in the city of Sacramento.

This is an extremely precarious time for the housing industry.

The timing of a mixed income housing cost increase could not be worse.

According to third party market analysis from the CoStar group, Sacramento is failing to backfill newly completed units with new construction quickly enough.

2025 has been the worst year for construction starts in the city since 2017.

Units currently under construction are not reaching even one-third of what they were this time last year.

Projections for next year are even more dismal, dropping another 40%.

That means from one year ago to one year from now,

the City of Sacramento will experience an 80% drop in units actively under construction.

Builders aren't just threatening to walk away from the City of Sacramento.

They have already left.

The previous mixed income housing study was very clear that increasing fees on new units would make additional multifamily housing units infeasible.

At present, we've seen no new data to refute that conclusion.

Looking beyond, how many of the roughly 4,500 units currently proposed for 2027 will be withdrawn if there is an increase of mixed income housing fees?

I doubt that there is a single person in this room who knows the answer to that question.

You need independent analysis of these questions.

You need to survey the builders who have actual projects here.

And even more so, you need to talk to builders who have walked away from this city so that you can understand why.

These are the people who create housing.

You will not be able to solve the affordability or housing crisis problem without them.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Aaron Teague, then Madeline Noel, then Chris Valencia.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Erin Teague on behalf of the Sacramento Association of Realtors.

Again, we'd like to echo our appreciation for staff's work on this project.

And we're not opposing the current mixed income housing ordinance.

However, given all the work this council has done to jumpstart housing and development in our region,

we recommend not making any changes at this time.

To council and staff's credit, you've worked hard to remove barriers to build housing in Sacramento

through initiatives like Streamline Sacramento, Missing Middle Housing, Ministerial Approvals for more projects,

the Small Developer Incubator Program, and the Pro Housing designation.

These changes are moving the city in the right direction, and they need time to show their full effect on production and affordability.

Introducing new costs now would move the city in the opposite direction.

Added fees or taxes make it harder to build and ultimately fall on homebuyers,

especially first-time homebuyers who already face high prices with limited inventory.

I want to emphasize the impact of those first-time homebuyers.

When development costs rise, home prices rise.

Entry-level buyers feel that immediately.

Many are already on the edge of what they can afford,

and the ordinance would make it even harder for them to compete for a starter home.

Consider this.

The new national average for the first-time homebuyer is now 40 years of age.

This is an all-time high that continues to climb year over year.

For example, a first-time homebuyer earning $95,000 a year and putting 5% down now has the buying power of $350,000 here in Sacramento.

Since July 1st, there have only been 634 properties under that amount, just 14% of sales, making those homes extremely competitive.

We support the goal of affordability.

The concern is timing.

Moving forward with this ordinance now risks putting homeownership even further out of reach for the people who need the most help getting in.

Instead, let's keep creating the inventory that we need.

Thanks for your time.

Madeline and Chris.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council, interim city manager, and city staff.

My name is Madeline Knoll. I'm with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a property-based improvement district serving 66 blocks of our region's urban core.

Tonight's item reflects an important and shared goal, creating diverse, mixed-income neighborhoods.

And what better place to do that than in downtown?

We have access to high-quality jobs, regional transit, a vibrant social economy, and cultural amenities, all the right ingredients to make sustainable urban living truly possible.

This makes downtown our most location efficient place to build more residential housing.

But when we look at the numbers, regionally, the vast majority of new construction takes place outside our central city.

That's because infill development is inherently complex and costly, especially compared to the alternative.

Even throughout various market conditions, most projects still don't pencil without creative financing tools.

The existing mixed income housing ordinance offers one of the very few tools we have to encourage high density infill by providing a $0 impact fee.

This density bonus provides two benefits to the city.

It doesn't draw on the general fund and it intentionally supports concentrated strategic growth and our most viable, most livable neighborhoods.

removing this incentive as proposed and thereby increasing the cost of building

risk slowing production at a time when our region is still falling short of our

housing needs at a time when inventory is shrinking and rents are stabilizing

we need to be careful about weakening a policy that is showing results for

these reasons we urge you to maintain the current ordinance and preserve the

zero dollar impact fee for high density info thank you for consideration and

And thank you to city staff.

Thank you.

Chris Valencia, then Michael Turgeon, then Ben Raderstorf.

Hello, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council.

My name is Chris Valencia, and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association,

and it's more than 500 building and developer members working hard to meet the city's housing needs.

The staff recommendation to develop a mixed income housing ordinance will significantly stymie the city's progress in addressing housing needs.

The proposal for the removal of the zero rate for high-density projects and the removal of the reduced fee for the housing incentive zones will directly affect infill and high-density projects.

The increased cost for projects will slow development and result in higher rents, pricing more people out of an already tough market.

Sacramento has incentivized these developments with promising results because of the pro-housing policies passed by this council.

Additionally, this proposal calls for 10% set-aside for developments that are 50 acres or more for affordable housing with no option of an in-loop fee.

Basing a set aside on acreage is unusual for these types of policies.

It is unclear if this threshold considers community amenities such as parks, community centers, or infrastructure needs.

On-site building mandates function as a tax on housing.

This policy will increase costs, hurt homeowners, slow stop most new housing construction in the city, and push investments to surrounding jurisdictions.

Families forced to live outside the city and still commute will have negative impact on the city's efforts to lower vehicle miles traveled.

The feasibility study evaluated these policies based on data which cites more favorable market conditions to conclude these policies are feasible.

Conditions have already changed and we see a slowing of construction this year with projections showing a continued slowing in construction.

The implementation of this policy will only exacerbate that.

As you are hearing from my fellow stakeholders, this proposal will do more harm than its intended good.

California YIMBY has recently come out against inclusionary zoning policies because they simply just do not deliver the desired results and instead harm housing production.

We all want to build housing.

The best way to meet the city's housing needs is to build at all levels, apartment, infill, single family.

I urge you to reject this proposal and instead partner with us to build Sacramento into the great city we all know what that can be.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Michael, then Ben, then Luis Barante, then John Vignocci.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Michael Turgeon here from House Sacramento.

I want to say that we do support increasing funding for low-income subsidized housing and increasing housing opportunities in high-resource neighborhoods.

However, we think that increasing fees or income requirements for dense infill housing is exactly the wrong way to do this.

It's like taxing food to pay for SNAP benefits, and it would cut against the overall goal for a more affordable Sacramento.

toe. Regardless of feasibility studies and timing, incentives do matter and nobody knows what

particular straw will break the camel's back for housing projects on the margins. The city has done

a ton of great work such as a visionary general plan to greatly expand dense infill housing in

Sacramento which supports affordability, cuts greenhouse gases and supports the long-term

economic and fiscal health for the city. We'd really appreciate if the city kept the fee at

zero dollars at least for the dense infill construction and we would love to work with

the city on options for alternative revenue sources for subsidized low-income housing in the future

thank you ben

um thank you mayor mccarty council ben radersdorf uh again i want to echo everything that my

colleague michael said and other speakers but i really want to add two reflections one i do want

to stress that the city's strategy since 2015, which I would characterize as doing everything

we can, throwing the kitchen sink and whatever else, the windows, the tables, the countertops,

everything, at trying to build more housing, is working. In the last three years alone,

we have built more than 8,000 apartments in the Sacramento region, and rents are finally

declining, even with a huge influx of people still coming in. The supply-focused strategy

that you all have built, it is working.

Now, I do not believe, is a time to change strategy.

And then second, just a broader reflection, I think,

because part of the reason why affordability mandates

and fees like these feel so hard to talk about sometimes

is to me they're a policy that come from a very different context

and a very different time.

You know, Mayor McCarty, I know you've talked in the past

about how when you were first elected to city council,

you could buy a home in Natomas for less than $100,000,

which now today is the fees that we tend to charge on a new home being built.

So in that context, as sort of pre-2015 and especially a pre-2008 context,

housing was so abundant that we could afford to do things like require developers to set aside units in their developments for low-income people.

Because there was so much housing, there was plenty to go around.

That's no longer the problem that we face anymore, the sort of sprawl-focused,

You know we need to make sure that as we build out and out and out that lower income people are able to live in those new greenfield communities

Now we're trying not to do that anymore. We're trying to move in

We're trying to build up

We're trying to build dense and to do that

We really need to find ways to incentivize that not discourage it

I think the current policy really meets that strategy and I have so much appreciation for Greta and Greg and everybody else in staff

They've done a great job, and I I trust that we're gonna be able to land in a good place

Thank you next speakers Lewis then John

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council.

My name is Louis Marante.

I'm a D4 resident.

Aligning my comments with Ben and House Sacramento,

I always hate speaking after Ben because he's so convincing.

But I just want to emphasize that what we're doing in Sacramento really is working.

The inclusionary zoning fee that we're considering tonight or talking about tonight

is very well intentioned, but it's part of a policy package that simply has been shown to work,

not work around the country.

There are cities that do have successful inclusionary zoning programs.

Some cities, for example, in the Pacific Northwest,

choose to fund their inclusionary zoning through tax rebates.

That's something that's really challenging under California's constitution,

but we can explore legislation to do that through an enhanced infrastructure

financing district perhaps next year.

I think that's a really progressive step forward that actually works for many

in the development community and gets us those inclusionary units.

But to see in Sacramento the year-over-year rent decreases is just such an accomplishment.

I just want to highlight that.

Right now in the Bay Area and around most of California, rents are going up.

Here in Sacramento, rents are either staying flat or going down.

And against rising wages, that is an incredible policy accomplishment, delivering real affordability for Sacramento.

That's the type of policy that we should stay focused on.

The last thing I just want to highlight is that a recent Rand Corporation study found that the cost of building an apartment in California is 2.3 times the cost of building an apartment in Texas.

You can build 2.3 apartments in Texas for every apartment you can build with the same amount of money here in California.

The leading reason why is inclusionary zoning mandates like the ones that we're considering here tonight.

I heavily discourage you from pursuing that policy, again, unless it's something that we as a community decide to put some funding into to make real and to make work.

Thanks for your consideration.

John Vignocchi is our final speaker on this item.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is John Vignocchi, head of region business.

I'm here not really on behalf of my members.

I'm actually here on behalf of Everyday Sacramentans.

When we increase the cost of housing, we increase the price that people pay for housing.

If we decrease the cost of housing, we decrease the price of housing.

People, that's the price that people rent or pay for housing.

It's very simple and a competitive market.

So if you lower my costs, I will lower my prices.

And I think that's really important.

I keep seeing policies, kind of what I would call junk food policies, that sound appealing but are really bad for our collective health.

This is a perfect example of that.

It's really well-intentioned, but unfortunately it sounds great.

It might be good for voters to hear, but it's not good for their long-term health or the health of our community.

So we're here in strong opposition of not just this policy, but other policies like the bulky waste ordinance and the other thousands of

regulations that drive up the cost of housing and contribute to the 2.3 X Delta that

Lewis just referenced in Texas. I think it's really critical that we do something different here. And what we're doing now

focusing on the supply of housing is an increasing that supply is a proven formula that works. So

I look forward to partnering with you to find solutions that actually achieve the policy objectives that you'd like

like to, thank you.

Mayor, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you, that's our last public comment.

You know, this is an issue that I'm certainly well aware of.

In 1999, 2000 when the city first enacted

their inclusionary housing policy,

so I've watched this come and go

and I was part of the city council in 2015

when I think we made the right call

doing the in lieu fee citywide

as opposed to just in the new growth areas

because we had pretty much developed

all those new growth theories.

And I thought the approach having a tiered impact in 2015

was the right call.

I've been following of course the city council debating this

and looking at it.

I know that two years ago before three of us were on

the city council, prior mayor and council

had a discussion on this and sent city staff

to work on some scenarios.

I thought it was important for us to come back.

We have a third of the council that's new to hear this,

to hear our current policy, where we're at.

And I know we have some ideas on where we should go

or not go or stay the course and that.

So this tonight is not an action item.

We're not looking to make any changes,

but really hear the work that you put forward.

And I appreciate that.

And really talk about what we want to do going forward.

But I think the big picture is that I appreciate the comments that you made.

And our earlier action is that Sacramento is a pro-housing city.

I give kudos to our prior council, going back to our former council member, Hanson, when he was on the council,

led us to really step up and adapt these policies.

And I know when I was in the legislature, we voted on countless bills, on very difficult housing bills.

and my colleagues in Southern California always voted no.

They said, if we vote for this, we're going to get thrown out of office, they would say.

And I remember I kept calling at the time, the director at the time, Tom Pace.

I was like, hey, there's a new bill that's being debated here.

Just curious.

He said, oh, it wouldn't impact us.

I said, why?

He says, because we're already doing it.

We're already doing it.

So we led over and over, and I'm certainly proud of that,

and we just did something else tonight.

So the numbers that you illustrated, can you go back to those a couple?

There's two things I really wanted to ask you to zero in on.

The numbers as far as Sacramento per capita housing production versus other cities.

And that's over this four-year period.

And then as far as the affordable units one

So I don't have that graph up there but um Sacramento is number two in the percent of affordable as part of total housing production

so San Jose is is actually technically producing more affordable housing as part of their housing stock not overall

but we are producing a lot of affordable housing

in comparison in terms of total production.

And then could you help us understand,

so I think in, it was 2000 when the city adopted

the inclusionary housing policy, right?

So we hit it and I think did it go into effect

right away or a year later.

So roughly we had 14 or 15 years of that policy

and we've had nine since we changed that

in nine or 10 since 2015.

What's the comparison as far as production of housing

and affordable housing during those two time periods?

So in terms of housing overall,

I don't have the totals here,

but we are kind of following statewide trends.

I think we are a leader in our region

and among our peer jurisdictions of similar sizes

in terms of overall housing production.

In terms of affordable housing production

under each ordinance, we saw a pretty similar amount

in terms of the direct results of the ordinances.

So the affordable unit production as a result

of the ordinance under the prior ordinance

was 132 per year on average.

And then under our current ordinance,

we're looking at about 125 units per year on average.

Yeah.

And it's probably fair to say if we didn't make that change in 2015,

the affordable housing production would have dropped significantly because there

was no more new growth areas.

Natomas was mostly built out and we didn't start doing Delta Shores until

recently, correct?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And then just trying to understand,

And you said in some part of this,

you talked about the old recommendations.

So that was prior city council.

That means like so, but years ago you were looking at this.

And now, you know, economic conditions have changed, of course.

You know, we're having a struggle doing,

building new permits for major projects here.

So do those recommendations still stand

or are you just pointing that out to, just for the record,

that's what you proposed several years ago?

Yeah, we're just pointing it out.

The modifications that we presented today, the citywide fee removal of the housing incentive zone and the $0 rate and minor changes to the mixed income housing strategy is what we're recommending just due to having a more straightforward approach.

I think the fee under the InLU fee under the previous recommendation was a lot higher in some areas.

So, you know, this fee, I think, is reasonable in comparison to a lot of jurisdictions that we have looked at.

Current fee?

Well, the current fee is $3.56 per square foot.

And that is basically the same fee that Sacramento County has as well.

But, you know, if you go over to West Sacramento, for instance, their fee is a bit higher.

and a lot of the jurisdictions that we looked at,

their fees can range to be a lot higher.

So we feel that the $3.56 is actually a pretty reasonable fee.

So while it is an increase for certain areas of the city,

being the central city projects

and those housing incentive zone projects,

it would still be just the $3.56.

So your position is the current fee should stay the same?

I'm confused now.

Or is there adjustment that you're, this isn't an action I am tonight, but the work that you put forward is altering that or stay the course?

Yeah, we're recommending modifying the two exemptions that we have to the current fee rate.

So we currently have a housing incentive zone, those yellow areas on the map.

The fee rate is about half or a little less in those areas.

and we also charge $0 to projects that are high density.

So what we're proposing is to just remove those exceptions

to the fee, remove the housing incentives zone

and remove the $0 rate for high density projects

and have every project, every market rate project

that isn't providing affordable housing to pay that $3.

End of the fee?

Mm-hmm, 350.

Okay.

Okay, that's all my questions for now.

Thank you.

Council Member Guerra.

Thank you very much.

So first, let me just say I've watched this since I came on the council in 2015.

And before I came on, I was on the County Planning Commission watching, you know, what was happening.

And it was right at the beginning of the housing crisis and the bubble after it had popped.

and I want to spend most of my time just to say thanking staff for what we have done

and where we have moved over.

And I do think we, I want to again also thank, you know, former council member Steve Hansen

for a lot of these, you know, downtown projects and also Mayor Darrell Steinberg

who moved us on the first designation of the pro-housing designation

and my former colleague also Jay Shineer when we looked at Stockton Boulevard and how we

prioritize those areas that had not been invested in. But on the city side, we worked on improving

the planning development side. Even right now we're going through Streamline Sacramento,

but we went through a first iteration of that already and stepping down the planning process

as well so that not everything got held up a planning commission.

Sending strong market signals.

And even then, it was hard to convince people to go south in the southeast area and the

south area.

The incentive zones have worked.

They've helped encourage growth in areas where it's not happening.

Also, if you look at downtown, many people have come back to Sacramento and looked at

the central city and seen, wow, I don't remember how this much housing that's being on there.

because of the high density incentive zone.

So one, all of those things are to be recognized.

The fact that we're number two for affordable housing in San Jose

only because they have a lot more general fund and more,

they have all the Silicon Valley and tech money there to throw at this.

We've been doing this with good policy.

So I want to say that there's been a benefit here for the way we've approached it.

And one slide that wasn't shown here was from our annual, and I pulled this up from our annual housing element progress report 2024, and this one shows the type of production.

The old policy basically had above moderate, almost 80% of the production was above moderate, and very little for moderate, low deed restricted, and very low deed restricted.

And what we produce now in this policy, and I wish this report actually included it, was the diversity of what type of housing.

Not only more housing, more affordable housing, but the policies we've produced with the current system we have as produced for different income levels.

And that's the challenge you have.

We're either producing for extremely low income or those who can afford a four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath, three-car garage.

And I think where we are right now means we should stay the course.

More importantly, our own fee study here says that for rental housing, it's unfeasible.

And then even for the smaller type of homes, like starter homes, it's likely to be found infeasible.

And the only places where you can find it feasible is in the greenfield areas.

So, you know, one of the things that I think we need to continue to do here is I appreciate the work the staff has done on this, but I can't support removing the incentive zones in the south area.

Just this project alone that we voted on earlier today to try to get parcels of land, vacant land on Stockton Boulevard to become housing.

Those are a challenge.

And in Sacramento is different than some of these other cities because it's over a hundred year old city.

So every time you dig, you're going to find something new.

And that's a cost.

And that's not usually compared to when you just look at fees.

So we have to match those.

So my recommendation to my colleagues, just having seen where the success has been, and it's a credit to our staff and everyone involved and from the housing committee has been working together to figure out what works versus just, you know, what I would say dogma policy.

We should look at and question every policy.

So thank you for at least having us here.

But I think we're at the right spot right now.

Right now, even more so with the uncertainty, we had this discussion last year, and we said, let's not change anything because there's a lot of uncertainty.

Now we've got tariffs.

We still have concerns about lending.

We've got to make sure that we create the right signals to say, we want you to come on to these challenging lots, challenging areas, and redevelop these areas.

And so to do that, if we start sending confusing signals or uncertainty, then I know how difficult it was to lead a group of people to say, would you try to build in this area of Sacramento?

So to me, I think we need to stay the course.

I think removing the incentive zones in the south area I think are problematic.

I see that there are challenges in the north area.

I'd let my colleagues speak to that, but I think it's important that we continue where we're at and not change the policy that we've put together and spent the last 10 years actually getting to a pro-housing Sacramento.

With that, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Kaplan.

Thanks, Mayor.

I think what really struck me is the statistic now that the average age of somebody buying a home is now 40 years old.

I still live somewhat in the universe and hope that I bought my first house in 2001 at the age of 26, 917 square feet, two-bedroom, two-bath.

That's what we need for 20- and 30-year-olds now.

and I look at where Sacramento has been

and you look at where the inclusionary zoning was

as Natomas really took off in 98, 99

and you go through when you changed in 2015.

We took and built a majority of the affordable housing

and that's where it is, is in North Natomas.

But I think it's important when we look at changing it,

which, you know, when we had this discussion in December 23,

it was, okay, data has changed.

What does the new data say?

What does the market, you know, say?

And I always look at it of the goal is more affordable housing.

The goal is streamlining.

The goal is telling those who are going to come in and develop this,

here are the rules, here's how you can do it,

and here's how we can streamline,

because the faster you can build it, the more money you can save,

and how do we get more affordability in place?

And are the recommendations, you know, that the new analysis came up,

is it going to do that?

And so my question is not necessarily, like I've read this and we hear it

and I've looked at studies elsewhere.

I'm not sure the recommendations get us to the goal of where we want to go.

So I am where, you know, we are on the right course of where the mayor has said we're going

and where Mayor Pro Tem Guerra has said,

it's probably wise we stay the course,

not because I don't think that this is a good analysis

or these things might work.

I don't know if they're going to work.

But this is not the time where there is national uncertainty.

Financing is really hard to get.

Our homeless population is going up.

People have less money in their savings

and one car breakdown or health care cost,

which is going to go up exponentially from being on the streets.

So I'm of mind that this is probably right to kind of just let's set it on a table

because I don't believe in the no or let's kill it,

but is there new information, is there a new study that's going to come out

that says there's something different we can do

where we can take this piece and this is going to get us to our goal.

Specifically, one of the things, Seattle did a study,

and they looked at benefits of an incentive program for the multifamily tax exemption program,

and they found that they were able to build more affordable and multifamily projects with that.

So I want to look at, there are really smart cities.

I don't believe in reinventing the wheel,

but I don't think right now what is potentially being proposed is the right time to do that and

so can we just I don't want it to gather dust because I think this is an issue we have to

constantly look at what are we doing why are we doing and this is is this going to get us to our

goal of building more housing multifamily housing affordable housing for the younger generation

especially when we talk about the missing middle is this going to get us to the missing middle

and I don't see that connection.

It doesn't mean it's there.

I just don't see evidence that has been presented to me

that this is going to get us to that missing middle

and the goal of it.

So I want to keep open that possibility

that if you guys find something

that we could do differently in the city

that'll get us there to come back to us with that.

But what's been presented right now,

I don't think the time is to change things really

and a lot of it has to go with local factors,

but really national factors of just the cost of everything and the uncertainty of everything,

of what's going on.

But I will always add a caveat.

When we look at the housing production trends, I always believe there should be a little asterisk

because when you look in the early 2000s and you see gangbusters, that was really Natomas.

And then Natomas got hit with a flood moratorium, and nothing could be built from 2009 to 2015,

and that's why you see that huge dip.

But I think we're not doing a good job of telling that story when we look at housing production.

But for, while there was a downturn in the economy, but really but for the flood moratorium, we would have thousands more units already online in the city of Sacramento.

So I just, as we talk about it, want to make sure that caveat is always in there because people really don't understand the impact that the flood moratorium had on development of housing in Natomas.

But thank you.

Thank you for trying to think outside of the box.

Thank you for continuing to push Sacramento as housing first and affordability.

I just think we need to pause and keep what we're doing until we've got real hard evidence that something really works to get to the missing middle and the affordability.

So thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council Member Maple.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you for the presentation.

It's nice to get an update about this because it has been some time since we last discussed it.

And I think since I've been on the council, we've had at least a couple different discussions prior to the last analysis until now.

And so I think that's really helpful.

What I wrote in my notes here is top line, what we're doing is working.

When I hear you say that we are outpacing mostly everyone else in the state in terms of affordable housing production,

which is something that I actually like to brag about when I go, because I'm a nerd and talk about housing production all the time.

That's something I think is really important.

And it's due to what you all mentioned,

the work that this council has done,

the work that you all have done over the last several years

to make us one of the most progressive cities

in the United States of America in terms of housing production,

getting rid of barriers to producing dense housing

and field development, all kinds of stuff.

And more to come too.

There's so much that's on the docket.

And so I'm really proud of that and often get approached

by other council members and people in other cities

that come up to us and they're like,

oh, how'd you guys do that?

And I say, well, I didn't do anything.

You guys did it.

So I think that that's the most important message

that I'm seeing is we're doing something right here.

And that leads me to think

that we should allow more time for that,

for those policies that we've enacted

to show that progress,

to show the work that we've done,

to continue to see that.

And if we see, like we have been seeing,

that it is producing more,

that we're continuing to make that progress.

And I think that maybe we've hit the sweet spot, perhaps.

On the issue of some of the recommended changes,

I don't wanna belabor it

because I don't know where everyone's gonna go,

but I did have some concern

about getting rid of the incentive zones.

In particular, if you look at one of the incentive zones,

it's the entirety of my district

with the exception of like a small part of North Oak Park.

And so I know that we don't have enough

where it's really, really hard to get

to incentivize development in communities like District 5.

And so I would be really reticent

to see something like that go away

because my fear would be is that we would see that

come to a grinding halt and a place where we really,

really need to see more housing production in my view.

I also feel that way about removing incentives

for infill development.

I think that again, it was mentioned here

by many of the speakers.

I sit on the SACOG board and others

where we talk about all the time,

how do we get more infill development?

How do we make it less challenging?

Well, the answer is, you know, it's challenging because the infrastructure is hard, right?

We're asking developers to go in and build projects, but there's aging infrastructure, water, sewer, all the things that come along with that.

It's really tough.

And so, you know, my view is that we should be kind of going the opposite direction and finding more ways that we can incentivize infill development in particular.

And so I don't support removing the zero-dollar impact fees for infill.

and then I just want to say broadly you know I'm on the Board of State Cog along with Council

Member Jennings we recently received a presentation about housing development in the region so not

just in Sacramento County but the six county region and what we're seeing across the board

is that we're nowhere close to hitting those you know pre-Great Recession numbers we may never get

there again who knows but we are certainly not close we're getting it's getting better but we

still have a lot of work to do and so again that kind of leads me to believe

that instead of putting more restrictions in place or making it more challenging

or expensive to build we're gonna be that might lead us to a place where we're

actually getting a different outcome than we're hoping to because if there are no

projects being built that means that there's gonna be zero affordable units

as a part of that and then lastly this was mentioned by mayor pro tem but our

arena numbers if you look at our goals we are never meeting them we are not

alone. Mostly everywhere in the state is not meeting them, but that just tells me again,

we've got some work to do to keep making it an attractive offer for folks to come and build

housing in our communities. And then the last piece is on tariffs and costs, right? We,

Councillor Kaplan mentioned this, everybody's struggling. And so when we see that there are

these additional costs that are being added on all across the state and nationally, it's just

more of a reason for us to pause. And so that's kind of where I'm at. I'm thinking about all

these things in context. I do appreciate the update, but I'm really worried about making any

changes to our current ordinance, given just how the current market conditions and the success that

we're currently seeing. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Plekiewicz.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with everything my colleagues have said. I'm looking for

opportunities for us to reduce costs for housing.

If there's a strategy, Louis, that you have or anyone else that you think that we can

use to produce better mixed income projects, I know several of us up here are working on

other strategies to produce exactly that type of missing middle mixed income type of product.

But this one fundamentally is inequitable to ask new home purchasers to bear exclusively

the cost of affordable housing is not a strategy that I support.

And if there's a need for a motion for us to table this discussion, I'm happy to make that motion.

But I think I want to hear certainly from the rest of our colleagues before we do that.

But I think this is a good discussion.

I think we should check in on this periodically.

But I think right now is not the time to make changes.

Thank you.

Councilman Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

I think just to pick up on the point you made, Council Member Pluckybong, we still need,

and we really have not talked about this in the context of this conversation, we need

to find funding to help us build more affordable housing.

And I think we need to recognize that inclusionary zoning was not a device created simply for funding,

although that was, or producing units, that was an important and significant element of it.

It was also and is also designed to achieve economic integration of neighborhoods.

I think as I listen to us comment on this,

that it behooves us to think about this broader context

when we're talking about this particular issue.

I will say that I find agreement with my colleagues

on whether or not the incentive zones should be eliminated

or not, there are certainly areas of the city

where we would like to attract more housing production,

and to the extent that the incentive zones

have functioned in that regard,

I would wonder why we would want to abandon them.

But I also think that perhaps instead of thinking about

territory in the city geographically,

we ought to be thinking about where we want housing to occur

in context of our land use and transportation system.

And so maybe it would make sense to think about this topic

in connection with where we want to intensify housing

and bring it into concert with our transportation corridors to a greater extent than perhaps we do under the existing approach.

To some extent, we do this indirectly with this approach, with zero fee in the core, with the housing incentive zones.

But it perhaps isn't as tailored as it might be to get not just the housing incentivized that we'd like to see,

but get it more strategically where we want it in connection with our transportation system as well.

And that, of course, has climate benefits that we all recognize.

So I think the elements that we have to continue, in my mind, to look at, and so I would not favor taking some sort of definitive action tonight personally,

but the elements we need to continue to look at is how we achieve a set of goals

and how we don't see this mixed income housing ordinance in isolation

from what we're doing otherwise with respect to housing policy.

As several have, speakers and council members alike have noted,

we're seeing some success with what the council has decided on in policy

and deserves credit and recognition for that,

to be ahead of the curve compared to state legislation in many cases,

as the mayor referred to.

We need to see it also, though, in the context of how do we get to an equation

that works to serve the multiple goals that we have.

And I think that it is interesting to look at Seattle, at Portland, at other places,

where the suggestion is that if there are, it's called funding, but if there are sufficient,

I'll call them offsets to the dedication requirements, whether they are by inclusion or by in-lue fee,

that approach may work.

And so rather than simply say,

no, we don't want to think about that or consider that,

I would prefer to leave this subject open,

at least for that further investigation and examination.

I don't think the case has been made

to make a change right now

with respect to what the city's ordinance provides.

But I do think that unless we are considering

how we get to the ultimate configuration that we want,

which is economically integrated neighborhoods

that provide opportunities at the beginning and the middle

and the upper end, at all those stages,

we aren't going to truly be as successful

as we wanna be as a community.

So from that standpoint, I wanna express

the appreciation I have for the work the staff has done,

which I think is extraordinary,

for the commentary of those who have given us their perspective on this.

But I think it's something we ought not to walk away with thinking somehow that if we simply say stay where we are,

that we are going to get the results that we ultimately want to see.

I think we need to continue to evolve to look at the factors

that affect the outcomes and figure out what are the best ways

to use those factors to get to the outcomes

that we'd like to see.

Because I don't think there's disagreement about the outcomes

by and large, but I think there's a lot of work

that we still need to do to figure out what's the best way

to get there.

Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor Talamantes.

I think Council Member Dickinson framed it really well.

It's how do we achieve our housing goals, our transportation goals, our climate change goals.

You know, people don't live single-issue lives.

The wages that people make in Sacramento is impacting the rents.

The wages that people make in Sacramento is impacting the housing market.

People can't afford to buy a house anymore.

Now you need dual income.

And so there's a lot of factors at play here when we think about the region's problems.

For me, I said this last time, I want a low-income family to live next to a high-income family.

If that's someone getting a 3,000-square-foot home next to a 900-square-foot home, that's my goal.

And that's what I hope that the development community, the business community continues to try and achieve.

I know that there's a few creative minds out there that are coming to city council saying, hey, I'm sorry this idea doesn't work, but this is the idea that I propose.

And that's what we need more of.

We need more people coming to city council to say this is what we can do to achieve these goals, not the ideas that we can't.

We've got to get creatively here in Sacramento.

So, as I said, just I want low-income families to live next to high-income families so that they are on the same soccer team, so that they use the same grocery store, so they go to the same schools, the same parks.

And that economic integration that Council Member Dickinson said is just a key element for me.

So, to the business community, please help us achieve this.

Thank you, Council Member Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to speak to the staff just real quick because I want to thank you for what you have done and what you're trying to do.

I think we all appreciate what we're trying to do.

And I also want to thank the speakers because what they told us is that what we're doing in Sacramento is working.

And when you see that it's working, it means that you've got to stay the course and see if you can build on it incrementally

so that it can continue to achieve.

We were number two, whereas we could be number one, right?

But being number one and number two is not a bad position to be in.

I wanted to make sure we stayed a course,

especially within the economy that we're in right now.

We definitely all want to keep the incentive zones.

We want to keep doing what we're doing.

And so I'm in favor of what's already been said.

I'm not going to repeat it all because I think my colleagues have said it well.

let's just keep moving in that direction and build incrementally so that we can get to the goals that we have of increasing the supply of housing for everyone.

Thank you. Council Member Vang.

Thanks, Mayor. I think I have very similar comments, but maybe a little bit different.

First, I just want to say thank you to staff for working really hard and getting us to this point.

And I know that what is before us, we're not voting on, but the goal is to really to continue having a conversation around our mixed income housing ordinance.

And, you know, the goal of this is at the end of the day for me is to increase the amount of affordable housing built in the city and to ensure integration.

I heard that from Councilmember Dickinson and also Vice Mayor Talamantes.

And yes, as we're looking at the ordinance, we also have to make sure that we do this in a way that also doesn't constrain the overall housing production.

So I definitely hear folks from our developers as well, so just want to hold space for that and appreciate them sharing their insight on this.

You know, for me in particular, I just want to say, and very similar to Councilwoman Kaplan, when she talked about how she was in her 20s and she was able to buy a house and how that dream right now in this moment is so hard for millennials and Gen Z and younger folks.

And I know that so many of our working families and young professionals can't purchase a home, even in this market.

I know I took a tour of Delta Shores earlier last year with my staff as a councilwoman,

and I thought to myself, even as a councilwoman, I can't purchase the home as I'm doing a tour of the site.

And my staff is walking around loving brand new homes, but realizing that their income isn't enough to even purchase the home

and that the majority of these folks that are purchasing these homes are coming from the Bay Area

and that families in Sacramento can't afford these homes.

And that's the reality here in Sacramento.

I think oftentimes we say we leave it to the market, but housing is a human right and it shouldn't be left to the market.

And that is where government plays a role in creating guardrails and a framework to figure out how we can fund more affordable housing.

I mean, that's the reason why we are revisiting this, because we're trying to figure out how do we actually fund more affordable housing.

and yes we may be producing more housing per capita but many of our families here still can't

afford those homes and that's just is the reality so I do appreciate this conversation because I do

think that it's you know yes we're stay the course but we need to have that conversation about how

we're doing as a city and while yes we may be building more homes many of these families can't

for the homes that we're building here in Sacramento.

What I will say though,

perhaps in terms of the recommendation,

I don't support the removal of high density though,

I will say that.

I think it's been really helpful for Sacramento.

I think it's been really good because this is about

offering the opportunity for developers

to build more housing infill

and I think it's been really good for Sacramento.

So I don't support the removal of the high density.

I think that's been really good.

But I do support, I think requiring a minimum of 10%

for affordable housing.

And I say that because, you know,

at the end of the day for me,

this is about creating a city framework

where we can set aside more funding for affordable housing.

If our neighboring cities can do it,

we can do it too as a city.

And again, this is, again, for me,

it's about creating that framework as a city

to be able to have funds set aside

to incentivize more affordable housing

in the city of Sacramento.

Do we leave it to the market?

If we leave it to the market,

we may never get to the affordable housing stock

that we would like to see, and I just want to name that.

Or maybe it's the mayor's ballot initiative.

I don't know, I know he's working on one as well, right?

And, you know, when we say what we're doing is working,

I think I often think about what we are doing

is working for whom, right?

And that's a question that we have to ask ourself.

And so I wouldn't want to, you know,

end this conversation or say, hey, let's table this,

but I do think it's important for us to revisit.

You know, and if it's a no vote from the majority of the council, then it's a no vote and we can come back later.

But I do support, you know, setting aside a certain percent minimum for affordable housing.

I think that would be important.

I just wanted to name that, just put that on record.

And I do appreciate staff's hard work to get us back here and to have this conversation because, you know,

we are living in really, really difficult times for so many of our families.

And I think at the end of the day, this is really about integration, making sure that families who are low income can truly continue to live here in the city of Sacramento.

So those are my comments.

Thank you, Council.

This was a workshop.

There's no action item, but you want us to receive and comment and provide direction.

So it was crystal clear the majority or supermajority consensus was to stay the course.

and I also support that as far as our existing policy.

But more importantly is how do we keep coming back

with our pro-housing, not just a designation

to give us a couple extra points at HCD grant opportunities,

but policies.

I thank the council from years ago

and in the last couple years.

I know council members Maple and Garrett,

the entire council have been working

on how we can focus on this missing middle.

And I really say that, I know Council Member Kaplan talked about this.

I mention this all the time.

I was a young person in Sacramento, my mid-20s in 1999,

bought a house for an amount that when I tell that amount to young people today,

they literally want to punch me in the face.

And it's just unfair.

It's unfair.

I look at that in 1999 when I bought my first house,

the median home price was $161,000 in Sacramento County.

House that I bought was $35,000 less than that in Tahoe Park.

And that same dollar at today's dollars would be $305,000.

And if I ask somebody in their mid-20s today,

including staff who work for us at City Hall,

who make decent salaries,

if they would jump at the opportunity

to purchase a house at $305,000,

even with interest rates at the 6% rate,

they would jump all over it.

And so I really know that it strains me

to see where this generation is,

not just on home ownership,

the number about, I've heard the number across the nation

that the average price of a homeowner

is now 40 years old, and that's daunting.

I think we're missing a whole generation of people.

I'm afraid we're going to lose people in other areas too.

So it's an area that we have a lot of work to do.

And I know it was stated earlier,

but I think he left earlier,

our representative from Sac Yimby House Sacramento,

that if you look 25, 30 years ago,

the price of a new home in North Atomos and Elk Grove,

and the new growth areas,

the price was less than the fees

that individuals are paying at the counter today

to build that house.

So we need to be mindful of that as well, not just streamlining, but focus on this production issue.

It's the issue of the day.

So we do have consensus to stay the course.

City Manager Milstein.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I hope I mesh with where you're going with this.

I think that we have heard loud and clear to stay the course with where we are right now.

and unless we get some other specific policy direction from council,

one of the things that we're going to be doing is bringing back our housing element in 29,

which necessitates work starting in 27.

And so maybe that is where we start to consider what has changed,

what are we seeing in other jurisdictions,

what might we as a city want to consider at that point,

but consider this our current status quo,

where we are for now until such time as we reach that update of the housing element.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes this item. Next item.

Mayor, we now move to Council comments, ideas, questions, and AB123 reports.

Council Member Maple.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I have a couple of things. But first I want to start off with something. Feel good.

I wanted to take this moment along with my colleagues here to thank our interim city manager, Lainey Milstein, for her tireless efforts over the last year as our interim city manager.

I believe this will be your last meeting in that role until our new city manager starts, I believe, on January 5th.

But I just wanted to give her a round of applause.

It's been a joy working with you.

And of course, she's not going anywhere.

So this is not a good buy.

This is, but I did want to make sure that we acknowledge the work that you put in during

a pretty tumultuous time for us as a city.

We're going through a budget deficit.

We've had a lot of challenges and you have just shown that you're a wonderful leader.

I think that you've kept a wonderful team around you during difficult times and that

speaks a lot to your character.

So just wanted to thank you so much.

a small token of our appreciation.

We also have more to come,

but this is from all of us on this council.

Just wanted to thank you.

I don't know if you had anything you wanted to say.

I just want to say thank you to this council

for this opportunity.

When I had a chance to talk to the council on January 7th

and they said, why do you want to do this?

And I said, I don't.

But it has been an odyssey.

It has been such a learning experience.

It has been a privilege and a pleasure.

And I appreciate the opportunity to get to know all of you and especially want to thank my team who may be still listening, although they're running for the hills.

That's a smart thing to do for all of their support through this year.

I think we have done a great job.

My goal was to leave this city better than I found it.

And I think I hope I have accomplished that in your eyes.

I think that I have.

And just thank you for this opportunity.

It's been great.

Hear, hear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before other ideas and comments,

just on this notion,

we do have a new city manager

coming on the 5th of January,

but we're in a much better place

because of the past year.

Thank you for helping lead

a city of 5,000 employees.

I think it was pretty seamless

for the entire city council,

but especially for me.

In my first year as mayor, I appreciate you.

And I think a job well done.

And you're not going anywhere.

We have a lot of work for you to do as the chief assistant city manager.

And thank you.

And get back to work in that job.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I don't know if anyone else has to chime in.

I probably should have ordered my comments differently.

But now I have to switch to something else.

I'll just say, you know, we forgot to recognize her as also, you know,

and I think I see Ryan Henry in the room.

also fire chief

so assistant city manager

fire chief

and city manager

in the roles.

Finance director, right.

Before we do ideas, questions, one, two, three

reports. Anybody else have any comments?

You'd like to chime in here on our city manager.

Lainey, what was your starting position at the city of Sacramento?

Principal budget analyst.

And now city manager.

You did a wonderful job this year.

Thank you so much for all you've done.

I appreciate you.

Mr. Jennings.

Laney and I go way back.

Laney knew my wife long before she ever had the opportunity to work with me.

And my wife and I both want to let you know in every position that you've ever had, you've done a great job.

And you proved that in this job as well.

And so we just want to wish you the very best as you go forward.

We are always here to support you and

thank you again for stepping up when we needed it the most.

Okay, council member Dickinson.

You know, it's always a

learning experience to come to a new institution in whatever capacity and

And I would just say as a rookie on the city council,

I have very appreciated, Lainey, the help you have given me,

the support you have given me during the course of this year.

You have made the adjustment to sitting in this chair easier

and have given me an opportunity to, through our conversation,

understand a lot of the city's way of working,

which each institution is unique.

And that's been of great assistance to me.

So I very much appreciate the personal help

and the help you've given the city.

Thank you.

Back to ideas, comments, one, two, three reports.

Council Member Dickinson.

I had one intact on, but I can go later.

Yes.

Okay, so I'll make it really brief.

I probably should have gone first on this, but it is my commitment to myself and you all that I am trying hard to make sure that in the various roles that I've been appointed to, thanks to the mayor, that I am communicating with my colleagues about what I'm doing in those roles.

And so recently participated in the California League of Cities board meeting that was in Palm Springs last week.

And we were able to do our priority setting workshop for the year.

So I just wanted to update you all on what those priorities are and what the League of Cities is going to be working on in the next year.

So those four priorities are to protect and enhance local revenues and expand economic development tools.

Strengthen partnerships with the state to improve public safety.

Secure investments to prevent and reduce homelessness and increase the supply of affordable housing.

and then strengthen climate change resilience and disaster preparedness.

So those are really, really big buckets,

but those will also be broken down over the course of some of the policy

subcommittees, some of which I also serve on.

But I wanted to update you that that's where the advocacy will be focused on

for the next year, both in the state legislature and in Congress.

And if you ever have any questions about what's going on in the league,

I'm more than happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

It's really a busy time.

I'm sure it is in every neighborhood, but especially in North Sacramento.

And I just can't let some of this go by without mentioning some of these.

So if you want to plant a tree, we've got tree planting opportunities for you,

beginning with this Saturday at Robert Brookings Park.

We'll be supporting the neighborhood and Yipsy from 9 to noon and planting trees there.

And once you get done there, then you can go over to the old historic North Sacramento school,

which this council put on the historic register last year from noon to three for live music artists

to get an idea of what the plans are and thoughts are for repurposing the old North Sacramento school

and for many years the North Sacramento School District Administration building.

On the 14th, if you just got a party down,

the Benito Warriors Foundation is presenting its 11th annual Christmas Posadas at 3621 Dayton

Street so that's from noon to five something to to enjoy and at the Hagenwood Community Center

on the 17th we're from six to eight we've got we've got the fire department with a fire truck

coming we got Santa coming we got good times we got Coco we got we got it all going on so

So please join us if you like.

Then, since you've been filled up with all this good stuff,

you're back to you need some exercise, you need some work,

you want to plant a tree,

Friday morning, December 19th at Mama Marks Park.

We're going to be out from 9 to noon planting trees there with the neighborhood.

So those are just, there's some more events,

but I'm going to forego the balance of them

because I know I've exhausted you all with what we're going to be doing.

So thanks and happy holidays.

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

It is the season, so we want to make sure every Sacramento resident

has the opportunity to float around the city and have fun for the holiday season.

This Thursday and Friday, Santa's going to be completing night three

and night four on the fire truck in North Natomas and in Robla. So between 5 and 8.30,

actually 5.30 and 8.30, if you hear engines or police sirens, Santa is coming to a park in your

neighborhood. Come on out and say hi. And then on Sunday from 11 to 3 p.m. at the North Natomas

Regional Park, if you've missed Santa, Santa is pulling up and will be camped there for four hours

for our winter wonderland.

We're going to have free ice skating.

There's going to be foods.

You need last minute gifts.

Many of our Natomas vendors will be there.

Fun food, family food,

as well as a wine bar for your parents

that need a little sanity break

from the holiday season.

So come on out and enjoy this wonderful season

and wishing everybody Merry Christmas,

Happy New Year, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah,

whatever you celebrate.

May it be full of joy.

Best of us.

Council Member Vang.

Thanks, Mayor.

Just a few announcements.

I want to take this moment to just say congratulations to Antioch Progressives Church for their 40th anniversary this year.

This weekend, they actually have a lineup of several events to celebrate the 40th anniversary.

And on Friday, from 5 to 8 o'clock, they are having a meet and greet, followed by a banquet on Saturday.

and then their 40th anniversary Sunday worship.

So just really wanted to take this time to say congratulations to them.

And if you live in the Meadowview area, stop by the church.

And then also just wanted to let folks know that this Friday as well,

there will be the Del Real Trail beautification event from 9 to 11.

That's shared by both me, Coach Jennings, and also Councilwoman Maple as well.

But the Meadowview Urban Tree Project, Rewild Sacramento, and City's Yipsy team is going to be mulching and also checking on our wildflower patch.

So bring your gloves, waters, and tools, and come join us.

It should be fun, 9 to 11 this Friday.

And then next week, next Friday, December 19th from 6 to 8, is Metal Lights in the View at the Pinnell Community Center.

Come enjoy holiday lights, hot chocolate, popcorn, lots of prizes.

And this is a free community event to all.

Thank you.

Council Member Talamantes.

Thank you, Mayor.

So if you know me, you know that I just love the holidays.

I'm basically an elf sent from the North Pole to Sacramento to spread holiday joy.

So I just want to thank my staff, Monica, Kayla, Eduardo, and my husband for putting up with me and everything that I want to do for Sacramento during the holidays.

from tree lightings, a bunch of them, to Santa Natomas, which is this week,

along with the door decorating contest tomorrow.

City staff, if you're watching, come by 12 to 2.

We have a lot of special stuff for you upstairs on the fifth floor.

And we're hosting a posada at the Taco Plaza.

So I'm really excited for the next weeks to come and just wishing everybody happy holidays.

Thank you.

Council Member Guerra.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, I want to wish a happy holidays.

And right now happening as we speak, the Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association is having their annual holiday party.

So everybody in Tahoe Park, all my neighbors, happy holidays, Feliz Navidad for everyone over there.

Mayor, I also have sadly an adrenant memory to close our meeting out today.

And Madam Clerk, if you have the photo, I'd love to be able to post it up.

A very cheery photo of our dear friend, Rosie Gaitan.

Today we adjourn our meeting in the memory of Rosie Gaitan, a proud Sacramento, someone who passed away this Friday.

Rosie was born in August 30th, 1953, to a Mexican migrant farmworking family here in Sacramento and in our agricultural area.

You know, she helped raise her young siblings.

Her parents were working all day.

And in that time in high school, she was hired by the Sacramento Concilio.

And this is an organization that many of our small business owners at that time wanted to make sure that traditions and the voice of the Chicano and Mexican-American community were heard.

she at that time became the director and the communication director of this bilingual television program called Progreso.

And this was at a time when there was a lot of pushback for the community,

and particularly Spanish-speaking communities at that time.

And even through that, Rosie broke barriers.

She became the first Latina to be an anchor for ABC10 here.

and many times known for pushing back on her own station to making sure that they were covering critical issues of the community,

sometimes that were overlooked.

As a reporter, she was seen marching alongside and interviewing the United Farm Workers

and marching alongside Cesar Chavez and Dolores Buerta,

making sure that that history in Sacramento in the 70s as people were coming here and in the 80s,

that that message was being heard.

Her husband was a veteran, and, you know, Council Member Dickinson and I know how much Rosie was involved in the auxiliary for VFW Post 67, making sure that we were honoring those veterans.

and very connected to the history of Sacramento and the El Soldado Project,

also reminding folks how many of the Mexican mothers had lost their children in World War II and in other wars

and had been forgotten about their struggles.

And also having seen so many veterans come back and not being recognized for their service,

she became extremely involved in VFW Post 67.

She also served as treasurer for the California Mexican American Memorial Foundation and became the vice president of the Mexican American Hall of Fame for sports.

And this sports association to encourage young people to be active.

Many of them couldn't afford equipment.

And so in her retirement age, she was out there continuing to serve.

You know, most of I remember Rosie in our church organizing the All Hallows Cultural Festival.

Rosie always wanted to have a community that everybody was welcomed in.

And and I deeply miss her.

And I and I know all of us will.

And with that, Mayor, I want to adjourn the memory on behalf of Rosie.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Well said. I remember her fondly and also share our condolences to her and her family.

I remember her son over there at the Capitol. And, you know, thank you for your words. Thank you.

Public comments?

Mayor, I have nine speakers for matters not on the agenda. So I'll call up a few names.

Amanda M.

Chris Sarcona.

John Vignocchi.

Jeanette Mowak.

Following Janet is Namri, Bence, Janelle Moog, Jackson Mills.

Amanda.

Hello again.

I feel like this is some deja vu because I'm coming back to speak about the same ongoing issue regarding the free speech zone.

Unfortunately, there has still been an escalation of police presence and police harassment behind

the John Moss Federal Building.

Currently right now as we speak, the police are parked out there staring at the protesters,

which is something they have started to do regularly, where one officer will come and

then call for backup and multiple officers will stand there and watch the protesters.

They have continued to cite the same vague laws to try and shut down the protesters'

rights to speak.

Previously, I spoke and said that they had come and said that our use of the megaphones

were in a violation of some random code.

And they had said our music was fine.

And this time, just last week, they came out and said that even the music we were playing

was not allowed.

They have

reduced the area we can stand.

They have reduced the volume

at which we can speak.

So how are we supposed to protect

our First Amendment right

when everything we do

to express it is being

restricted further and further?

That is all. Thank you.

Thanks, Peter. Chris?

Piggyback

on that.

I see Roger here is very concerned about a car wash amount of noise, but not to actually investigate to see if that noise violations that they keep changing the rules on is important or not.

They've literally cited to me that 45 decibels is the limit, and anything above that is concerned malicious.

Your average human voice speaks at 50 to 60 decibels.

So they're clearly just making something up there.

A lot of talk has happened tonight about how you're trying to figure out ways to cut costs and reduce construction fees.

I could think of some.

Make it so your average people in Sacramento aren't afraid to go out, aren't afraid to go and get labor.

Day labor is one of the biggest expenses for construction.

And you can imagine the people who typically do that kind of labor aren't exactly prone to be out in the streets right now.

So why don't you keep that in mind?

John Vignocchi.

Good evening again.

I wanted to address the council again to discuss something.

It's going to be a little uncomfortable, so I apologize.

But it's about the upcoming budget battles.

I know that we have a $70 million gap

that we're trying to close.

And personal thing, I think we're pushing on string here,

thinking that we can increase taxes.

I just think politically,

you'll do your own polling on these things,

but I just think we're at a point now

where reflexively California citizens

are just gonna vote no on any sort of tax increases.

I feel this, I feel like we need to do a better job

of spending the money that we do collect.

And so I just wanted to list off some ideas,

which we're probably gonna offend some folks

in the room here and just in the city in general.

But one thing that probably is not controversial is we really need to offload

our homeless spending.

You guys are doing an amazing job dollar per person served and it's not even in

your mandate. The reason why that is,

is because the resources are not where the problem is the problems in your,

your front doors and you guys are trying to solve it with limited resources.

And we really need to offload like $30 million out of your general fund to the

county. The county needs to be stepping up to help close that gap.

I think things like the CWTA increasing the cap from $1 million to $25 million to $30 million is not anti-labor.

This is still prevailing wage work, but it increases the competition in the marketplace when you have a higher cap.

So you have union shops and non-union shops competing, and you can still choose the union shops.

Our brothers in the building trades do amazing work.

Nobody will fault you for choosing a union shop with a higher cap, but it's about cutting off the competition.

I think that's an important thing.

I absolutely love our police department.

I go out of my way to thank them for the tough work that they do.

But I do think that we do have a recruiting issue here at the city.

The sheriff, I think, is doing a good job of increasing that.

But if we outsource that to the sheriff, we could save $50 million.

You know, these are ideas, outsourcing residential trash pickup, contracting out more services.

Doing that creates more surpluses to give you more capital to invest in the things that you guys want to do,

like an affordable housing fund or discretionary funds for your district.

So I just wanted to get that out there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Janet.

I always get up here and I always forget what I'm going to talk about.

I get so nervous, but I'm doing a little bit,

try to do as fast as I can because you guys,

I've known about a long day and I appreciate you guys being here and I love to

absolutely love the police department to sex share.

I'm in the South there and I used to be in the North there.

They're awesome to the North area police department,

but I'm actually here on behalf of Nancy.

She's, she lives in hotel Barry.

I came here, gosh, I'm trying to hurry up to get to the main point here.

I spoke on it before, and you guys were asking to help assist an investigator to come out to Hotel Berry to, you know, see what the problem was.

You know, it's still an ongoing problem with the livable, unhabitable.

Oh, my God.

Now they have no working fire detectors, fire alarms, the fire panels, I guess, took a crap.

It's not working.

I don't even have a fire escape access.

Yeah, right now what I'm really concerned about because I come here all the time to

help you know the older people you know and help assist you know as much as I can.

I was like what I could try to do for them I can't do much of anything but report this

and we have a city you know the city code enforcement they we have a case number and

everything but nobody's been out there but what's really concerning as of today

right now and in the last couple nights they haven't had my sister pictures

right now videos of the you know the fire when it says there's a fire it

blinks and it's going off in her unit and there's no no way there was a fire

to go you know happen there's no way of being warned to get out.

I thought we had a false alarm where the at 1 30 in the morning and the

the elevator. Jeanette are you done speaking? Nancy's our next speaker. There's no access for us to get out.

Yeah so just concerned about the rats and the roaches and the bedbusters still a big problem.

And asbestos and black mold. Thank you Jeanette. And our next speaker is Nancy. Nancy did you want to come up to the

lectern and speak. I live on the fifth floor. I'm in a hallway where the closest access

to a ladder is through two doors and two left. I can't open my windows without assistance.

I'm supposed to have IHSS employee to come in and help me clean.

I have to do all of it myself.

My new case manager still has not done nothing for me.

This place is a human kennel.

It's not fit for humans, let alone animals.

There are a lot of people that have such a bad infestation of cockroaches.

When I moved in there, this was supposed to be only for one year until they found me permanent housing.

I have a high, I'm allergic to bed bugs and takes, you know, pests.

And that room was not properly cleaned.

And there had been bed bugs in there.

When I moved in, I asked them specifically, no bed bugs.

They said no.

there were no bed bugs which was a lie. Not only do we have four laying rats, we

got two laying rats that work for the people. There have been thefts, my tablet, a lot of my stuff.

Nancy, your time's up but we have our city staff will get the name and member in the back and we'll follow up.

Thank you. You can go to the back of the room. Thank you.

Have a good holiday everybody. Thank you. Next speaker. Next speaker is Jackson Mills.

Then Jay. Good evening guys. I'm here in regards to the free speech zone which is

ridiculous because I'm confused is this America or like Germany. And I say that

because SAC PD has harassed us every single effing day since last time I was

here. And last time I was here, as I was speaking to you guys, I can't make this up. They were out

there harassing our comrades that were holding down the fort because we're trying to hold them

accountable because what they're doing is inhumane to our family. And all the privilege is just so

real here with the happy holidays. Like I really wish those families weren't being torn apart.

And I'm out there trying to use my first amendment right on behalf of them and your guys' police

Department, the KKK, is out there every day harassing us. I got a ticket for

malice noise or whatever the hell they're saying. I got the ticket. I wasn't even

out there for five minutes the day I decided not to be a legal observer

because I'm so emotional over this. And you guys should be too. This is so

ridiculous. This is Germany. They're taking our signs during the day. Why? To

intimidate us, to silence us. Like come on guys, like help us. It's, I'm telling you

right now, if you guys don't help us, someone's gonna get hurt. One of your

community members that you care about will get hurt. I guarantee you that. Yeah.

A college, college, college, disabled, now I have a ticket to pay for, you know, on

On my record, no big deal, right?

No big deal.

I have two more speakers, Jay, then Liberty.

Good evening, council members.

What a great time of year, right?

Christmas lights, the presents, spending time with family.

It's the most important, right?

Well, I'm here to speak for those who can't come to the podium, for the citizens of Sacramento

who can't tell you that celebrating Christmas with their families won't be happening because

their families are being ripped apart, like what happened on Marconi Ave a week ago.

I don't know if any of you heard of that.

Yeah.

Now, I know that's something that you don't have complete control of.

not many of us here do with the current economy and the state of the U.S. in general,

but the community still cares about each other. They still care about their fellow human beings.

And so we've been out there for two months now protesting, trying to get these families back

together because nobody else is. You know that this is wrong. You know that the levels that

they're taking is inhumane. It's barbaric. It's unacceptable. People should not be getting ran

over because they believe that keeping families together with due process in the right way,

it's ridiculous. So the least that you can do for us who are out there, the community members who

taking it into their own hands to try to, you know, fix this issue or help or something.

The least that you can do is get Sacramento PD to stop harassing us out there.

Okay.

We're out there making noise, making it known to our other fellow community members of what's

happening so that they know what's happening in their backyard.

Okay.

Please.

That's all we ask.

free speech zone and make SACPD accountable. Thank you for your comments. Liberty will be our final speaker tonight.

Hi, just to amend something that my friend Jackson was saying.

When we were saying somebody's going to get hurt,

SACPD is sending pretty escalatory people to speak with us when they do.

Not every time, but like two-thirds of the time it's usually a pretty like frustrating experience.

And while we have like random people showing up all of the time, it's eventually, it's a proven fact that when you act in these escalatory ways that it's more likely to create conflict situations.

Let's think about how much it costs to have SAC PD come out and mess with our signs that we're going to make more signs in the next day anyways.

What is the point of harassing us for doing this?

We're not even protesting anything the city is doing.

We're protesting the federal government.

So why are we the enemy here?

We're on the same side, basically.

This is a sanctuary city.

There is no reason for there to be a tension between us in the first place,

but there is, and it's mostly because SAC PD won't stop.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes our public comments.

You have no more business to come before the council.

Thank you.

This is our last meeting of 2025.

Wish everybody a happy holiday and happy new year,

and we'll see you the first Tuesday in January.

Journey in memory of Rosie Gaetan.

Thank you.