Fire code, we cannot have people standing in the aisles.

Okay.

Please call the meeting to order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This meeting is called to order at 52 p.m.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Councilmember Pleckybaum.

Councilmember Maple.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Gata.

Here.

Council Member Jennings.

Here.

Councilmember Vang.

Here.

And Mayor McCarty.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Okay.

We have Councilmember Dickinson.

Uh lead us in the pledge and land acknowledgment.

Please rise as you're able.

For the opening acknowledgement and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Mewalk, and Patwin Winton.

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 acknowledgment and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you, and please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flags of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God and liberty and justice.

Nothing to report out.

Thank you.

And before we proceed, Mayor, uh, with your special presentations, if I will, we are going to reorder the agenda.

We're going to take item number three first.

That's the MOU between the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Zoological Society.

We'll then take item four, Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure.

Then we will move to item one, um, a public hearing, and um, which is floor and road quick quack, and then item two, a third party appeal for Isle Hamburg Redevelopment Project.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Let me repeat that.

We're going to take item three.

So the discussion calendar, item three, then item four, then we're gonna take item one and item two.

Thank you.

So Zoom and Housing Home.

So we now move to special presentations.

The first is Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Denim Day, presented by Councilmember Kaplan.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, this is sexual assault awareness month and denim day.

A community's character is measured by how strongly it stands with those with dignity, safety, and rights to those who have been infringed on viol uh by the violence of others.

So 34 years ago in Italy, an 18-year-old woman bravely sought justice after being sexually assaulted by her driving instructor.

Despite his conviction, the Italian Supreme Court overturned the case, claiming that because she wore tight jeans, she must be complicit and asked for that assault.

In response, the women of the Italian parliament wore denim to show solidarity with the with the victim and oppose that decision, sparking an international movement.

So that is why I am proud that many of my colleagues have joined me in wearing denim today to stand with survivors and reject the dangerous myth that sexual assault is ever caused by what someone is wearing.

As the mother of two girls, should my girls get blamed for the assault by what they're wearing.

Should I get blamed because my top might be a little too low?

We need to change the narrative that it is okay to sexually assault somebody by what they're wearing.

And so this story is the significance of sexual assault awareness month.

It is an important reminder that whenever institutions fail women and girls and excuse abuse.

It is our responsibility to examine those systems of power and restructure them to deliver victims accountability.

So during this time, it is critical also to highlight and celebrate the transformative impact of advocates working on the front lines of sexual assault response here in our communities and support those that serve in the most vulnerable moments of the victims that come to them.

So today we are proud to honor the incredible work of Weave, the sole recognized rape crisis center for the city and county of Sacramento.

Rape crisis centers are unique institutions required to provide confidential victim advocacy 24-7 support line, 24-7 sexual assault response team, free counseling, and other critical services.

Weave's 24 sexual assault response team is staffed by trained counselors who meet the California Evidence Code requirement.

That's important, which ensures survivors' communications remain confidential and protected.

Last year alone, we've answered 721 assault related calls, supported 285 survivors during forensic medical examinations, and provided counseling to the 302 primary and secondary victims of sexual assault.

Their new state of sexual assault resource, which will be published at the end of the month, provides key insights into local trends, essential information for victims on services available to them, and the unique standards for rape crisis centers.

So today we have the honor of being joined by Weave's CEO, Beth Hassett, and Weave COO, Alison Kephart.

And before inviting them to give remarks, come on up, I'd also like to thank the representatives and have them join of two other amazing organizations who are also here with us who stand and help victims of violence and sexual assault and rape and trafficking.

So Christine Wynn from C who's the CEO of my sister's house come up and stand with Beth, as well as Joyce Ballou, who is the CEO of Sacramento Regional Families Justice Center.

So as we gather here, let's endeavor to recommit ourselves and the city towards working to eventing ending violence and excuses that those make to uh excuse their assault and victimization of those that they have power over.

Beth.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Kaplan, Mayor McCarty, and City Council members.

Victims of sexual assault have an array of rights, the right to a forensic medical exam, even if they choose not to report to law enforcement, the right to have an advocate present with them during the exam, the right to advocacy and support following the event, the right to have their information kept confidential, and the right to healing through counseling.

As Sacramento's designated rape crisis center, weave is entrusted with an important role in ensuring victims know about their rights and can access them.

In addition to the rights afforded in state statute, I would argue that they have additional rights, and we owe them to every survivor of sexual assault.

The right to be believed, the right to be respected, and the right to move freely through our community with a sense of safety.

Tomorrow is denim day.

I'm wearing denim all week.

It's denim week.

But I leave here with a request for you to continue to take action every day of every month of the year, whether it's learning about the impact of sexual assault on individuals and on our community, sharing information about how to get help, supporting a friend or colleague who's experienced sexual violence, or working to make our community safer, please always choose to act.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council.

Council, I'd love to invite all of you down so we may take a picture.

We could squeeze in a little bit, please.

Thank you so much.

Three, two, one.

And then right here.

Three, two, one.

Thank you guys.

So, Mayor, we now move to item number two on the special presentations, which is Seek Heritage Month, presented by Councilmember Maple.

Thank you.

Good evening.

How is everyone?

Great.

I just want to thank everyone for being here today, and I'm especially grateful to look out into the audience and see so many people who were not previously able to enter these chambers prior to the rules that we are put, we have just put into place and enacted today.

So welcome.

I hope to see you here many times in the future because we love it when uh the community comes and participates in their government.

Um it's an honor to stand with you today as we recognize Sick Heritage Month here in the city of Sacramento.

Sacramento's home to a vibrant and growing sick community with tens of thousands of sick residents who contribute every day to the cultural, economic, and civic life of our city.

From small businesses to public service to education.

Shout out to some of our school board members in the audience here.

See Justice Jeet Singh and Tino Rhodes, to community leadership, your impact is everywhere.

For more than a century, sick immigrants have helped build California, working in agriculture, building railroads, and continuing continuing to shape our state into what it is today.

This year, our city took an important and long overdue step.

I was proud to lead the effort to ensure that sick individuals can carry their kerpons into the city council chambers and other city spaces in alignment with their faith.

That was about more than just policy.

It was about respect and inclusion and making sure that everyone can fully show up as themselves in our civic spaces.

It's amazing to see everyone here today.

As we recognize Sick Heritage Month, we must also acknowledge the resilience of the sick community, including those who have faced persecution and hardship and continue to build their lives in strong communities here in Sacramento.

Welcome.

Always too tall for this.

I'm kind of lean.

All right.

Well, good uh good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Um, my name is just sheet Singh, and today I'm not here as a school board trustee.

I'm here as director of legal services for Jagata Movement, one of the largest civic engagement and civil rights organizations for the SIC community in the United States with a deep focus on sick youth.

Thank you for recognizing Sick Heritage Month, but actually giving it meaning through action.

Uh, updating city policy to end discriminatory ban on kerpons, one of the five mandatory articles of Faith for Six is a powerful step forward, ensuring that religious freedom is not just spoken about but upheld in practice.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the entire SIC community members who are here today.

Many who are your constituents who until now have never stepped into this chamber because of what you have passed and have removed in terms of a discriminatory practice that was previously upheld.

You have folks you've had allowed folks to stop making the impossible choice between participating in civic life and honoring their faith.

Their presence here is a testament to what inclusive policy can really do.

This progress did not happen in isolation.

So I do want to thank Councilwoman Maple.

I also want to thank Councilwoman Mai Vang for her work when we first started talking about this.

There are folks such as Ryan Brown, former staff from the Shadow, I'm sure Ryan is listening for their work.

Katie Hanslick, who is here, I want to give a shout out, but also each and every one of you as council members who voted unanimously in support of this just last month, including our mayor.

I also want to acknowledge my colleagues at Jakarta Boom, especially our Sacramento Regional Director Mandeep Singh who will be speaking, our staff, SAC PD, for your engagement and willingness to work.

I know there's a lot of thank yous here, but they're important because this is three years of work, three years of effort.

And also community allies, including my friend Trust each in our roads, who I know is here somewhere.

Again, what happened here is meaningful.

It shows what can happen when communities come together, engage with their local government.

This is not just a policy update.

And I hope to see more Sikh community members come and engage with you on issues that vary across the city, not just on one night for Sick Heritage Month.

With that, thank you so much, each and every one of you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

My name is Sakamine Cologne, and I've been a resident as well as my family of District 3 for over 20 years.

And I learned how to be an advocate by being a Sikh by going to the Gordwara by learning from my elders, by being a part of Jagata movement and other various organizations by attending meetings like this.

And so I'm thankful to my community.

I'm thankful to all of you for acknowledging our community here today.

And I'm thankful that moving forward, that my community can be the advocates that we are while not compromising our faith.

So thank you all for your acknowledgement and thank you to my community.

As I look behind me, I see that there are babies as well as elders here, future advocates as well as people that have paved the way.

So appreciate you all and appreciation for my community out here today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Gurtey Singh Jima.

I'm a physician by profession.

I have uh called Sacramento area my home for more than two decades.

I've been a resident of the city of Sacramento for I think seven years now.

And this is the first time I'm stepping into the city hall feeling complete.

Thank you so much for your efforts.

I've spoken to some of you, I think, uh personally about my limitation of being a part of the city hall proceedings, you know, not being my complete self.

So it feels good.

I thank you all uh for this effort uh to recognize the the completeness of the Sikh faith and being a part of the public.

Um I just uh want to say a few words to my uh fellow Sikhs uh in the audience, and I if you excuse me for uh um uh uh um speaking in Punjabi to them.

Uh Guru Pyaris Sangadio, Sade Guru Sabdi Kar Padas Gasanway Mokamalia, City Subampake, Sacramento City Hall, Levitha Sina Sara Nathan, Vadukard, Kyokia Pavadeshande with Noikami Abhangi, Panadesh, Punjab Kamiya Bhoga.

Sanusara and Open Desh Punjab and Open, which are Udi Jardi Kalaliar Daskarni Jaydiya.

Again at the end, thank you all for uh accepting me as a Sikh in my complete sense.

I appreciate your efforts.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, my name is Mandeep Singh.

I'm the regional director for Jigata Movement, and um, you know, I've um come here before um with the exception, you know, it's been individual sort of um, you know, uh exception allowed for myself, or somebody else might come in.

Um, I'm really glad now this is part of City Code, and I'm really appreciative of you all to take the time out to uh educate the community about six.

Um our community, you know, as uh Katie mentioned, uh persecution is not just something we have faced in the past, it is something that is currently going on right now in uh India occupied Punjab.

It is currently something that's happening even in this nation, as the mistakes of maybe an individual have the whole community um on the back burner and defending things that we don't even know that we have nothing to do with.

So moments like this, things like this.

It goes a long way in educating our community on who we are.

Um I would invite everybody here.

Um, you know, you are welcome to a Gordwara.

Uh nobody will try to convert you.

You can come as your whole self.

Um, you know, um Dr.

Tima that just uh spoke right now, he's the president of one of the Gordas here.

They would love to give you all a tour.

Um even you all uh if you guys want to come, we can set up something that way.

Um and as Dr.

Tima, I would like to just say a few words to our community.

Um Sacramento, a paint Likaya founded in 1849, Taran Soranja.

So Tantara Pa Hagen, Apaite, P Hamangani on there, na Jatevi Janne, Apa Sutant Hogajania, Upanguru De Seka, Guru Nanak Sabaji Day, Rade Torona, Te Jedi Nojuana Jan Dr.

Tim Manekya, a Juru Yadra kyo, to see Jate Janne upna Seru Parakarke, Shati Kadika Jayagaro, to see Jovi Kamakarna Magade, Jovi Sebakarna Magade, Pura Apana, Folas Alpha, Jakeuro, um Jay Kosha, Badabol Hogyya, Mafkaryo, Asinito Adjard Nande Vichy, Kamagardea, Seva Gardea, Juita Go, Salahu's Adili, Jirudasio, Te Um Janato Pala Juru Sardinam Bar, Kati Foto Vikalonge, uh B programine.

Um and um again to the community.

We appreciate you all.

Thank you all for allowing us to be a part of this uh you know, fabric that makes up the United States.

And we'll hope to see you at one of our events.

Please stop by our table outside.

We have a flyer of upcoming things, and you'll learn a little bit more about your neighbors.

So I wanna I wanna uh thank my colleagues for your support and please invite you all down, and including representatives uh for a photo came.

Thank you.

If possible, could we take a picture facing like this way with the community in two?

So we can take the picture from that side.

You want us to pack it in?

Yeah, yeah, let's pack it in.

Okay, Sarah photokini magda, Sareap, uh Bajorga B Bachet uh Virpan and Sarajari, Iowa.

This is the second one.

Like we're at no challenge.

Yeah, just need that.

All right, we're gonna have to pull in real tight.

Yeah, I think that probably would do it.

Might be the only way to get everyone.

This is lost.

Yeah, I'll do that one in a bit more.

Right.

All right.

All right, guys.

Can I have everyone look at this way, please at this camera?

Three, two, one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think our mighty just wait after all the presentation.

Yes.

All right.

Oh, Fernando Mendoza.

But he's like old school raiders, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So, Mayor, Mayor, we now move to our final special presentation, Law Day, which is presented by you to the city attorney's office.

Excellent.

We have a representative from the city attorney's office.

Come up and join us and help us focus on the 2026 Law Day.

You want to read off of this, or you have your own?

I have my own, thank you.

He's prepared.

Exactly.

All right.

Good afternoon, or good evening, Mayor and Council members.

We are here today to accept the council resolution recognizing Law Day, May 1st, 2026, to be celebrated on May 5th in the city of Sacramento.

Law Day was originally established by President Dwight D.

Eisenhower in 1958, and in 1961, Congress designated its official date of May 1st.

The purpose was then, as it is today, to observe a day of national dedication to the principle of government under law.

President Eisenhower sought to highlight and to honor for all Americans and for the world the enduring legal culture of the United States.

This year, the American Bar Association has established the Law Day theme, the rule of law and the American Dream.

Throughout our nation's short history, the idea of what America is and should represent is always evolving.

The founder's bold claim that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is just one early iteration of the idea of an American dream.

The term itself originated with the 1931 book, The Epic of America.

Its author, James Truslo Adams, wrote that this dream is not, quote, a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of a social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and to be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

Whether your personal American dream is about material security, individual opportunity, or social equality, this year's Law Day theme reminds us that no American dream would be possible for all people without the rule of law.

Our system of laws and justice from the Constitution to the Sacramento City Code is a project that has been built over generations.

The speakers will be discussing current issues relevant to this year's Law Day topic.

The doors are going to open at 11 30 a.m.

in historic city hall chambers, with a symposium taking place from 12 p.m.

to 1 p.m.

with refreshments to follow.

The activity is pending approval from the State Bar of California for one hour of MCLE general credit.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Thanks, Mayor.

I'm I'm uh happy to say I have reached the point where I no longer have to worry about MCOE.

So I get a pass.

I just wanted to take a moment to give a little bit of emphasis to this recognition.

You know, I think for many of us as lawyers uh and uh perhaps even more so for the public at large.

We take law day for granted.

We take the rule of law for granted.

We assume that we live in uh uh society and and in a country where the where the rule of law is is the expected course of action, that it that it determines not just what happens from a legal standpoint, but how we make sure that justice occurs, that justice occurs.

Uh and uh I I think it's uh certainly important to note, although he's not here for this purpose this evening that we have retired justice of the third district court of appeal Art Scotland with us, and I want to recognize Art for all of his service on the bench over the years.

But but lastly, I I encourage everyone to take the day of La Day, whether it's today or May 5th or uh whatever day you choose in this sequence of the uh uh of the week to think about what's at risk in our country today.

That we have experienced and continue to see an unimagined assault on the rule of law in our country, something that we could never have thought about or uh predicted, but it is only going to survive.

The rule of law is only going to survive if we are all committed to making sure that it does so.

And so this is not just for lawyers.

This is not just a nice day to go to uh a symposium as great as it sounds like it's going to be.

Uh it's not just today to say, isn't it nice that we live in in a country that subscribes to the rule of law?

It's a call to make sure that we uphold and sustain the rule of law, not just for ourselves, but for generations to come.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would I like to do the presentation?

Want to come down?

We're going to down there.

Sure.

You want to come?

Councils?

Sure.

Never been called councils with voice.

Oh, I think they made counsel.

I think they don't need lawyers.

Yeah, sorry.

Okay, I'll be on up there.

We've got lawyers.

I'll stand here again.

Yeah.

And then kill themselves.

You got a future lawyer.

You're an honorary lawyer.

There you go.

They're all taller than I.

Me too.

Okay.

I don't want to be lawyer.

Excuse me.

Okay.

Three, two, one.

And on the up level, can I have everyone go over one?

Perfect and find a window.

Okay.

And three, two, one.

Great.

Thank you, guys.

Okay.

So, Mayor and Council, we now move to item number three on the discussion calendar, which is memorandum of understanding MOU between the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Zoological Society.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the City Council.

My name's Dustin Hollingsworth.

I'm the assistant director of the Department of Convention and Cultural Services.

I am also the city's designated representative to the Sacramento Zoological Society's board.

Also here today are the zoological society's CEO, Dan Simon, and president of the board, Elizabeth Stollard.

I'm here today to request that City Council pass a motion authorizing the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding or an MOU with the Sacramento Zoological Society to establish a framework to explore a potential expansion of the Sacramento Zoo.

The zoo is approaching its 100th anniversary in 2027.

And the partnership between the city and the zoological society has an extensive history as well.

Going back to the early 1980s, the zoo was operated by the city, and the society provided fundraising support and educational programs to the public.

Then in 1997, the city entered into an operating agreement with the society, whereby the society would manage daily operations of the zoo on behalf of the city.

Over the past 40 years, discussions of expansion and relocation have been recurring themes for the city and the zoological society.

More than half a dozen sites around the city and beyond have been evaluated for suitability, and a variety of expansions within William Land Park have been considered.

In June of 2025, the city and society extended the existing operating agreement and committed to engage in good faith negotiations with each other concerning the creation of a new partnership agreement and to analyze the operational conditions for continued and future operations of the zoo at the current land park location, including space considerations.

In September, the Society sent the city a request to expand the zoo's operating footprint within land park, with the goal of remaining in land park while making a number of improvements that would materially impact both the animal habitats as well as visitor amenities.

In response, after conferring with multiple departments, including Yipsey, Public Works, Community Development Department, CCS, and the City Manager's Office, the City Manager's Office proposed that the parties enter into an MOU outlining each party's responsibility and collective efforts necessary to explore the potential of expanding.

As I mentioned earlier, the themes of expansion and relocation stretch back more than 40 years.

The zoo has faced space challenges for decades.

Modern expectations for the care, health, and welfare of animals has changed dramatically since the zoo was first established nearly 100 years ago.

The Sacramento Zoo is accredited by the Association of Zoos, Aquarium Zoos and Aquariums, or the AZA, the gold standard for zoological accreditation around the world.

AZA accreditation centers around animal welfare.

The accreditation process takes a holistic look at the organization.

Over the years, in order to maintain accreditation and to provide appropriate care for the animals, the zoo has reduced the breadth of species in its care to increase the habitats for others.

It's been a delicate balancing act.

Nonetheless, our modest zoo has historically outperformed zoos in similar or even larger cities.

Currently, the zoo serves nearly 500,000 visitors a year and is one of our most visited city-owned amenities.

The zoo has approximately 10,000 membership households and serves guests and school groups from throughout the region as well as beyond.

Expanding the zoo's boundaries would ultimately allow the opportunity to approve for the care of animals, maintain accreditation, increase its offerings to our community, attract more visitors, and in the end generate more revenue to support ongoing operations.

The proposed expansion includes an area of approximately 1.4 acres just to the north of the current zoo site and approximately 4.4 acres across Land Park Drive at the former Pony Park area next to Thunderland.

If the zoo wheel expand to both these areas, the operational land of the zoo would increase from 14.3 to 20.1 acres, an increase of approximately 40%, which, as noted in the zoo's request letter, would be the largest of expansion of the zoo since the 1960s.

Both the society and city staff recognize the sensitivity of the areas proposed for expansion from a historical perspective as well as in terms of park use.

In the coming months, the society will be developing conceptual designs to illustrate how they anticipate the site to be used.

About this MOU.

It's a non-binding agreement that provides the guide for the city and society to begin exploring the expansion of the zoo in the in land park while memorializing initial terms and responsibilities.

To be clear, to be clear, the approval of the MOU does not expand the boundaries of the zoo.

It does not commit the land to the zoo.

It does not commit any funding.

It establishes a framework of things to be considered and provides city staff to participate in the activities necessary to explore the expansion and to develop recommendations for next steps as appropriate.

An expansion of the zoo boundaries would require city council approval and would likely come in the form of an amendment to the existing agreement or as a whole new agreement between the society and the city.

The hope at this time is to bring something back to council in September as the MOU expires on September 1st, but can be extended by mutual agreement of both parties.

The MOU outlines considerations to explore the expansion of the zoo, including the creation of a mutually agreed upon schedule of deliverables that would be consistent with being bringing a proposal back before council in September.

City staff would evaluate the implications of impacts on a parks master plan, while the society would develop a phasing plan and interim opportunities for improvements.

The city and society would collaborate in development of a community engagement strategy for the public to learn about and provide feedback on a proposed expansion.

Additionally, a working group of representatives from the Land Park Community Association, the Upper Land Park Neighborhood Association, the Southland Park Neighborhood Association, the Land Park Volunteer Corps, and Preservation Sacramento will be convened to provide input and suggestions on the proposed expansion.

During that same time frame, city and society will work together to identify relevant amendments to the existing operating agreement that would align with the expansion of the zoo.

These could include the society evaluating design opportunities for a contiguous campus that would be consistent with the accreditation requirements and the operational needs of the zoo, the society identifying potential funding sources for development of improvements, agreement between the parties on the satisfaction of applicable legal requirements prior to the society commencing any construction and expanding areas.

Things to consider would include historical features, identity and the need and timing of legal requirements of any environmental study, including CEQA or the impacts on trees, as well as relevant parking and utility studies.

An evaluation of utilities identified needing improvements and other proposed expansions that might impact the current utility infrastructure.

These tasks tasks are not an exhaustive list of everything that needs to be done before the first shovel hits the ground.

They're only a starting point to truly begin exploring what the possibility may be in collaboration with the city, the society, and community.

We anticipate returning to council in September, as I said, for further consideration and to propose next steps.

I am available for questions if you have any.

Thank you.

We have three public comments, and then we'll have 10 now.

10, okay.

Our first speaker is Jill Culbertson, followed by Linda Farley and Dale Claypool.

Good evening, Mayor Mayor McCarty, members of City Council and City Manager Smith.

My name is Jill Colbertson.

I'm the Vice President of Sports Tourism and External Affairs for Visit Sacramento.

The Sacramento Zoo is a local treasure that's been a part of the lives of many generations of Sacramentans at Visit Sacramento.

We are proponents of making valuable Sacramento assets even more valuable by expanding and enhancing them.

And in that regard, we wholeheartedly support exploring new opportunities to improve and grow the offerings of the Sacramento Zoo for residents and visitors alike.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Linda Farley, followed by Jay Clay, excuse me, Dale Claypool and then Judge Scotland.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Linda Farley, and I'm here today as a resident of District 7.

And I'm here, and I am here to respectfully ask you to not move forward with the proposed MOU for zoo expansion within land park.

I understand the MOU is being positioned as a study, but it is not a neutral exploration of all options.

It is focused on advancing a specific path, expansion expansion within the park.

Studying this option doesn't solve the zoo's long-term challenges.

It risks losing parkland without delivering a lasting sustainable solution.

The North Parcel in particular, under consideration, isn't vacant.

It is actively used every day.

It is open, it is free, and it is accessible to everyone.

Converting it into a ticketed space permanently changes who gets to use it.

And once it's gone, it's gone.

Council Member Jennings, I respect the responsibility you carry, representing both the zoo and the surrounding community.

But I believe the question isn't just can we study this, but should we start down this path at all?

I care about the future of the zoo, but I also care about protecting the integrity of William Land Park.

And I respectfully ask you not to approve the MOU.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dale Claypool, followed by Judge Scotland and then Bruce Marwick.

Members of the council, I'm Arthur Scotland, born in Sacramento, having lived almost all of my life in this city, not only in the city, but also in the William Land Park neighborhood of Sacramento.

Being on a as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Sacramento Zoological Society and also on his executive committee.

Knowing how important and essential that zoos are to protect and conserve endangered species worldwide, and also to educate the public on the need to protect and preserve the species.

And often seeing many families young and old enjoying the zoo experience like my family did for many, many decades.

And continue to provide quality care for its residents.

The MOA MOU before you is a step to explore the zoo's proposal to add a modest, a modest amount of space for the zoo.

And I urge the city council to approve the MOU so the city and the zoo can collect in community input and determine whether the zoo will stay in William Land Park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Claypool.

Followed by Bruce Marwick and then Rick Stevenson.

My name is Dale Claypool.

I'm a member and former president of the Land Park Community Association and a member of the Land Park Volunteer Corps.

There are two wonderful regional community assets impacted by the MOU.

On the one hand, the Sacramento Zoo, and on the other, the equally important William Land Park.

It's crucial than taking action to improve one asset, in this case, the zoo, we don't harm the other.

William Land Park.

In 1985, the City Council was faced with the same dilemma.

After three years of discussion and debate throughout the community, the City Council approved modifications to the zoo, but included 10 conditions pertaining to the plan.

Not sure if you have those before you or not.

Almost all are relevant to the current proposal, but two have particular importance.

One limits the boundaries for the zoo to essentially the existing footprint.

That's number 10 on that list if you happen to have the list.

The other provides that the gardens north of the zoo shall be maintained outside the fence line for public use, no fees.

The current garden includes a historic statue, stone walls, a waterway and gardens planted and maintained by volunteers and are free to the public.

You'll hear more details about that in the uh other speakers.

I realize it's tempting to ignore these conditions is outdated.

But before a final proposal comes forward, I urge all those involved in the process to consider the rationale behind the 10 conditions and how they imply apply currently to both community assets, the zoo, and the park, and avoid uh equally importantly, another three-year debate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bruce Marwick, followed by Rick Stevenson and then Blake Stevenson.

Good evening, uh Mayor McCarty and Council members.

Uh my name's Bruce Marwick.

I'm here tonight to advocate for one specific memorial, which is on the north side currently of the zoo.

Uh and I also would like to share, I represent the Sacramento Art Deco Society of which I am president.

Uh we are concerned about the possible destruction of the Swanson Memorial Fountain and Garden in William Land Park due to the proposed expansion of the zoo.

The city of Sacramento's March 17, 26 staff report includes a drawing titled North Site Tet Concept that shows the Swanson Memorial replaced by all new structures, walking past and exhibits.

And I will mention that that uh drawing was available, was but was not shared uh this evening.

The memorial has been a cultural resource in William Park since its installation, or I specifically the sculpture on site May 19th, 1926.

That is exactly a hundred years and 10 days today.

The Swanson Memorial, a few facts.

The Swanson Memorial was created to honor Charles Swanson, an early rancher in Sacramento.

His son George provided the funding for the memorial.

The Swanson Memorial in Wingland Park are reflective of the City Beautiful movement of the 20th century, early 20th century.

And of course, uh fantastic parks like Golden Gate Park and the amenities there are reflective of that movement.

The memorial was strategically located on a knoll, uh, the highest really point of the park, providing a vantage point to see downtown.

And in those early years, you could stand on that knoll behind the memorial and see uh the this at the time elks, which was a skyscraper uh in the distance.

And then, really importantly, and is never mentioned, the San Francisco artist Ralph Stackpole uh sculpted the Swanson statue.

The stack uh stack pole was a well-known Bay Area artist whose friends included Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, the Harlem Renaissance sculpture, a sculptor Sergeant Johnson, and the WPA photographer Dorothea Lang.

Additionally, stack poll.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Oh, I'm sorry.

The stack pole also didn't.

Please make your final comment um fountain in the middle of uh Cesar Chavez.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Rick Stevenson, followed by Blake Stevenson and Louis Stetson.

Yes, just for a little background.

I wrote the only history of William Land Park.

It was published by Inside the Sacramento Magazine in 2018.

Um I'm not aware of anyone flatly opposing zoo expansion per se, but the precise details of expansion are the make or break factors.

Uh it is very important to understand that the perspective perspective, zoo expansion maps in the staff report are a starting point for construction and not a council vote to make those maps absolute, which an absolute reading of the MOU does make them absolute.

And I think the council should express it's a starting point.

I mean, if you if you have the endpoint, there's no point to have a study.

And uh so uh this needs to be clarified.

And and that exact language uh is where it says overview and purpose on the MOU, it's the last sentence uh in that on the first page.

Um the present ordinance, as was mentioned, uh specifically forbids the Swanston statue and stream area from being included in the zoo fence line.

This was done for very important reasons that should not now be blindly ignored.

The Swanston area and stream, in fact, are the best vista of any city park out of the couple of hundred of them.

And to capriciously destroy it makes absolutely no sense.

Thank you for your comments, Blake Stevenson, followed by Larie Stetson and Christina Rogers.

Uh I'm Blake Stevenson.

Good morning, or excuse me.

All settle on the time of day.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members, city manager and staff.

I'm a resident of Land Park, but that doesn't really matter here.

The zoo expansion concerns people throughout the city and the region, not just District 7 alone.

It's important as that is.

First, I have a technical point about the MOU, especially paragraph five.

In the third bullet there, it acknowledges that the party shall satisfy important requirements such as CEQA study consideration of historical impacts and a traffic and parking study.

Of course, those things have to be done.

But they must be done before the city issues its entitlement by amending the operating agreement or even giving a new one.

We heard here tonight.

In contrast, this MOU requires sequin, the historic analysis to be done prior to construction.

This implies that the zoo's operating agreement will already have been amended.

Um that's the reverse order of what is required.

The city should not act to amend the operating agreement until analysis is done, and the council has it in its hands about the expansion itself.

What is called the North Side Expansion Area on the maps is better known as Primrose Hill or the Swanson Statue and Gardens.

What is there now has been enjoyed by the public for 80 years or more.

The diamond-shaped public paths leading from the street uphill to the statue, the four stone semicircle seating areas covered by wisteria.

And there's a long waterfall that leads down from the statue to the lake below and to the open lands beyond that.

Everything surrounded by beautiful gardens.

All of this was designed and built by the WPA, except for the statue itself.

The hillsides, the paths, the waterfall are enjoyed every day by many people.

I see this constantly.

Children run and play, people walk their dogs, others spread a blanket on the grass.

I think I even interrupted in the proposed engagement the other day.

Thank you for your comments, Your Venok, please.

All right.

And the views.

Thanks.

Our next speaker, Larie Stetson, followed by Christina Rogers, and our final speaker is Pinky Cottrell.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Mayor and Councilmembers.

I'm Larise Stetson here representing uh Upper Land Park neighbors.

Um I was co-founder and former board member of the Land Park Community Association, and I've worked on William Land Park and Zoo issues since the late 1980s.

Upper Land Park supports have amended studying the zoo expansion in an MOU process, but I want to identify concerns about the current proposed zoo expansion and how the city and society will proceed during and after the process.

We appreciate the inclusion of a working group with neighborhood associations, but it must have a meaningful exchange of detailed information from the society and serious consideration and inclusion of association associations recommendations that protect park and residents before the city considers it when it comes back.

Key MOU topics include modifications to the expanded boundaries, especially to avoid Swanston Memorial and its historic landscaping, study of traffic and parking, and mitigation actions such as shuttles and pedestrian enhancements, steps to reduce impacts to historic resources and city park trees, sharing the society's funding plan and how it will ensure long-term economic viability.

In 1985, the society said it needed 60 acres for a viable zoo and to meet ongoing accreditation.

And you have Dale's ordinance from 1988.

In 2025, the zoo agreed to an outgrow footprint of 27 acres with expansion opportunities.

Now we have a 20-acre proposal with no expansion.

The MIU process must include a business plan for this 28th site to ensure long-term economic viability before the council approves any expansion.

This would ensure the zoo's success and avoid future encroachment into the park.

The immediate community must embrace the expansion.

So we hope this process works and that we can come up with a proposal that everyone can agree to.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Christina Rogers, followed by Pinky Cottrell.

Good evening, City Council and Mayor McCarty.

I'm speaking about the zoo's MOU as the current president of the Land Park Community Association.

We understand change in land park is inevitable.

We also want that change to reflect what makes William Land Regional Park a beloved place for all who visit and live nearby.

We understand this MOU begins the process for a zoo expansion, but it does not promise it, which means there is time for a thoughtful and clear plan so every that everyone can support.

There are many points it could be I could bring up, and I appreciate the former speakers talking about the MOU details, but there are four points that we'd like to bring up that stand out to us right now.

And that is first the community engagement strategy, which includes a work group of community members, including the LPCA.

It's designed to provide ideas and feedback to create a thoughtful expansion into the park.

We will arrive ready for real dialogue, answers, and respectful discussions to achieve a common goal.

Also, we have to address the parking and pedestrians on land park drive.

Traffic already is a problem.

The park is over a hundred years old, and it's already unable to manage a lot of the traffic, especially on the weekends and special holidays.

Funding must be clear.

When will the zoo be financially secure to begin the expansion?

Have they handled any upgrades in their current football footprint first?

A thoughtful timeline needs to be executed and shared with the public.

It may change, but everyone should have an idea what to expect.

It could take several years to break ground on the expansion, and we understand that, but that's okay.

The goal is for a fabulous and sustainable zoo that will be part of William Land Park for another hundred years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Pinky Cottrell.

I'm Pinky Cockrill, very close neighbor of the zoo, and I'm representing nobody but Hope today, although I have been members of most of the organizations that are of interest or have expressed interest in the zoo.

I'm a little concerned that the MOU isn't very clear that this is not a fate accomplished as uh presented, but that it is a springboard to begin a working group.

I would love to participate, but if I'm excluded because I'm a member of every other organization being allowed to participate, you'll miss out on my great expertise as a former member of the uh Lamp Park Community Association board when the move was going to be uh first presented before.

And at that time, I did an extensive study of zoos and extensive visits of zoos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's your final speaker for this item.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we uh appreciate the um the uh the public comment on this issue.

I I know this is a big topic, not only in the land park neighborhood, but for the city of Sacramento.

The big picture is we all love the zoo.

The zoo turns a hundred years old this year.

Uh we were sat in five or six years ago when we were told that the zoo would be leaving the city of Sacramento after nearly a century in our core, and then you know, certainly found out a year ago that that wasn't in the cards, and they were looking at potentially how to succeed in their current location.

But one thing was clear that in order for the zoo to succeed, they couldn't stay put.

We wouldn't have the opportunity to keep the zoo in Sacramento and keep it as is.

So uh we embarked upon a process to focus on uh conversation with the community with the zoo and eventually with the city council on what that could potentially look like.

I applaud council member Jennings uh for leading that conversation with uh neighbors who are adjacent, people who are concerned about the historic preservation of the Swanson statue and so forth, um, as well as the zoo supporters who want to keep the zoo uh successful here for the next century.

So, you know, this doesn't set up the end, it sets up, I think a fair opportunity to have a conversation of these issues.

Uh at the end of the day, this decision is based upon the city council.

So I think how the council member and his team laid out you know a number of opportunities for the community to meet and to and to look into these issues.

You know, everything is on the table for discussion, and then we'll focus on what's uh works and what potentially has some issues for the city, for the community, for the neighborhood, and we'll have a thorough public process and come back to the council.

So this is just the beginning.

I know somebody said they hope this is not the end, and I I think we went through very clearly.

I know um uh the council member and our and our city attorneys and our staff made sure that we focused on what would be a fair process to look into these elements.

So with Adam and full support, again thank our our council member, the host council member uh for working on this.

Next up, Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Thanks, Mayor.

So sitting here, I went down back down memory lane from when I was the chief of staff to then council member Ashby, who's now our senator, and Natoma's had a whole campaign to be able to relocate the zoo there.

Um, and I remembered this box of letters that we have from kids saying that they wanted to keep the zoo in Sacramento.

It was called the We Want a Zoo campaign.

We made t-shirts and well, really expired cookies, many years old.

Probably go away.

But it's a box full of letters from kids throughout the schools.

Our zoo is incredible, it's a staple in the Sacramento region, and it's something that I am extremely supportive of.

I'm really happy that we get to keep it here in Sacramento.

I'm really looking forward to the expansion, and I think it's a great asset for our community.

Over 70,000 school children from a 24 county region visit our school for organized field trips.

More than 10,000 Sacramentans are regional household members of the Sacramento Zoo.

And every year, the zoo has over 500,000 visitors.

And each year when they reach the 500,000 mark, they make a huge announcement and they celebrate that number because it's a win for the region.

And I truly believe it's an economic driver.

It brings tourists and visitors here, and it's educational, and it's such an asset for the Sacramento community.

So on behalf of all these kids that wanted to keep the zoo back in the day.

Thank you.

Councilmember Pluckybaugh.

Thank you, Mayor.

Dustin, I'm not sure if this is you.

Is there someone that can speak to some of the outreach uh process going forward?

Um we heard some concerns from folks, but um it is okay.

Sorry, you draw the search straw, buddy.

Um so you I think you heard some of the comments, folks are concerned about what the public outreach process is gonna look like.

We're gonna have this uh conversation, and then what what would the next steps be from there in terms of public engagement?

Yeah, so specifically to a public outreach process, the MLU outlines that the society and the zoo will actually put together a specific outreach process.

But beyond that, that there is the um convening of the working group from the Land Park Community Association from the those six organizations.

Um and I believe the the agreement is to meet three times over the night over the coming months to kind of refine and work for it as we go.

So lots of opportunity for folks to win.

All right, thank you.

That's that's it.

Um my mom's been texting me pictures of uh her with my son at the zoo from you know all of our family outings all night.

Uh you know, this is obviously a place that is uh a central part of a lot of our lives, a lot of our um family moments, birthdays, and and celebrations.

Uh so I encourage folks if you haven't been to the zoo in a while, um go see the baby couple bars and support this motion.

Um real quick, Mayor, uh just thank you to my chief of staff, Monica Lee for running down and finding those letters.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember host, council member Jennings.

So I don't know if I can get all my comments out on the pages that I've written them on.

Um the zoo is special to me.

Uh so I get emotional when I talk about the zoo because my kids grew up in the zoo.

Um, and now I'm watching my grandkids who are following in their footsteps.

And every time they come to Sacramento, the number one place that they want to go is back to the zoo, so they can see if the animals that they saw when they were kids are still there.

And so it's a love affair between them and I would imagine that at one point in time, my hope would be that my great-grandkids would be able to go and and and have the same experience that my kids and my grandkids are having.

So it's it's a wonderful place.

Um, we've already talked about 500,000 visitors every single year that come to our zoo, and it's impressive.

And what I'm convinced in is that everything that is in front of us, how this zoo came back to us, because essentially we thought it was gone, and all of a sudden it came back, and I couldn't be happier that it came back because I believe it's instrumental to being a part of Sacramento.

I also believe that if we work together in this process from now to September, we can come up with a plan that takes all your fears away and allows us to see the potential of what our new zoo will look like.

But we have to we have to work through that because right now, if we just decide to focus on our greatest fears, then the zoo won't won't survive.

If we focus on the greatest opportunity, we will have one of the best zoos in the whole state of California.

And that's what I want.

That's what I want for myself.

That's what I want for you.

That's what I want for my grandkids, your grandkids, and your great-grandkids.

I want them to see the best zoo that we can offer in Sacramento.

And I'm convinced that when we work together as a team, together everyone achieves more, we are going to get to that goal.

We're gonna make it work, and we're gonna eliminate all the fears that we have and make sure that those fears are addressed, not just as we start the MOU, but from this point going forward, we will continue to work together to address every single fear along the way.

And so I'm I'm I'm I'm ready to, I'm ready to roll up my sleeves.

I'm ready to get to work, and I hope you'll be a teammate with me.

I got Mendoza on my team now with the Raiders.

I may call him in to see if he wants to come on up here and help me as well.

Right?

Once a raider, always a raider.

So I'm just letting you know.

I'm in it, I'm in it to win it.

And that's what I want for our zoo, and I hope you want that with me.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Councilmember Guerrera.

Oh, thank you very much.

Uh, you know, Mayor, I mean, that there's just so many wonderful experiences about the zoo.

And I think to your point, there was a there's a uh a huge loss when the announcement that the zoo uh might be leaving and and to come back.

And I'll I'll tell you when that announcement happened, I mean, immediately our family signed up for you know the zoo camps and and made sure that we took advantage of it as much as we could.

So what is a a huge impact for us and in even all of our neighbors um you know who uh have young uh young kids and and many of them who remembered when they saw the announcement that the zoo would be be coming back.

Um yet the conversation was for how long, you know, and the fear that if we do nothing uh and we allow the status quote to continue, that at some point we we may lose the zoo again.

And you know, and I think about those summer camps that my kids have gone through because um every time we pick them up afterwards, they I mean they were the biggest chatter boxes, you know, uh, so excited about every thing that they learned.

And it's not like it was new because they've gone multiple times before, you know.

Uh they start off their routine with the reptile camp, and then they move over to see, you know, uh all of the the uh the animals, and they're a little concerned about you know, learning about the bird flu, and when the the flamingos moved over and they said, why did they move or so?

So there was all of these these experiences, you know.

They they try to get there early, want us to get there early because you know, trying to find the jaguars, the jaguars hide.

So if you don't get there early, then you won't catch them.

And for them, I think that experience even with the summer camps has always brought more uh to them.

So it would be a shame, I think, if uh we lost that opportunity for future generations.

Uh and what I found when I, you know, watch uh being at the zoo that it's not just the parents and their kids, but to see the multiple of generations of grandkids with their kids and parents reliving those experiences, and you know, um I was there with another group of families where the grand where the the parents are the the grandparents were telling the parents well I remember how you were acting too uh when you were at the zoo as well.

So, you know, rem remembering that not every oh they weren't always as uh you know as uh as uh as happy as they can be at the zoo as well uh when they didn't get their their stuffed animal at the store.

Uh but I want to end with this uh because um I do think that uh if there's anything I watched from learning from what happened with the uh the A's, and I know I appreciate the mayor who who said, hey, we have to step up and support our friends in West Sacramento.

But when the A's refused to acknowledge, you know, Sacramento or their neighbors, it was a terrible failure in that first year.

And as soon as they leaned into the community, then it changed.

I mean, they swept the Mets, you know, and it was this big pride in this movement, and I've seen, you know, I haven't seen more green sweater since I was at Sack State, you know, around Sacramento.

Um and uh and so I do think that what Lori Stenson said, and I wrote it down here, you know, a working group of meaningful and full engagement.

I mean, that to me I think is is the most important part.

Because for one, for I think for the zoo board, it's important to say that, but I will also say for the community members, you know, I I think there me needs to be an acknowledgement that if we maintain the current situation, if if 1988's resolution is also the the same uh the what is that what I heard the feta complete, you know, then uh then it won't be, you know.

Um so ne pas feta complete.

It cannot be uh either or and I think this is where working the working group of meaningful engagement must occur.

So I'm exactly excited to support the motion uh that gets put forward.

Thank you, Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um you know, this is one of those dilemmas that we we have a number of in the city of uh of Sacramento.

The zoo is clearly a a very special place.

Um but so is the park, and so is it's its monuments.

The zoo, I think it is fair to say will not be sustainable within its current footprint over the long over the long term.

Um on the other hand, I think we have to be quite conscious of the impacts of enlarging the zoo in its current current location.

It's not something it's not an asset we want to lose, to be sure.

Um, but I think it's also critical that we're not just thinking about the short or intermediate term with respect to to the future of the of the zoo, but in the course of this work that we're that we're also considering the the long-term viability and sustainability of the uh uh of the zoo.

And so that is an a critical part of what I will be looking at as we see the work product coming out of this MOU.

I do think it makes sense to explore this.

I know some are worried that it uh is a conclusion rather than a start.

I certainly don't see it that way.

I see it as as the start of the conversation about uh the benefits, uh the costs, the risks, uh, and as I said a moment ago, the the long-term uh viability.

I'm also uh interested in the the working group uh including people outside the immediate geographic area and outside those who have some demonstrated long-term uh interest in the zoo.

In other words, getting a little broader set of people from both geographically uh and in terms of interest, because I think that's gonna be important as a perspective to bring to this uh to this to this issue.

Uh I I underscore the the MOU is non-binding.

Uh it's quite flexible, and I think that's probably wise.

Um but for at least for me, the question of whether this ultimately is the is the right direction to go, is the best direction to go to make sure that we have uh an asset of a Sacramento Zoo remains to be determined.

That is an open question from my point of view.

So I'm happy to support the the uh motion tonight and the the conversation uh but uh for me it's certainly the outcome is certainly not preordained.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Kaplan.

Um I am I am happy to support these continued conversations.

Um as many know uh my neighbors in North Natomas were we're hoping that the regional park uh turned into a zoo and we're even happier to have it stay uh in Sacramento.

Um but I think as council member Dickinson brought up, you know, we've heard concerns, and how do you balance the historic with the joy that the zoo brings?

If you've ever been woken up by a kuka borough, then you have not slept at the zoo overnight.

Um, I think the zoo has done an amazing job to you know be a place where families go, where I went with my children, and God bless the family plan, because when my daughters would have meltdowns, I had no problem leaving, knowing that that was uh a place that we could come back and it was good for our kids, and my kids have taken the summer classes and love them.

And it was always talked about of having an appropriate summer camp educational area, and that for me is something I'm really interested in seeing how that can be explored because the zoo truly is a place because it ties into UC Davis and the big cat and the big animal vet uh program that they have, which is specialized because I will tell you one of my children because of the zoo always talks about how do I get to UC Davis and how can I be, you know, the cat doctor, the big cat doctor, not the little cat doctor.

So the zoo is a treasure not only for families, but for what it exposes kids to their future careers.

True, truly honestly, and I do believe it is a balance that working with neighbors who surround it and how can we protect the integrity of William Land Park as well as expanding the zoo to make it viable for generations to come so that beyond all of us, there is a 200-year uh celebration because it promotes conservation and advocacy and education of animals that we are losing in the wild, but we're able to preserve in a dignified way and have in a dignified way at the zoo.

And I'd be failing my 10-year-old if I did not mention that there should be just an extra special place for all the Cappy Baras, because that is her favorite animal right now, and that she just wants to see an entire zoo of happy baras.

Um, they're the cutest thing, and oh, six more.

Do we know if she had any girls?

Are they all boys again?

Um see, we pay attention.

Uh so council member Jennings, thank you to you, your staff, mayor.

Uh I look forward to the continued conversations that uh are gonna happen and and your motion.

I'd like to put the motion on the floor to um execute the um exec the um memorandum of understanding with the Sacramento Zoological Society and to establish the city manager and working with us to take this uh explore the potential expansion of the Sacramento Zoo.

Thank you.

So the motion is supporting the staff recommendation.

You know, and Mayor, I just want to say before Frederico Mendoza was a raider, and a hoosier, he was a bear.

That's right.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Uh he could have been a hurricane in his hometown, but he got passed up.

Um we have a motion a second.

All the favorite, please say aye.

Aye.

Any no's or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes.

Thank you.

Mayor moving on to item four, which is the Sacramento Homelessness and Housing System Partnership Structure, joint powers authority framework options.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and city manager.

My name is Yayan Ail.

I'm the city housing manager in the city manager's office of innovation and economic development.

Um, back on January 13, 2026, city staff brought forward an item with options for consideration for a system partnership structure for housing and homelessness.

Council voted at that meeting to provide directions to staff to come back with JPA framework options for consideration.

This item tonight is the follow-up from that meeting with JPA framework options for your consideration.

Discussions around JPA go back to 2010, and as you can see, there's been a couple of different times where the city and the county and our partners have considered a JPA option.

Um in 2023, there were discussions again about uh JPA stemming from a grand jury report.

Um, however, uh JPA was ultimately not formed.

Um at this time, the city, the county, and the COC and our surrounding city partners, we continue to contemplate a partnership structure for housing and homelessness.

Under current JPA law, um, public agencies are able to jointly exercise common powers in two different ways.

The uh joint exercise of powers act has two JPA arrangements.

You can either contract through a JPA agreement to form a JPA, or you can form a separate legal entity.

Under either arrangement, all the participating agencies must enter into an agreement, and the governing bodies of those public agencies must approve that agreement.

Tonight I have three JPA options for your consideration.

Two of them are under the JPA agreement option, and one of them is under the JPA agency option.

They range from a structure that is uh similar to what we have today to a structure that is um the most different from where we are today.

This first option here does not consider uh changes to the current funding and oversight decision making process at the local jurisdiction and at the COC level.

Uh local jurisdictions would retain funding and oversight, uh, accountability over projects and programs in their jurisdictions.

Um, but there would be a new body of elected officials convening to coordinate and drive policy for programs administered in the county and the cities.

The COC would continue to function as they are today with the separate COC board that is focusing on COC mandated functions as well as the funding that the COC currently receives from the federal government and the state that they administer.

Um, this JPA governing body would be envisioned to be staffed by local jurisdictions, and uh the COC Continuum of Care Board would be staffed by uh Sacramento Steps Forward, who is currently the lead designated agency for the continuum of care.

The second option here is also under a JPA agreement arrangement.

However, this option here brings together the functions of the COC with the local jurisdictions under one leadership body that is providing policy direction and coordination across the homeless response system and housing.

This JPA governing body that is made up of the elected officials from the participating jurisdictions would also sit as the COC board.

When they sit as the COC board, they would be joined by community members to be the decision-making body for COC mandated functions and funding.

Community members in the homelessness and housing uh world would continue to provide their input and on-the-ground perspective through subcommittees and the COC membership structure.

Under this structure, we envision that this body would be establishing multi-jurisdictional policy direction and priorities for the region's homelessness response and housing.

An example of this would be that they would develop and approve a regional plan for housing and homelessness.

This body would be a forum for the cities and the county to coordinate strategies and share information.

This body would start to align our regional funding commitments and advocacy.

An example on this would be making recommendations to the bodies that receive HAP funding.

And they would provide oversight and be the decision making body for the COC funding and functions, as well as setting performance targets and metrics and reviewing that data and making sure that we are working together to meet those metrics.

While the JPA is the uh drive is driving the policy and direction on the homeless response system, local jurisdictions under this model would still retain the accountability and authority over the local funding decision making.

This framework proposes that the JPA governing body would be staffed by an independent administrator that would support the work of this body in close coordination with the jurisdictional staff, SSF, as well as SHRA.

Under this scenario, Sacramento Steps Forward, SSF remains the lead COC agency, and in coordination with the jurisdictions, they would continue to lead and support the COC funding and functions.

SHRA is the current JPA of the city and county as the public housing authority, and they would also continue to partner with SSF and the local jurisdictions in our current role.

Finally, this third option presents a framework that consolidates and considers a full restructuring of all housing and homelessness organizations and services under a single agency.

This option includes a JPA governing body that is made up of the elected officials overseeing the functions of this agency and all housing and homelessness activities.

This agency model would necessitate the consolidation of our departments and organizations who are currently working on housing and homelessness.

Under this structure, we would still need to have a public housing authority commission as well as a COC board, as they have specific membership requirements by per federal requirements.

And these commissions and board would likely still need to be the final decision making body for those mandated functions.

This table here looks at the three different options, and as they move from the most like we are today to the most different, you can see that the cooperation and participation that's needed from our partners increases with the options.

Two main considerations to look at, particularly for the city council, is how the city staffing is retained and where the city council retains your accountability over funding projects and programs in the city.

And with option three, the merging of each organizations and agencies and consolidation would likely take a little bit longer.

You know, it could take two to three years.

The estimated cost of this is also unknown, but we anticipate that as we move from where we are today to something that is more different.

This item that we have tonight, we are asking for a council motion on a preferred option and authorization for city staff to move forward and make formal requests of our partner entities and gauge their interest in participating and developing the details of the preferred option.

We anticipate that between May and July of 2026 that we would be going before our partner organizations and getting their formal request and input.

And if there is consensus amongst those bodies, we would begin to develop the additional details on these framework options.

We anticipate that likely later on in the summer or in the early fall that we would bring back a status update on where we are with developing the details of this framework from our partner agencies, and if there was consensus, we would bring back the details of the framework, a process, budget, and timeline for next steps to move towards implementation.

And if there was consensus, we would bring back the details of the framework, a process, budget, and timeline for next steps to move towards implementation.

This concludes my presentation, and city staff are available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we have council members, we have public comments.

We have three members of the public.

B D followed by Rick and then Lisa Bates.

So is B D here?

Okay.

Rick.

I am here today over my concerns and the general lack of detail concerning this joint powers authority.

Who holds power here?

How will it affect pre-existing systems such as coordinated access, SHRA weight lists and three one run related departments of community response protocols?

How will it impact clients currently on wait lists in any affected programs?

What experts have been consulted regarding the joint powers authority?

Who holds the power currently and how is this power being transferred?

Did you consult anyone with housing issues or vulnerabilities regarding this joint powers authority?

I will continue to voice my skepticism and wariness on this council's proposals regarding people with housing issues.

The measures designed to address these problems have thus far proven punitive, destructive, shuffling people around to increasingly dangerous places with nowhere else to go.

All I've seen is bans on like outside here or earlier today with like fanning overnight parking.

So you're closing the circle, and I have very little vote of confidence here.

And I'm just going to emphasize this isn't a game of whack-a-mole.

I've been inundated with horrible stories.

23-year-old dying of diabetic shock in the public bathroom over here.

Old man by the name of Troy dying in front of the library.

I think it's only fair that the council outline clearly in full transparency the steps concerning their plans for the unhoused and those at risk of such.

So thank you.

Rick.

Good evening, council members and city manager.

I appreciate meeting and getting to know each and every one of you.

My name is Rick or the amazing Rick.

I represent over 1,600 North Atomas residents who already know that Sacramento's homelessness crisis demands regional solutions, not unilateral ones.

A joint powers authority with Sacramento County isn't just the right idea, it's the only idea that actually scales.

And here's what's worth examining tonight.

And some would say intimidatingly in its decision making, bypassing CEQA, citing shelters without community input, issuing press releases before permits even exist.

That energy, that boldness, I'd love to see that pointed outward toward the county.

Bring that same decisive posture to the no to the negotiating table with Sacramento County.

Test whether intimidation works as a leadership philosophy.

Not on your own residents, but on a co-equal partner who shares this problem with this obligation.

Because the community you've been overriding, we're watching.

And we're ready to be partners.

The moment this council decides that collaboration is a more powerful and unilateral force.

The joint powers authority is how Sacramento leads, and Sacramento already knows how to lead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lisa Bates.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Lisa Bates with Sacramento Steps Forward.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

In Sacramento, we have seen the strongest outcomes when the city, the county, and the continuum of care work in true partnership.

That collaboration is reflected in both the existing city-county partnership agreement and the more recent regionally coordinated homelessness action plan.

Since last fall, your continuum of care has been actively and transparently engaging in public discussions to refine its governance membership and committee structure.

And these conversations have included your elected officials, service providers, system partners, and individuals with lived expertise.

The COC has not yet taken a formal vote on any current governance model, and this is intentional as it thinks think as it seeks to thoughtfully consider all the proposals in coordination with key partners, including the actions that you may um give to your staff tonight.

As outlined in the letter that we sent to you and the community last month, we as the collaborative applicant believe any governance structure must be inclusive of its government uh entities, its system partners, and people with lived expertise.

We also respectfully request that any governance model consider ways to ensure legal and political durability, integrated funding across part participating jurisdictions, and a unified strategy that also pays attention to performance, accountability, and access to broader resources.

Your partnership again is an excellent example of where the city and the county could come together and achieve coordinating a response to homelessness.

We ask that you consider consider taking the next step in that collaboration, working in tandem with the county on recommending a shared structure.

We're optimistic that the alignment among partners is achievable and that together we can establish a partnership structure that is durable, inclusive, and accounting.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That uh concludes public comment.

Uh now we'll bring it back to the to the council.

I I wanted to start it off uh tonight and just to give um just a bit perspective on for on the for on behalf of the entire council and and where I am headed tonight.

So the big picture is our our city staff.

Thank you for the presentation.

You're again looking for us to to come up with an option to move forward to communicate with the other entities.

And I know the entire city council is locked in on two things.

One uh improving the homeless conditions in our communities for neighborhoods and people that are homeless, and two, uh finding better ways to coordinate with everybody who's doing this, and so we don't have to work in silos, but we can maximize our resources and have better uh inputs.

And so if anybody chooses one of the three, it it's it's how your perspective is, but I know our mutual common interests are on those two things.

So for me, um, you know, my North Star is just that.

How do we better coordinate our homeless programs in the city of Sacramento, primarily with the county of Sacramento, but also with the alternative jurisdictions?

How do we serve more people who are in need of help?

And most importantly, how to reduce the number of unsheltered homeless that are on the streets, including walk across the street right now to to Chavez Plaza, and you know, they would ask us to not rearrange the DAC chairs, um, not create new bureaucracies, but serve more people, come up with more solutions.

And so I I'm not gonna get long on here.

I think we started this conversation in the in the fall, talking about how the city and county can better work together.

We laid out some ideas in in January, and tonight we're coming with an opportunity to move forward.

So I I think as we laid them out tonight, the the best chance to do those things to better coordinate with the county and the jurisdictions that serve more people is option two.

Um it will increase what we're already doing.

Is that the the city staff and council member uh Garrett's district, for example, did an amazing job when I was you know in the legislature running for mayor, um, partnering with city and county together with state resources and opening up the Stockton Boulevard uh Safe Stay where there's you know 200 individuals and tiny homes there that are being served and on their way to um a way out of homelessness.

So we are working already in conjunction.

I think this allows us to um to better utilize our assets in a solid manner, and and I know there was a chart earlier which talks about the last 10 years.

There's one thing that you missed with council member maple asked me three years ago to author legislation to do just that because I thought, huh?

When I was a council member like all of you, I sat on the air board, the library board, the solid waste, regional sand, cable.

What else is there?

There's a bunch of SACOGs, regional transit, public library with other elected leaders focusing on important issues, but not the most important issue of the day.

You look at any poll all across California.

This is the issue that the public wants us to work together on.

So this tonight gives us an opportunity to go to our partner jurisdictions, primarily the county of Sacramento, and find a way to better work together and pool our resources.

Uh so with that, I I'm I'm encouraged to hear from our other council members.

I I support option two.

I think it gives us the best chance to achieve those North Star goals, more coordination, serve more people, and reduce unsheltered homelessness.

So that's my motion to support option two.

Looking for a second.

See it second by council member Jennings.

Thank you for the the second.

Next up to speak is Councilmember Jennings.

Mayor, I wanted to um second the motion, and that's why I pushed up once I heard your conversation on option two.

Uh to agree that it allows us to better coordinate with the county to serve more people, um, it utilizes our assets and um allows us to work better together.

And so to me, when I look at these options and all the opportunities that are within them, option two for me is the one that makes the most sense that allows us to be able to work with the county in order to solve the homeless issues beyond where we are today.

And so I just wanted to uh co-sign with you in and second your motion because I've been looking at this ever since we first saw it, and I keep looking at each option to try to figure out which one would work the best.

And option two seems to me would be the one what that will work the best for the city of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento.

Thank you.

Councilmember Maple.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and thank you, Ya Yen and Brian and and Lisa Bates, and I see Joe, our COC chair in the audience.

Hi, I see Cassandra Jennings from the Sacramento Society.

We have everybody in the house here, which is great.

And that's kind of the idea.

We should have more of this, um, everybody in one room.

Um so I just I'll have a few questions and then some comments.

Um first, I just want to say I really appreciate the effort that you put into kind of outlining some of the options that that are out there because there really is no one size fits all solution, even of the different joint powers authorities and various boards that we all sit on, uh, many of which the mayor just named, those are even structured differently in and of themselves.

And so um, it's really about how do you create something that makes sense for what we're trying to accomplish.

So I appreciate that.

Um, and so one of the questions, well, I guess I'll start with um as you were doing research.

Were there any were you looking at other models in Sacramento of the various joint powers authorities, and then were there any of those that that like really stuck out to you as something that we could model after?

Yes.

Um, so I did do a little bit of research just to see what other examples are out there, and I'd actually put together like a little chart.

Um, some of them I found out are actually special districts and not JPAs.

Um, and some of them, like RT and the SDA are special districts, and they get funding specifically from measures or uh the state or federal government.

So they they look like a JPA, but they're actually uh special districts.

So I think you know, and it was helpful to look at those and also to see the makeup of those boards because they do vary greatly, right?

Some of them have all five board of supervisors on them, and then participation from surrounding cities, some of them have representatives from um all of them, you know, a couple members from each.

Um, I think as I was going through and thinking through this and then having conversations uh with many of you, to me, what stuck out was it seems like our option two is most kind of like SACOG in terms of SAGOC sets some regional policy direction, um, they help provide funding.

Um, there is RENA, but we still have a planning department, and our local jurisdictions are still tasked with implementing and um carrying forth those policy decisions.

Um, some of the other JPAs, I and I know regional transit is not a JPA, they're a special district, but uh, in terms of like having one agency that's doing all the work around transit, um, you know, they're an example of something that I think would be closer to option three, where you know, we have a public works department, but our public works department isn't also doing transit, all of that work is happening at a separate agency.

So I think in my you know, light evaluation around um other examples in our region, those to me seem like the best comparisons, even though you know they're not they're not exact and they're not exactly the same, but that's that was where my thinking was.

That's really helpful.

Um, and then one of the things that I was curious about about option two was it uh you have in there an independent administrator.

So can you talk a little bit about how you what you envision that would function?

Because typically on, you know, I think of the boards that I'm on, of course, some of those are districts and some of those are GPAs and other things.

Um typically each one of them has an executive director, or in the case of RT, it's a general manager, and then staff that is staffing that entity and is uh implementing the plans that are put in place and the policies that are set by the board.

Is is that what you envision that role to be?

I don't think at this time we're envisioning that option two, the independent administrator would be an executive director because we're not creating a new agency of staff because we already have, you know, we already have Sacramento Steps Forward, we have SHRA, we have our city departments.

What we're looking to create with option two is the leadership and the governance forum and framework so that our elected officials are meeting together.

We do need support staff and so and someone to help lead and guide us in those policy decisions in bringing us together in our collaboration, regional planning, funding priorities, et cetera.

So it's envisioned that an independent administrator would help us in that role.

Um, you know, that person or persons would uh closely coordinate with city staff as well as SHRA and SSF on those efforts.

Um and I think that with option two, um, you know, the JPA governing body and the COC board together could make some decisions in the future in terms of where they want the work to live most efficiently and effectively.

So I think at this time we're really trying to get the leadership structure in place and formed, and we have um great agencies that are doing great work that we want to continue and bring together.

Um, and then I think you know, supported by somebody who can really help lead us, um, we can really start to see where there are gaps, or maybe there aren't gaps, and we just needed the alignment of the leadership structure.

So essentially that position would be uh an external liaison that then would liaise between all of the various independent things that already exist.

I think they would be more than just a liaison because you know, I think just you know, passing information back and forth is something that you know we currently coordinate pretty well.

I think it's envisioned that this person would potentially bring in some um outside expertise to help us really coalesce and bring the elected officials together because this is this is going to be new, this is going to be different.

Um this is uh you know, unlike other parts of the California, like we really haven't seen a structure like this.

We've seen structures in both the other ways, but some of them are not working and are being you know re-reconstituted.

Um so I think you know, we're we're kind of charting a new course here, and I think having some experts to really help guide the um the board to help set metrics and uh goals and all of those things would be a huge benefit to this uh to this process.

Okay, thank you.

So the board the board would exist, the elected officials, and that's separate than the other secondary box.

I wish I maybe put it up on the screen here, where um you have the COC that's currently made up, which is it has to exist that way, of course, because we want we want that expertise, but also because of federal requirements for that money for the HUD money.

Um and so I guess what what exactly would the the elected board do under option two?

Um if if the COC board is making decisions on the HUD money, and then the COC also already does that is the collaborative applicant perhaps for the city and the county, like what would be what decisions would be made by this board under that structure.

So under the structure, and I don't know if we're gonna try to put it up.

Um we we envision that this governing body, you know, if you can think of it as they wear two hats or they wear hats that you know change change form.

So there are things that jurisdictions need to collaborate and coordinate on as well.

Um, you know, there are things that are uh jurisdictional in nature, um, and that uh, you know, the partnership agreement was brought up earlier.

That is an example of something that is uh jurisdictional in nature and uh something that the JPA governing body sitting as the elected official body uh could consider and decide upon.

Um there is you know coordination amongst our work between shelter programs, for example, um, across our different jurisdictions that could require some uh jurisdictional alignment.

Um, and then when they wear the hat of the COC board and are joined by the community members, um, that is when they would then focus on the COC mandated functions, um which include you know, the COC is tasked with overseeing a significant amount of funding from the federal government to support housing, um permanent supportive housing as well as a variety.

Um they are the um overseer of our referral system into our shelter programs and the coordinated access system also does referrals into permanent supportive housing.

Um they also are the overseers and in charge of our homeless management information system, which is where all the data lives, which is a key critical component.

So let me pull this up.

And so when they are sitting together with the community members in that role, those are the functions that they would be, you know, making decisions and considerations on are those COC functions.

Okay.

Okay, great.

And I'm really uh proud to serve on the COC board along with uh my colleague here, Phil Plugie Baum.

And um, it's been really enlightening for me to be in the room and to see that process and also see all of the expertise that's on that board.

Um, and so I think it's that it's a great to make sure that we're incorporating all of that.

Um so I'm gonna switch over to to the money piece here because it's I spent quite a lot of time because my I'm very visual in nature, and so I spent I have I have like sticky notes and strings all over my office and my house and whatnot.

Um, but it's been kind frankly um quite kind of a challenge to untangle all of the strings that goes to the money that funds homelessness as a system in our area.

So, you know, when we talk about the COC, the continuum care, um, we're typically talking about about 40 million dollars ish, that's that's federal money, and then some hat money that goes to that, including also some money that comes from the city and the county to fund the coordinated access system in part.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, and then separately, even though the COC applies jointly with the city and the county for hat funding to the state money, that money then comes separately to the city and the county and the COC for the various programs.

Correct.

Yes.

Um that was that was really helpful for me to understand.

And then, so you have that all of that money, and so that's over here, and then the city, we contribute through shelters, tiny homes, street cleanup enforcement, outreach teams, DCR staff positions, and so on, tens of millions of dollars of our own general fund money.

I think it's about 48 million dollars is projected in this next fiscal year.

And Brian, feel free to come up and help you on if you need it.

Um, so that's that's another significant pot of money, but obviously it's separate, and it's not overseen in any way by the COC or Sacramento Step Sport or any of the other agency.

This is completely under the city of Sacramento realm.

Um we also apply for other grants, including things like the encampment resolution fund that funds like the street to housing program.

Brian, let me know if I'm speaking on a turn here at all.

And then we also are in the process of applying for home key plus through like Prop One, um, and I'm sure there are several other types of programs that we're getting, we're piecing funding together to run some of these city programs.

And then simultaneously, the county of Sacramento also puts in about tens of millions of dollars from their general fund budget for various programs and shelters and so on, and almost about 300 million dollars per year total on just homelessness services and behavioral health and so on.

Does that sound about right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, and I I bring all this up because um it was hard for me to decipher, and I'm on you know, all the different boards, and I've spent a lot of time on this.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be a member of the public uh trying to understand uh what how this system works.

Um, and that's not you know any one fault because you know you have federal money that has all of its strings attached, you got state money that has all of its strings attached, and then you have the city and the county stepping up um independently to fill the gaps of the where that money is in order for us to actually have a system that that is somewhat functioning.

Um, and so I think what is challenging for me as I look at this is how do we make collective decisions about these resources and make sure that we're we're using an economy of scale and we're making decisions that that can because we do track homelessness through the coordinated access system in HMIS on a countywide basis, right?

We don't have like a city-only coordinated access system.

We don't have a you know a city of Rancho Cordova only coordinated access system.

If you're someone who's experiencing homelessness anywhere in the county of Sacramento, you're gonna go into this one system, correct?

For the most part?

For tracking the data, it is all in HMIS, but there are um some programs across the jurisdictions that use different referral points to access programs.

But are they all using the coordinated access system or besides obviously we know that there are some spaces where there's reserved beds that may not be fully in the system or no, there are some programs that don't use the coordinated access system across the city, the county, and our surrounding uh jurisdictions.

Okay.

Um, but for the most part, most people the ones that that aside are are in this system.

That's the goal, right?

Is to if you're experiencing homelessness in the county of Sacramento somewhere, hopefully you've been contacted and entered into the system.

Yes, into HMIS is the data.

Okay, this data.

Yeah.

And I think one of the challenges as I think about that, um, just from a like logically, is you know, we operate in these independent spaces, though we do coordinate with one another to some degree, um, and yet the way that we need to look at it from a data standpoint is from a countywide basis, and it makes that seems to me that to be a big challenge, not just in terms of how you access help if you're someone who's experiencing homelessness, um, but what your experience is like depending on where you're at geographically in the city or the county.

Um, I pulled up the the dashboard here for the public's awareness.

You can go on Sacramento Steps Board's website, um, and there's actually a um state of homelessness dashboard on here.

And I think the most recent data is from March from this last month.

Um, and it says 8,981 people were actively engaged in the system in HMIS.

About 2,162 of them entered into the system, 1,068 exited for one reason or another.

Hopefully, some went to housing, others into programs, maybe some were reunited with family, all kinds of reasons why people might leave.

Um, and then that leaves a net of about a thousand ninety-four people in that last month who were added additionally to the system, according to this.

I'm gonna make sure you got that.

And so as I look at that, I think one of the challenges that I see, because we we seem to be hovering, you know, you have we have the point in time count that is a is a moment in time.

Um, it is literally, you know, and it's federally required, so not knocking the actual um system, but it is, you know, once now we're gonna do it once a year, but it was once every two years, we go out and physically count people on the streets in the winter time, and that used to be our number and our metric by which we based how we were doing on homelessness.

Now, thank thanks to all the really great work that has gone on with Sacramento Steps Forward and the continued care and the money and resources that we put into it, we now have a more real-time way to track that information.

And it seems to me, at least in the time that I've been here, that it hovers around nine, 10,000 people that are entered into the system.

That doesn't mean everybody's sitting on the street in unsheltered homelessness, but it is it is quite a number.

Um I say that because I think back I wasn't on in this position at this time, but I I am a nerd and I went back and watched all the meetings from 2010, um, when the city council at the time in 2010 and the county board of supervisors at the time uh at that same time, same day, same month, um, were discussing this issue, this very topic of how do we create a more um regional structure uh on homelessness and how can we better coordinate together.

And that that number was about 3,000 at the time.

And so we're seeing a much we've seen the problem grow, um, and yet we still seem to be having the same conversations still, you know, all these years later.

Um, and that just really uh leads me to a point of what was talked about then, and so I looked at a lot of the history, went back and watched the videos.

I talked to some people who are there at the time, some of them are in the audience, some of them are on this DIS.

Um, and what was decided at that time was not only the creation of Sacramento Stats Forward, which is in this room, but it was also a joint powers authority.

That was something that both the city and the county agreed upon at that time, uh, and yet we that has never occurred, and we are here again.

We continually seem to be here, and so I'm a little concerned about just generally speaking, what I perceive to be a half measure, and I'm not saying option two is that, but I I am a little worried that if we you know piecemeal some things together, but people are still in their silos that we're going to continue to experience some of the same issues.

And so that's just um something that I've really kept top of mind for myself as I've gone through all of this.

I also want to say, you know, this is not in a vacuum, you know.

Uh there's conversations obviously going on at the county.

They've they've taken a vote.

We see other cities that are having these conversations.

We see the continuum of care, which is represented here today.

Um, and then of course, what we are gonna decide on today here is the council, and so uh, and then of course, the other big, you know, um elephant in the in the room is that there's a the piece of legislation out there as well.

Um, and so all of that is in context of the decision that we make today, but I think it's really important that we make a decision based on our values of what we want to see, regardless of whether or not that's where we ultimately end up.

So I just want to say that.

Um, and so I think um, and I don't have any more questions if you don't want to stand there the whole time.

I'll just um speak from where I'm at personally.

So I think my one true North Star here is that we don't not have a single entity that is responsible for the homeless system in Sacramento County, the entirety of it.

And I think that's witnessed by all the various funding pots, all the various programs that are going on, and that's a big, big challenge, especially if you're someone who's experiencing homelessness.

You feel that every day.

On having this court having a coordinated access system that has made it a little bit easier, but we are also realizing the challenges with that, right?

We don't have enough.

We need a better coordinated strategy and system to align our resources to make sure that we can create enough.

Because we know that there's wait lists for housing that people can afford.

We know there's wait lists for shelter.

We know that every time we open up a new tiny home community, the mayor's vision here, which I support entirely, that they're full up and we need more.

And so that just tells me that we have to do an even better job and more efficient job with the resources that we do have.

Um and so that to me means aligning our resources.

So, you know, of course, we've got the HAP dollars, you've got the federal funds, but we also have all the money that we're putting into it.

And I think eventually the goal would be that we're not necessarily spending as much out of our general fund, but we're working together better on how to align this money.

So that's really important to me.

I mentioned the history and the fact that it's grown.

And so my hope here is I'm not necessarily against one option or the other, but I wanted to talk about the things that I think are really important that it be included.

And so perhaps if option two can incorporate these things, um, if it doesn't already, I think that would put us in a really good position, especially based on what I've heard from our state senator about what she'd be willing to do because I think her goal is for us all to come to an agreement, city, county, and everyone else, um, and that she would support that.

Uh, but I think there needs to be some things that we are focused on.

So, one, that it be formal, be a formal joint powers authority.

That's something that was decided on in 2010.

Uh, I think that we should still move in that direction.

Um, two, that it have an elected board with representation from the county and the cities within the county, so a lot of that is already included.

The importance of that, just so the public knows, is that we are we are accountable to the public.

That is our jobs.

Um, we are we are elected and we are fired by the public, and um, and so it's really important that when we talk about millions and millions of dollars, that we that we have that representation to be able to make sure that if you don't agree with what I'm doing, you can make sure that I'm gone and someone else is in that can actually do the things that you want.

I think that's very important.

It must meet regularly.

So, number three, monthly open public meetings.

It is so important.

I cannot tell you enough how many times I have uh members of the public constituents come to me and they're frustrated on this issue, and they do not feel like there's one place that they can go because there's not.

Um, if you want to come talk about homelessness, you can come to the city council.

Maybe we'll have an item on the agenda about homelessness, maybe we won't.

Maybe you can go to the county, maybe you can go to the city of Rancho Cordova or Folsom Rail Grove.

It's not an efficient system, and it's not a great way for us to be able to get uh the information that we need from the public.

We need one place.

Um I think that's very important.

Uh, this may be controversial, but I think it's very important.

I think it must include both housing and homelessness in one structure.

And the reason for this is that I believe that they are inseparable.

When you have someone who's experiencing, you may have 20 people who are outside who are experiencing homelessness, and the reasons why they're there, they'll have 20 different reasons and 20 different needs, and the only thing that connects them all is that they don't have a roof over their head.

So solving for the housing piece is so crucial as we talk about homelessness, regardless of who we are is in the system.

And so to me, that means we it must include in some capacity, shape or form uh advisory or whatever SHRA, Sacramento Steps Board and the Continuum Care, of course, being included in this because we need all of that expertise.

We need um you know the housing and the homelessness expertise together.

And so I think that's really important.

Lastly, and I know this is another piece that is been touched on in option two, but it must have staffing and resources to function, right?

If we just create another board where people are going to sit there and there's not the staff that are there to implement the vision and the policies of the board every day, it's not gonna get done.

Implementation is more important.

I know Councilmember Bang says this all the time than almost anything else.

I can sit here and talk all day, but you know, if it if there's not the work that's getting done on the day-to-day basis and the vision that's being set forth in the action plan, it's not gonna work.

And so that's coordinating things like HAP, but also those broader strategies.

So I think those five points for me, if we can if those are incorporated into option two, I could support that.

Um, but I did not see housing on there, for example.

I don't know if I yeah, I don't see like SHRA as a part of this advisory.

So that's something that if we could figure that out, I can be supportive of.

And then the last thing I'll say I want to say is that none of us can do this on our own.

That's just the reality.

It's kind of the elephant in the room, right?

You know, we we can choose an option, and guess what?

We can't make it happen on our own.

The county can choose an option, and they can't do it on their own, neither can the continuum care, neither can SHRA, neither can Sacramento Steps Forward.

The only way that we are going to do something collaboratively, which is the goal, is if we all come together.

So my hope after this meeting, whatever decision gets made is that we continue that conversation and we bring all the parties together to create something together, because that's the only way it's gonna work.

Otherwise, we may be in a position where we get have something forced down on us, which I think is something that a lot of folks don't want.

Um, and so I am really hopeful that this is the beginning of a collaborative conversation and negotiation.

So I'll end my comments there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well said, took notes.

Councilmember Plucky Vaughn.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh option one's too small, option three is too big.

Hopefully, option two is just right.

I say hopefully, um, with the hope that the maker and the secondary of the motion will consider a sunset clause.

I think one of the challenges when creating these types of entities is that they are um for a purpose for a period of time, and that someday, hopefully in the future, will not be necessary.

If uh three, five years down the line, we still need it, we can re-up it.

Uh, but I think having uh an end date in mind, uh, you know, nothing uh sharpens the mind like a deadline.

So um my ask of the the maker in the secondary is uh consider a sunset clause, maybe three, five years somewhere in there.

Um but I'll be supporting option two.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I think that sometimes in these discussions we become too focused on on the form, uh, and we lose focus on the purpose.

So uh I want to take a moment just to talk about that, which um I'm a great believer in keeping the uh eye on the ball, and I think really in this domain there are there are two balls to keep an eye on at the same time.

One is governance and the other is operations.

They're both important, they're both uh actually uh indispensable to being successful in accomplishing the purpose.

The purpose is to reduce homelessness, and I would suggest the purpose is uh as importantly and in addition, prevention of homelessness.

So, from my point of view, the question is what approach will work best to accomplish the purpose with respect to governance and operations with respect to governance, I think it's fair to say I haven't thought about this uh numerically.

There's not a special district or a JPA that I have not served on in this county virtually.

I can tell I can think of one or two.

But as Yayin pointed out they are constructed in very different uh configurations the library JPA is very different from regional transit.

The sewer, the SAC Seward uh JPA is is very different from Safega and on down the line.

But I think what what makes those organizations uh either successful or struggling is the degree to which they've been able to keep a focus on their purpose and incorporate governance in a way that is satisfactory to the entities that are represented on the governing body.

In this in this particular instance, I I would simply urge us not to get too embroiled in trying to figure out what the form is.

But rather think about whether the approach is best suited to accomplish uh the purpose.

And in that respect, I think there are a couple of things that uh are critical.

One is we have to have a governance structure that allows us to be aligned with the county because of the operational implications of that, which I want to talk about in a moment, but which also brings the continuum of care further and closer into the into the domain orbit, whatever term you you want to use of the the elected officials.

I don't think we have succeeded with the way in which we are structured at the moment, because we don't have a way in which we convene to align.

And as a consequence of that, we have developed some different operational approaches.

And even in the operations domain, different ways we sometimes think about things or categorize things.

So in order to, I think, achieve a greater degree of cooperation and coordination, the continuum of care needs needs to be also aligned with the city and the county.

I might just add a small sidebar here to remind those who know it and to let those who might not know it that once upon a time the county was the continuum of care.

There was no separate entity.

There was no Sacramento steps forward.

It was the it was the County of Sacramento that comprised the continuum of care and consequently the Board of Supervisors who governed that.

Now there have been changes in federal law over the years, and those we obviously should and need to respect.

So it is, I think, quite feasible to bring in representatives as required under federal law from the continuum of care to the decision making of whatever the governance structure is.

And it seems to me then, I want to talk about operations for a minute, as I said, that that is best calculated to give us the kind of alignment on the operational side that is indispensable to succeeding.

I've said this before, but I will I will repeat it and I'll keep repeating it.

Unless we want to spend a whole lot more money and stand up a parallel set of operations, which we are not authorized to do, I don't believe, under state law, which is run a health and human services and behavioral health operations.

We're not going to do that, obviously.

That's what the county does.

That's the essence of getting services and assistance to people who are on the street, getting them off the street into circumstances where we may provide the housing, but they are critical to the wraparound services that help people stabilize and get back into the mainstream and permanent housing or permanent supportive housing.

We cannot succeed without the county.

So what that means to, and by the way, we don't want to replicate or duplicate what they are doing.

So what that means to me is again that on the operational side, we have to be as integrated as we possibly can be.

And I would add that I don't think we can succeed without the essence of what the continuum of care provides in that equation as well.

It's not just the county, it's also the continuum of care.

And Sacramento steps forward.

So in order to realize the greatest degree of cooperation and coordination, that means we are the most efficient and effective as we can be with the funds that we have, limited as they are, then we have to also focus on the operational side of this equation.

Now, with that all as a uh too long predicate, what what I would simply say is in looking at these options, I think option two gives us the best chance to achieve those two though the purpose and and the two essence, essential elements of governance and operations that that will be both efficient and and effective.

I think some of the points made by Councilmember Maple are well taken.

I mean, it has to be structured in a in a way that gives us continuity that that makes sure that we are uh communicating frequently enough and directly enough that we can get to the goals that we're seeking.

Uh I don't think at this point it means creating a separate agency.

We don't have to do that.

Uh and uh I mean, if you look at the library authority, for example, well, it is a separate entity, actually, the city and the county library systems operate uh largely independently if you if you uh break it down.

So I think our option two gives us uh, as I said a moment ago, the best chance of having the kind of uh of dialogue that we need to have both with the members of the continuum of care and the and the members uh of the the Board of Supervisors and the County to get to an understanding of of how we structure this in a way that focuses on the purpose of reducing homelessness.

So I I'm gonna support the I'm gonna support the motion, but I'm going to keep my hopefully eye on the ball.

Thank you.

Well said.

Councilmember Guerra.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I I think you know Councilmember Dickinson uh articulated it very well there.

And I too believe I think the joint uh powers agreement option two allows us uh one most importantly to act with urgency, not haste but urgency, because it it is a way for us to move quickly in pulling us and breaking down the silos.

I think the second piece that I think is important in the framework here is it creates a the COC board with the elected officials in a way that I I would hope allows for a the development of a shared vision because what we do not have right now is a shared vision between the county, the city, and the COC.

Yeah.

Uh and in fact, the operations have been reactive within every entity of what's in in front of them.

And so I think the the uh the ability uh at least what's what is the opportunity with option two is that it allows us to create, I think what is very necessary, which is a shared vision that includes this uh the um those with lived experience, uh those that are first responders, and the health care folks as identified.

So I I think that is an important piece there.

That's the the third piece here uh is that um I think it's essential that in as much as we possibly can legally within the confines of our our restrictive authority is that we pool our funding.

Um right now, when we apply for HAP money, in order to be eligible for a jurisdiction, city, county, or COC to apply for HAP funding, we have to develop the regional housing plan or the RCAP.

Well, if that's the fundamental base of us being eligible for money, then our spending should be also jointly together.

If the plan is created jointly, the spending should be created, should also be executed jointly.

So I do think that option two uh allows us uh at least to start that conversation.

And uh the only authority would be because the the funding from the state goes directly to the jurisdictions, but once you're at the table with folks, you can't hide from who's gotten how much and what are the money is being spent.

And I think that's the important part here.

As much as possible, develop a shared vision, create an opportunity for pooled funding, and then at that point as well, we can use each other expertise to look at how we do the execution to you know use that money wisely and efficiently.

And I think the so I think that option two allows us to do that.

Um to digress a little bit on the uh the form or the function.

Um here's one uh councilmember Dickinson that maybe you did serve on or not, but the Sacramento Area Basin Wide Air Pollution Control Council.

We just call it the BCC for short.

But um it's our six air pollution control um air districts, but what we have is there is only two staff, that uh one uh expert staff and then one administrative staff, but it's the air pollution control officers, the experts that um are part of the technical advisory committee that actually helps us pull together.

So I do think there is an opportunity because we're not going to reinvent the wheel on a planning agency, another planning agency.

We need to figure out how to use the current expertise that we have to interface better.

So I I do think that uh that option two allows us to immediately break the silos and then um uh move forward.

Finally, I will say that um we do have an active tool before us that we should amend.

It's a tool, not a governing structure, but that is our city-county partnership agreement.

It's an active agreement, and if there's anything that must be done is to amend it so it is current with the changes in law that have that have allowed us to respond to both the mental health and the substance abuse uh uh uh challenge that we see on our street.

Uh since the time that that was developed, we have not responded to that.

Understanding the high utilizers that we find in our ER room.

I just had a conversation with uh medical professional this Sunday who said that almost half of their beds at the South Sack Kaiser were consumed with folks who needed a place to go but were there because there was no other response for mental health or substance abuse.

And we do have our seven facilities, but the coordination of that when our first responders respond to an uh a crisis, we need to have a better coordination.

So I do think that um uh amending and revisiting and updating the city county partnership agreement again, a tool.

Now that tool I think will serve us well in the execution of what the governing board wants to do.

So uh I think my only request is that uh is that uh that we begin to move and address that uh that part advancing the uh the ability of better optimizing CARES court, um, better working with our public defender and our district attorney, and better working with our public guardian and county council, and that I think can be accomplished uh in part as we develop this joint powers agreement through the city county partnership agreement by amending that.

So thank you.

Yeah, and uh councilmember Guerrero, I will let you know that the city county city county partnership agreement is on our work plan to move forward with.

So you'll see that coming through in the next couple of months um to be completed.

And I did want to circle back to something councilmember Dickinson said.

We we talked about the governance structure, and I don't think Yayen leaned into this too much.

You know, um when decisions are not aligned, that's when the systems break down, right?

And that's where we see ourselves now.

We know one of the things that systems do well is they're clear, they're strategic, they're intentional, and they're data driven, right?

So and they're clear about outcomes.

So we did talk about that, and we had that discussion when we were putting these three models together.

So we did have an intentional uh conversation about governance.

Um and and actually thank you for that clarification, madam uh city manager, because that was a lot of my questions at the 2 p.m.

to also highlight the disconnects of where is the funding, who's making decision, who's driving this when we do something, is the county on board.

Did we have that pre-conversation?

You know, of which we're discussing tonight because what we have isn't working.

And it is like the whack-a-mole of chasing it and the who what um when where I will say that I align myself with council member uh Maple's comments because she has been the one dedicated and working on this for the longest, specifically on this specific issue out of all of us.

So um I uh let's let's be honest, um, Senator Ashby, if you're still watching and we come to an agreement, keep SB 802 and put a deadline for us to make an agreement, because I don't trust us.

This decision was made in 2010 to do this, came back in 2011, a couple of grand jury reports.

We still didn't do it.

I am hoping I want to be proven wrong.

I want the city and the county to come together.

I want an agreement to work, but I also look at history and I'd be a fool to say, oh, I trust this to happen.

I don't.

And I don't mind the little heavy hand with the time limit of saying you must do this by this time, or this goes into place.

I I would be okay with us being under a deadline because in government sometimes we move a little slow, and that slow means hundreds of millions of dollars of money for our homeless and housing have not been spent in a way that has gotten results that really have made a difference.

So I go from like that data-driven, I want us to quit spending money and saying, Oh, is it working?

No, we need these results and we need alignment and we know where the money is because the county is running out of money, the state's running out of money, we're running out of money, and if we don't do it right, it means more people are going to end up on the streets.

Yeah, and Councilmember Kaplan, your point about the funding, and it's a policy call for the counties and the cities.

We have to determine braided funding versus blended funding.

You know, braided funding tells us which pot we can pay out of blended funding tells us what is needed now.

So I think from a policy direction, if we have that discussion, we know how to align our strategic goals.

Absolutely.

I'd like to also see if we move forward that we do need a formal written JPA.

We do need elective board members because you know the COC makes a lot of decisions and why they might be experts, they're not the ones elected that get held accountable.

I get held accountable, but I'm not part of that decision making.

So I do believe that we do need monthly open Brown Act meetings.

I do believe we have to blend some version of housing as we talk about homelessness.

The number one thing is one, we need to get people in.

And if we know certain funding is tied to we can't demand services, we also need to look at where's the money where we can demand services, and I think Sacramento can be a leader because I think data will show up that says when we demand services, we're getting a higher positive net return on getting into permanent housing and being productive citizens in society.

Maybe the state and federal government will change their mind and actually allow us to do that.

But if we don't start showing that data, how are things going to be changed?

And I need our structure, however, it ends up to be data driven because that will decide what is the right thing and the wrong thing to do, because it does feel a little bit of let's do this and see, let's do this.

And we don't have the complete data because nothing was fully integrated.

Um and so uh I can't support option two unless I see some of the things that council member maple put forward on uh unless I'm supportive and I will fully bless Senator Ashby moving forward with 802 to force us uh to do something.

So I'd like for us to work together.

I think we can, but I think it has to be in a written contract form of writing, because right now I don't have enough control.

And when my community comes to me and says, hey, you need to do this or do this, and I go, Well, sorry, I don't have a vote.

You elected me, but I can't do anything.

That's not what our taxpayers and community members deserve or want to hear because they want to be compassionate, but they also want accountability for how we're doing things.

Okay, my turn.

That's Mayor Talamantes.

All right.

Um, I do want to also give kudos to Mayor McCarty and Councilmember Maple for working on this for so long.

I mean, you guys have been many years at it.

Also to city staff for working around the clock on figuring out something that could potentially work for all of us, um, and all the partners that came out today to listen to this meeting.

Uh, in my ideal world, uh, one stop shop with one board of directors with elected officials would be ideal.

Um, combining resources, maximizing dollars, and being accountable to the voters.

We are the elected officials, and we are the people that people vote in or vote out.

If we do a bad job, they vote us out.

If we do a good job, we stay in our jobs.

And that's really important for me as the state dollars get reduced, the county dollars get reduced, and we see a reduction in how much money we're getting from the federal government as well.

I do want to remind people that the city of Sacramento is not a health and human services agency.

The county is.

The county's responsible for providing services in the city of Sacramento, and that's something that I'm gonna continue to scream and shout, just like Councilmember Maple shouts about her JPA.

Like we need services in the county, in the city.

Like we pay county taxes, we vote for supervisors in the city of Sacramento limits, and I feel like throughout the years we have had not enough resources dedicated to the city of Sacramento.

And that's why we're we're here today, um, talking about this JPA framework, because we as elected officials are looking to see how we can better coordinate with our county agencies and the other cities across Sacramento.

What's happening right now is other jurisdictions are also not building enough affordable housing, so people are priced out.

People can't afford their homes.

The rents are high, people are getting evicted from their homes.

We got to prevent people from becoming homeless.

We need to work together as a Sacramento region.

Because yes, City of Sacramento is the largest city from our neighboring jurisdictions, and we do have the largest homeless problem, but that's because other jurisdictions lock up their people, send them to county jail, they get released from county jail, then they go down to J Street, 12th Street, 16th Street, and they become the city of Sacramento's problem.

And it shouldn't be like that.

There should be more re-entry, there should be more prevention, and when people commit a crime in Elk Grove or Citrus Heights or Folsom, then you go back and you set them to where they committed the crime, not in the city of Sacramento, downtown streets.

And that's one thing that's frustrating for me because the dollars that we have is just not enough to keep up with the Sacramento region's entire problem.

And that's why we need or formal governance structure and why we're here today.

Because like Councilmember Kaplan said, like government can't get it together right now.

And there's a lack of trust.

I mean, I'll point out to Mayor McCarty's 25 million dollars that he gave us for the American River Parkway because we cleared everybody, and then we were supposed to house them with the 25 million dollars.

They give us a Thursday notice for the vote on a Tuesday with a holiday in between.

That was not right.

So I went to the county board of supervisors and it didn't go very well.

Um but like we have to fight as a city of Sacramento to get our fair share of resources.

And that's why we're in this pickle.

So my question to Ya Yin, and council member Dickinson actually touched on it.

Back in the day, the continuum of care used to be underneath the county.

So in this chart, the COC board, the COC funding and functions.

Can it be where they give a vote on a formal recommendation?

But that recommendation is not final until the elected officials that are accountable to the voters vote on it.

Are you talking about so for the COC functions and the COC?

Yeah, for the funding for the COC HAP and for the COC NOFO.

For that money in the in the second in the but second bucket.

So for um the COCs are governed by federal regulations and federal regulations have requirements for who is on their board for making the decisions.

And the federal regulations include that membership should include uh people who represent uh organizations that are working in housing homelessness, and it must include a person who is experiencing homelessness or lived experience.

So as far as the COC functions, um, at least the federally mandated functions are concerned, those decisions do need to stop with the COC board, the COC board hat that is there, which would include the elected officials who are sitting there as the JPA governing body, elected officials.

But so is so that's the final stop.

Is there any way where we can get it so that they make the recommendations and at the end of the day, the final say is with the elected officials at the very top?

Yeah, the elected officials at the very top of this JPA governing body, they are the same elected officials who would be sitting as the COC board with these um additional members.

So it they they are part of that decision making process, and they would be uh the final say that that JPA governing body with the COC community members.

I I guess that is that am I understanding your question?

Yes.

Some council, it's just some elected.

Correct.

It doesn't, it wouldn't, it wouldn't go back to the sit the this nine-member city council, it wouldn't go back to the board of supervisors, it wouldn't go back to all the local jurisdictions.

Those decisions would be made by the JPR governing body elected officials, which includes a representative of your bodies for those COC uh funding decisions.

Okay.

Um then I know Councilmember Maple touched on this a little bit, but the staff by independent administrator, I don't mind if it's like a general manager, if we call it a general manager, an executive director, uh an administrator, what matters to me is that that individual is employed by this governing body.

I want that person to be accountable to us, the elected officials.

That way there's no bias in the city staff that are presenting to us by their prospective uh city jurisdictions.

I really want it to be an independent person that reports to us and agendizes the meetings and helps us continue the conversation.

Is that good?

Okay.

Um, and then on funding, the I'm okay with the hybrid option between two and three.

I understand our general fund dollars stay within the general fund.

Um, but I am interested in, I believe here.

Is this public?

Yeah, this okay.

I don't know what page this is.

Uh the JPA board makes funding recommendation on all HAP and requests local funds.

So all HAP funding, it'll be will make all the the governing board or the COC and the JPA governing board will make the recommendations.

So it's envisioned that they would make recommendations and all of the HAP, but in this case, um, because HAP is uh delegated to the local jurisdictions, the COC board or or the JPA governing body with the COC board would make recommendations, you know, with the regional plan as we talked about, and um that recommendation would then have to go to the city council for your final approval and the board of supervisors for the final approval.

So they make the recommend funding recommendations on all HAP, but those decisions, those final decisions would still be made with the local jurisdictions.

Okay.

And then my last, I mean, I guess my last comment is what matters to me on this is having teeth.

It needs to have teeth.

Otherwise, a body of government with no money and no resources has no power.

That's just the way it works.

And so on this agreement option two, the only funding that's really changing is the COC HAP and the COC NOFO.

Correct.

The those funding decisions, that would be the main change in terms of where the final decision is being made, and that would then include the JPA governing body elected officials sitting as the JPA board with the community members.

But then but then the city and county hat funding.

I mean, that should just they they would be considered and um they would be looked at in totality by this JPA governing body.

So they would, you know, for example, the Sacramento region is getting 31 million.

The state decides and allocates how much each body is getting, but this JPA governing body would look at it in totality and make recommendations.

We do that currently at a staff level.

Um and as we look at, you know, what are we all spending our hot money on?

This would elevate this to the elected official uh JPA governing body, and they would you know make a recommendation on the budgets, which would then be taken back to the local jurisdictions to this full city council for your final approval.

Okay, and then one of my last questions is the hat funding, the COC gets it, the city gets it, and the county gets it.

Correct.

And this is formula based or based on competitive applications.

It's formula based, and so um all the counties in California, all of the COCs in California, and the 14 large cities uh in the state receive hat funding, and that is uh state statute.

Okay, and then uh councilmember Maple had a few additions to add on.

So I want to see if the mayor, councilmember Jennings are okay with her the add-ons of it being a formal group, um the elected official governing body, monthly public meetings, um, including SHRA as advisory at the very bottom, uh, because it has to do with housing, and then the staffing resources.

I mean, it already has independent administrator.

Yeah, are you are you guys okay with those?

I'll address those.

Okay, okay, cool.

Okay.

No, I'm I think the only question I had, I was just gonna see if the motion the motioner on the table was going to take the amendments from um councilwoman maple.

I think my only question for option two, because it sounds like that's where the majority of my colleagues may be leaning, um, if I'm counting my votes correctly, um wanted to know why SHRA or housing wasn't part of the option two.

They are part of the option two, they're staffed by the jurisdiction.

So I didn't list like DCR, OIED, SHRA.

They are already a body that reports to the city council and the board of supervisors, so they are already you know, somewhat as a department of the uh of the jurisdictions of two of the main jurisdictions.

So for space purposes, we listed staffed by local jurisdictions, which includes your body.

So if public works needs to be included for whatever reason, they would be included.

If planning needs to be included, they would be included.

So we didn't we didn't list every department that this includes, and this obviously is for housing and homelessness, and they as the uh functionally as our housing department would would definitely need to be an important partner, and then as the public housing authority who holds um critical housing resources in terms of public housing as well as vouchers, they are a critical partner to our efforts to uh reduce homelessness.

Okay, yeah, I only asked that because you're absolutely right, right?

Our public housing authority um holds a lot of the resources, and you know, we can't keep operating in siloed, and I think that's just my concern with option two.

Um I would entertain, love to hear what the mayor has to say and hope that we can adopt some of the amendments that um councilwoman maple has suggested.

I think for me, um, I want to make sure that this JPA is meet meeting monthly.

Uh, that's really important.

Um I I want to echo the making sure that this JPA agreement um is resourced well, um, including the housing is gonna be really important.

I don't see, I mean, I understand that you know SHRA is is part of this because they're already a JPA that has elected leaders, but I think it's really important that they are truly like part of it because of the resources.

I mean, I think the conversation is that everyone has limited resources, the county, the city, and so pulling this together, pulling the resources together is really key.

I see SHRA as as a critical component of that.

Um and then and then lastly, um, just ensuring that the ultimate decision falls on the elected because at the end of the day, we are the one that that is held responsible by the voters.

And so those are those are all my comments.

Um, and we'll like to hear what the mayor will will do with the possible amendments on the table.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate the dialogue, and I took notes from everybody.

I want to talk about each person and some specifics.

Can you go back to the the slide that has option two?

This this one.

Yeah, oh yes.

Okay, I don't see another mind.

There we go.

It was up there, not here.

So I I think as councilmember Dickinson said, this this one gives us the best chance to succeed in getting the county to partner with us.

You know, they hold more cards than we do in solving uh the these issues, and the more we um go in a different direction or add on stuff, it may look good to us up here, but we I've been talking to the supervisors for all of them for months, and I know what is in the realm of possibility, and two is I don't know if the others really have a chance to succeed.

And I think that if you look at our Venn diagram, I think we're very, very, very close.

I don't think there's a lot of mutual um uh or or issues that that are that are that are are counter to where we want to go.

So let me just focus on the the big picture.

You you asked Council Mr.

Maple, how do you envision this to work?

How I envision it for those of you that serve on I think it's the regional sanitation board where you're there for three hours, and the first two hours, half of the people meet, and then afterwards you focus on the other issues.

So we talked about this in January.

This was the COC reform where, as council member Talamante said, more elected leadership controlling these public dollars.

We need to be accountable for our public dollars.

So the the let's say nine elected officials from the county board of supervisors, city council, and other cities combined would serve on this.

Maybe roughly you throw in four who are lived experience, youth, law, um, health care, as far as the community members, you know, they could focus on overseeing the COC 40 million dollars a year.

So that's essentially a GPA, right?

They're working on that not insignificant pot of money.

And then after that concludes, like regional sanitation, the electeds, let's say the nine remain, and then they could focus on how we can better work together on housing, housing, and homelessness.

I I I concur.

I wanted I want to just focus on adopting uh the option two, but when we go to communicate this, we could put on there that the second, the JPA governing body, it's not an agency, the GPA governing body, the issues for discussion with the money staying with each jurisdiction.

We want to focus on you know, starting the conversation with them, housing and homelessness.

That's the ask as we start the dialogue.

Um I I do think it should be monthly.

This is when we kind of we kind of map this out that it should be a formal meeting, like we meet here and the county board of supervisors every uh every fourth Tuesday of the month, what have you at nine, what you know, whatever time it is, open meetings.

Um it will be staffed.

It isn't a um an executive director, as I think Yayin said, because they're not overseeing programs.

Those programs for the time being are run by the city, the county steps forward, SHRA and others.

Maybe one day, potentially, I know how how council member maple's kind of vision of this one day where everybody throws all their money on the table, we all work together and and and better pool our money.

That could happen, but the beginning, I I think nothing is going to happen if we don't meet every month.

Good stuff is happening with our city staff on a monthly basis and daily basis anyway.

But if we're meeting on a monthly basis, Maple and Kaplan, Plucky Bomb, whoever, and two supervisors, the mayor of Elk Grove and Citrus Sites, and and um, you know, we talk about hey, we're going to, as councilmember Garris said, apply for this new governor's, you know, program.

And it says you get extra points if you partner with another jurisdiction.

Can we can we use your land in Rio Linda or Elk Grove and use our money for it?

That's what the magic is.

How can we get more outcome with our limited resources?

So I think that um is is where we're all uh in accord there.

Um yeah, Mr.

Plucky Baum, I don't have a problem with that.

We can set up a uh a sunset on this as we talk about it.

I think that's um that's appropriate.

Um I think that this gives us a chance.

We're doing this tonight, this is not happening.

We're doing this tonight, and tomorrow morning we're gonna call the county like, hey, we like to talk about this idea that you know the mayor and some council members and supervisors have briefly mapped out over the last few months.

Can we start talking about the opportunity to bring this forward?

Uh there would be a public vote on this, so would it would be it would be um binding a council member uh uh caplan?

There's nothing like a deadline of other people having something to push us to act.

That's not a bad thing.

I concur.

Um look, we we we all work for the same people.

You know, our local legislators, our county supervisors, the same constituents.

We're all on the same team, and so this I I think gives us the best chance to coordinate and have more positive outcomes for our communities with related to housing and homelessness.

So with that, um there's we're we're we're we're pursuing option two, and but as option two goes forward.

Um I think the biggest thing that council member maple asked for is to make sure that as option two goes forward, we want to make sure that the the JPA agreement, the structure addresses both housing and homelessness.

So I'm gonna accord with that, and everything else was just logistics on monthly.

What you said?

Yes, monthly public.

So it's uh if I may, Mr.

Mayor.

Monthly meetings that are public.

Um thank you.

Monthly meetings that are public, joint powers 30 have must have resources and staffing.

That's important, include both homelessness and housing.

And I and I heard you say that um as part of your direction, but um I think what I heard at least some of the people on this day say is that that SHRA is a really crucial part of this.

They already are.

I mean, they're already part of the RCAP and like the work that's happening um with the COC and beyond, and so I think calling it out specifically that they're a part of this is important.

Uh council member, so is it part of the direction of this motion then?

Or does it need to be amended to include these asks?

I I are you okay with giving direction for to negotiate with the county on these parameters?

So y'all again, it is your understanding that what you're hearing today up here is those five things that were outlined or four things are also included as a part of the option two.

So it's not just the option two that people are seeing on the screen here.

Yeah, and I have a just so I you make sure I have them, be a formal JPA, which this would be a formal JPA under state uh joint powers uh exercise law, be an elected board or a board that includes elected officials, um, meet monthly open public meetings, which this would be uh must include both housing and homelessness, which includes the staffing of the agencies who work in housing and homelessness, which includes SHRA, SSF, the COC, city departments, county departments, surrounding city departments, um, and have staffing and resources to function, um, implementation.

Um so that includes the uh independent administrator that we have here, and um that there would be resources that this body is uh looking at and considering some resources.

This body would be the final uh decision-making body, some resources this body would be the recommending body that would then go back to the local jurisdiction.

So those are the five things that I have written down, and I do believe that is captured on this and then the seconder is is good with that.

And then the sunset that counts.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, okay.

And again, this is just our vision.

Yeah, and we could we we have to hear from the partners whether or not they agree to this, and potentially they could come back as is, they could come back with changes or we'll you know yes, coordinate accordingly.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, all right.

Questions or comments?

Okay, all right.

We have a motion and a second on that.

I think it's been um properly noted.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, any nose or abstentions?

No, item passes.

Okay, thank you.

Next item start of our form of the CLEP car wash appeal.

So just do just like this.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll open the public hearing of the applicant appeal, the Florin Road quick quack car wash.

Uh first, we're opening the public hearing.

Uh next, we're asking if any council member would like to or needs to report any ex parte communications.

Do we have any council members that need to report any ex parte communications?

Councilmember Guerr.

Yes, I did meet with the representatives of the applicant.

Yes.

So we met with either side.

Now is the time that you need to state that publicly.

Councilmember Maple.

I have also met and spoken with representatives of the applicant.

Okay.

Councilmember Kaplan.

I also met with representatives of the applicant.

Oh, me too.

Okay, state that.

Oh, I also met with representative of the applicant.

Okay.

Same.

Repeat it for the record.

I met with the representative of the applicant.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

That's it.

Yes.

No other notifications.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh staff presentation.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council.

I am Danny Abbas with the community development department and the planner for this item.

It is a request to establish for the slide here.

A request to establish a conditional use permit for a quick quack car wash on a 1.15 acre site.

Sorry, a 1.15 acre portion of a 14-acre parcel at 3815 Florin Road near Franklin Boulevard.

On February 26th, the planning design commission held a public hearing for the same request and denied the conditional use permit to operate a car wash at this location.

The applicant has appealed the decision.

Planning staff were tasked with assessing the proposed use's impact, suitability, and consistency or inconsistency with adopted city documents.

In this case, staff does not support a car wash use at this site on Florin Road, finding that it is incompatible with land use and transportation goals and policies within the city general plan, the South Area Community Plan, and the City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Staff recommend that the council deny the use permit request.

General Plan Map M3 identifies Florin Road as part of a designated transit-oriented development area.

The site is near the Florin Road, uh, the Florin Light Rail Station.

Many bus transit stops with quality service and planned increased bus rapid transit service.

Bus service here works in concert with light rail service with buses going both directions along Florin Road, providing direct drop-offs to the Florent Light Rail Station.

The South Area Community Plan speaks specifically to the land use intent of infill along the Florin Road high frequency bus corridor as uses that are intended to promote mixed-use development and incentivize multi-unit housing.

A car wash use does not align with this vision.

Multiple schools, transit, grocery stores, and services are all within walkable distance from the site.

The subject parcel and the smaller adjacent corner property with the same owner is part of a consolidated site listed in the city's regional housing needs assessment housing element sites inventory, which anticipates 377 units of moderate income housing and 378 units of lower income housing, making it one of the highest assumed capacity sites remaining in city inventory.

What's being shown here is less than a one mile stretch of Florin Road.

Each of the blue dots are bus stops, and the orange is the Florin Light Rail station.

There are six bus stops within less than a quarter mile of the site.

Nearby frequent buses go north, south, east, and west, and those along Florin Road, including the bus stop next to the site, connect directly to light rail.

The area of the proposed project has exceptional transit proximity and service.

Transit supportive uses, not car washes will help support existing and future bus service.

The proposed use is an abundantly available service in the area with four active car washes less than a mile from the site, including a tunnel wash almost directly across the street.

Staff does not find that another car wash in a concentrated area would provide residents, uh the surrounding community and residents with a service that is needed.

There's a quick quack about one and a half miles south of the site at Franklin Boulevard and Mack Road, and another proposed quick quack about a mile east of the site within the county.

The general plan recognizes this stretch of Florin Road as a high injury network next to a top five Vision Zero corridor.

These designations are road segments identified as having the highest numbers of fatal and serious crashes involving people walking, biking, and driving.

The site is proximate to several transit stops and located in a disadvantaged community.

These characteristics of areas in the city are correlated with elevated crash occurrences.

A non-auto-oriented use at this location could reduce vehicle trips and the number of collisions.

General plan map EJ5 represents communities cumulatively impacted by environmental justice issues.

The subject site and is a is in a section that has both county and city land within what is deemed as a most disadvantaged area.

Some of these issues include poverty, transportation safety, air pollution, and access to health care.

The site is also within state designated SB 535 and AB617 areas, which have a disproportionately high air pollution burden and aim to reduce local emissions.

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District provided a project comment that a pedestrian-oriented use rather than an automobile-oriented use would be consistent with the public health aims of AB 617 and would support sustainable transportation investments.

The AB 617 South Sacramento Floor and Community Steering Committee submitted their own letter of concern that the proposed project would compound the community's existing air pollution burden and encourage the city to support land use decisions that improve air quality in overburdened communities.

Staff maintain that the best opportunity for a land use within this walkable transit-rich area to reduce air pollution is for it to provide residents or offer services to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders.

Additionally, this furthers city climate action goals.

Staff believe that a land use at this location can and should uh take advantage of uh transit investments, promote walkability, support housing, protect air quality, consider climate action, address environmental injustice and equity, and maintain alignment with visions and policies throughout several city adopted plans to help achieve their collective goals.

Therefore, staff recommend denial of the discretionary use permit for a quickquack car wash at this location.

That concludes my presentation.

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

Uh the applicant also has uh a slideshow.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dickinson.

Yeah, I just I didn't think about it at the outset.

I I should say I had a conversation in passing with applicants.

Okay.

Attorney.

Noted.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the council.

Just waiting for my PowerPoint to be pulled up.

Um, my name's Leticia Ramidas.

I am with the law firm of Thatch and Hooper, and we represent the applicant QuickQuack.

Here with me tonight is the director of entitlements for QuickQAC, Vance Shannon, civil engineer Julisa Ribera, CEQA consultant John Teofilo, and Armin Havasyan, the traffic engineer, as well as Ryan Hooper with our office.

I will start by saying we're we are very excited to be here with a project that enjoys significant community support and that will activate a long-time vacant site, which you see on your screen.

That said, we really wish we were not here tonight because we're here appealing the denial of this project.

The appeal of the project was in part consistent with staff's recommendation, which you just heard right now.

Staff does not support a car wash use at this location.

As a result, they have produced an analysis of the general plan for this project that we completely disagree with.

We believe that it is inconsistent with established case law regarding consistency findings for a development project.

I'm going to keep my remarks brief because we do have members of the community here, especially young students, and it is a school night, but I do want to reserve some time for rebuttal after public comment, mayor, if that's okay with you.

So from a land use perspective, as staff notes in their staff report, a car wash is an allowed use under the general plan.

Under the zoning code, a car wash is allowed subject to a CUP because this site is more than half a mile from the Florent Light Rail Station.

If we're if it were any closer, the city's TOD regulations would either prohibit the use or trigger special types of regulations.

That's not the case here.

There's no special planning overlay zone, similar to like Stockton Boulevard, which prohibits this use.

Just to be clear and to underscore this, there is no general plan policy, goal, or language that precludes this use at this site.

Despite these very bright line rules and regulatory framework, staff has repeatedly rejected proposals to develop a car wash on this site or any other auto-oriented uses for that matter, leaving the site vacant as it stands right now for over 13 years.

Given this backdrop, the applicant did took a key step before they submitted the pre-application.

They went out and spoke to the community.

They wanted to know whether or not local residents would support this project.

What they found is an overwhelmingly positive response for this project.

Quickquack is a positive contributing corporate citizen here in the Sacramento region.

Residents said that they were excited at the prospect of creating jobs for local youth.

Quickquack employs about 15 folks.

They are part-time jobs, very suitable for young people and students.

The community also said that, hey, this is a needed service.

It's very popular.

It's a very convenient service that many of us, including myself, probably use as members of QuickQAC.

They also said that the community was also supportive of the project because it beautifies a vacant concrete piece of property, as I said, has been vacant for over 13 years.

As part of Quickwack's community outreach efforts, they created a partnership with the Rose Family Creative Empowerment Center, which is located directly north of this site.

This is an organization that runs a young youth program for local students about empowerment and civic engagement.

You will hear from these students.

They are here tonight, and they were actually there the night the planning commission denied the project.

The project also enjoys support from the Florent Road Partnership.

That letter of support was shared with the council.

There was also a number of public comments that were sent in by members of the community, residents of Council District 5 who support this project.

The other issue, the other item or action item the project took was to develop a site that was very much inspired by the 2040 general plan that includes a pedestrian feature along the frontage of this parcel.

What you see on the screen provides a shaded bike storage area for quickquack employees who ride their bikes to work.

There is a leaning bench that passers and even those individuals waiting for the bus stop at the parcel next to it can enjoy.

You will find no other quickquack in the state of California that looks like this.

This pedestrian plaza also includes a detached sidewalk that includes that is further set back from the road, which is again consistent with the mobility policies of your general plan.

So I just want to touch upon the general plan consistency issue.

I will address VMT air quality and all of those items later on in my rebuttal because I do want to allow the community to have an opportunity to share their thoughts.

In terms of the general plan consistency issue, so California case law says that the standard for determining consistency is whether a project furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment.

That said, if a project conflicts with just one specific fundamental or mandatory general plan policy, then the project is inconsistent.

What I'm noting here is that none of the policies that staff cites for their determination are mandatory.

An objective reading of the general plan would reveal that the project is actually furthering the plot the general plan's policies around infill development, reduction of VMT, promoting walkability, activating frontages, increasing economic development, maximizing commercial corridors, and activating underutilized sites.

Staff's opposition to this project seems to be based on a belief that an auto-oriented use is not preferred or ideal for this site, and that other non-auto-oriented uses could or should be located on the site.

Again, unfortunately, these are this type of rationale or reasoning is not relevant for purposes of granting the CUP.

We understand that some would prefer a different use on this site, and our response to that is that approval of this project does not preclude the development of the remaining portion of the parcel for other uses.

This is a yes and situation.

There are plenty of examples of other uses, including residential uses being developed adjacent to a quickquack, including my local Quickquack in Council District 7 on Pocket Road.

That use was established and a number of years afterwards, a multifamily development project was constructed and operational.

So I'll close by saying that City Council here has an opportunity to activate a vacant site with a project that is really popular.

Ten years ago we had a drought, we weren't able to wash our cars at home, and now customers and members of QuickQuack enjoy the convenience of having a location close by.

This is similar to a gas station that you may see an intersection where there may be four or five, I'm sorry, four gas stations at an intersection, but it's because it's all about convenience, and that therefore that's why from an environmental standpoint, including VMT, this actually leads to a reduction of VMT because the majority of visits to this site are cars that are already on the road.

They're either passed by or diverted.

We urge the council to grant the appeal and approve the project by finding that the project is consistent with the general plan, and we look forward to um coming back for rebuttal after public comment.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, uh Mayor McCarthy and Council members.

My name is Shireen Sandich.

I'm the president of Sandich Urban Group.

Uh I am an affordable housing developer, and I'm coming today to speak in favor of the staff's recommendation to deny the uh uh conditional use permit for this property.

We believe a better use for this property is senior housing.

And as a developer, we are looking at building senior housing.

One of the things that you must understand that's happening now is we are living in a very different world from January to now.

There is a group of seniors that we are seeing in our tax credit apartments that are subject to become homeless.

So we need to build more lower affordable units for them to transition to, or they will be your next population that hits the uh streets, and that's your new homeless people.

Actually, some working, some not, but we are asking you to give us an opportunity to consider the development on this site.

We have gotten calls from a lot of the district council representatives here asking us to do and bring more senior housing to the area.

We're working as fast as we can.

The environment is changing every year, every day, with every different administration that is coming in, and we're trying to keep up.

But in this particular case, we strongly support that the conditional use permit not be uh approved, and that you really take an optimistic uh view on what's happening with hot with cars, what's happening with gas.

Do you need a quick quack car wash just a quarter of a mile from where another one is at?

I ask you to be proactive in this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kayla Ahrens, followed by Bishop Baker.

Kayla.

No, okay.

Bishop Baker.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

As I was sitting here, there was a lot I wanted to say, but as I was listening to you all, the number one thing when Mayor said what people want is to help the homeless, get them off the streets.

So what are we looking at?

Are we looking at a quick quack or are we looking at a lot?

I heard what was it, 370 some units can be on there.

Then I heard just heard the lady say about the homeless seniors.

But what hurts my heart is when I'm on Franklin, that's the district I live in.

And I'm on a board for a re-entry program right over there, and what hurts my heart is when I see two seniors pushing a cart with their stuff in it, and they're doing that because they got kicked out of their place where they lost the contract for HUD.

Now, if we look at that spot and say, okay, we can build some affordable units, like the lady said here.

Let's look at our seniors won't be on the street.

It's not an issue about being biased towards quick quack hell.

I supported the quick quack on Franklin and Mac.

But when we look at this lot, what's the number one thing driving here?

What's popular?

I heard the applicants say popular.

Well, here in Sacramento, it's popular, homeless.

We're under pressure to get these people off the street.

So that's popular.

That that site is popular.

And I heard you talking about working together as as and getting out of your cycles.

If the county in the city can work together and put resources together, well, by God, we should be able to bring applicants to the table building affordable housing.

If I can sit in my apartment, today I was on the phone with a developer out of New York, and I say, What do you think about Sacramento?

They pulled that site up.

So it's a mighty nice looking site.

If I can do that, why can't we do that?

Come together and work and look at getting our seniors off the street and others.

It's not an issue about again being biased towards Quick Quack.

It's an issue about getting our people off the street and stop being in our own little silos.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time's complete.

Casey Myers, followed by Kaomi Myers and Zion Zanaya Conley.

Okay, come right up here to the mic.

And I'm gonna turn a timer on, and you'll see your time above my head.

Go ahead.

My name is Casey Myers.

I am A.

You're good.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Kisten Myers.

I am a student at Luther Burbank High School and a member of Phoenix on the Rise.

I visited Quick Quack Center of Excellence to learn how the company is managed and how its operations work.

We took a tour of the facility and spoke with the project engineer and regional manager.

Employees share that they enjoyed working there.

We want those kinds of jobs in our neighborhood.

Please support this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Casey.

Followed by Kaomi and then Zanaya and then Kaleya.

Okay.

Good evening.

My name is Kaomi Myers.

I'm a student at Luther Burbank, a secretary in BSU, and I want to be an architect.

At the Center of Excellence, I was able to ask questions of the architect who designed the building.

She not only reviewed the plans with us, but she also gave detailed educational path on how to get certified as an architect.

To this date, this has been the only direct contact that's given me quality time and relevant information towards my future career.

Support a company that speaks up about community involvement.

Vote yes for QuickQuack, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Zanya.

And then Kim.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm here tonight as an ambassador of Phoenix on the Rise, and we are here to remind you all that our voices do have value.

Good evening.

My name is Kaylia Myers, and I'm a fifth grader that currently attends Parkway Elementary.

I visited a Quick Quack site to learn how it's ran and to see the technology behind the watch, including license plate recognition and the conveyor belt system that moves the cars through.

My favorite part of career day was lunch.

When you take a teenager to a nice restaurant and tell them to order anything, including desserts, it's a moment they'll remember.

Thank you to Mr.

Shannon for hosting us, and thank you, Mayor and City Council for your time.

Please vote yes on Quick Quack.

Thank you.

Thank you, Keisha, followed by Adriana and then Jayla.

My name's Keisha.

I attend Rosemont High School.

Quick Quack is a good community neighborhood.

They want to support food banks, school backpacks, programs, little league soccer programs.

We need more companies who can contribute back to our neighborhoods.

Not just to take money and resources out.

Please support Quick Quack's development application.

Thank you for listening.

Adriana.

Good evening, Mayor Kathy and City Council members.

My name is Adriana Wormsley.

I'm a Burbank High School student and BSU historian.

On our tour of Quick Quack Center of Excellence, we saw how the company designs and builds its own equipment.

We also learned about the new ideas they're testing, including plant-based detergent and floor mat cleaning.

They make everything from soaps to wipers, and I'm impressed.

Thank you for your time and support.

Hello.

Um, good evening.

My name is Jayla Cook.

I'm a student at Parkway Elementary, and I support Quickquack.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Kaylee.

My name is Hello, my name is Carly Mallory.

I go to um Salvage Hard School.

I support Quick Quack.

Thank you.

Malaysia.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Malaysia Geddis, and I'm a student at Birmingham High School and a member of Phoenix on the Rise, as well as um Black City Union president.

I'm here to express my strong support for this project.

I attended Career Day as the Quick Quack Center of Excellence, hosted by Mr.

Shannon, who sent the van to Phoenix.

During the visit, we spoke with architect, the project manager, I mean project engineer and a regional manager and other employees.

And we got a very close and personal look on the plan of the site on Florent Road.

Internal operations and job training.

We're here to make sure our voices are heard, and we hope you're listening because we're tired of the crumbling sidewalks.

We're tired of the blight and dirty needles.

And trust that collect on the lot.

We're tired of the dirty lot that is the entryway to our neighborhoods.

We're tired of being told that we what we want isn't as important as someone else telling us that we need something else.

We're tired of being patient.

We're teenagers.

Please hear our voice and support the project.

Thank you for your time.

And I also have a letter from my mom supporting Quickwack as well.

It's fed next.

Thank you so much for your time.

Well, yes, on Quick Quack.

Will you leave the letter down here for us?

Thank you.

Liliana, followed by Karen.

Good evening.

My name is Liliana Parker.

I'm not going to repeat what was already said, but I would like to say during this weekend, I was walking around the neighborhood asking neighbors to sign this people, this piece of paper of cookwag uh getting placed on tomorrow road.

Thank you for your time and vote yes for quick whack.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Karen Rivera, followed by Dorothea Reeves.

Sorry, my eyes are watering.

Good evening, uh City Council and Mayor.

Um my name is Karen Rivera.

Um, and I have been a resident of Meadowview District 8, and I'm currently a resident of District 2 downtown.

I'm also a quick quacker before when they first got here.

Um, I do it out of convenience.

Um, the fact that there are so many quick quacks.

I say a lot about uh the company, it's a great company.

Um I had the pleasure of taking these children to the quick quack facility, and it was life-changing and memorable.

I didn't know just how echo friendly they are, how much they invest in the communities that they enter, how they've taken these kids for the very first time.

It was an all-day trip, concluding with a paid dinner, and I learned things that I didn't know, and I've been a community activist and sat on the board of MCA, have worked with Rick Jennings, um, and it was life-changing for these guys.

And the fact that we've got somebody willing to come in and beautify that corner and make it more pedestrian friendly and spend their time and their dollars in these kids in our community.

I'm in total support of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dorothea Reeves, followed by Rick.

Good evening.

My name is Dorothea Reeves.

I won't repeat what others have said, but I want to emphasize one point.

This service is needed, and the demand is real at the quick quack on Macroad, cars regularly line up and back into the food for less parking lot.

That's why I'm confident the Florent Road location is needed and will be successful.

We support Quick Quack.

Please vote to approve the appeal.

Thank you for your time and thank you, staff, for your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rick is our final speaker.

Excuse me.

Good evening, everyone.

And I live in District One.

That's clear.

Uh, most of you know me as the amazing Rick.

And I'm here as someone who actually shops in this area.

So to me, it would make great sense that I could accomplish two or three errands in that one intersection.

So as you noticed, the artist rendering actually includes the neighboring businesses and the parcels nearby.

Unlike the city's rendering on 3511 Del Paso Road, which just creates utopia.

Um, and by the way, while you're at it, we'd love a quick quack in West Nothomas.

Um, and I encourage council members to grant this appeal.

Thank you.

That concludes our public comment.

Okay.

And Mr.

Mayor, if it's okay, maybe before uh everyone files out really quickly.

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who came and commented today.

But but especially especially our young people because no matter what the topic is, whether it be this or something else, it always warms my heart to see young people, especially folks in um whether it be middle school, elementary school, high school engaging in local government.

So I'm just so thrilled that they are here.

Um okay, with that, is it my okay?

Yeah, thank you.

Now we have the uh proponent, the applicant has the opportunity to speak in rebuttal.

And now I can slow down a little bit because um I just really wanted to give them an opportunity to be heard.

Um I just want to touch upon a couple of the CEQA and air quality and VMT issues.

So the project is actually exempt from CQ review because there are no additional impacts associated with this um use beyond what's already been studied in the city's master EIR for the general plan.

Um as I mentioned before, the quick quack use is actually a lower VMT than the other C2 permitted uses in the zone.

Uh most of these trips are passed by these are road, these are cars that are already on the road, it's not a huge trip generation.

From an air quality standpoint, we acknowledge that that is the context of um this neighborhood in terms of the AB617 and um and existing air quality issues.

Nevertheless, there's no evidence in both in the C SQL review or um in um in the operational analysis that this project will add or exacerbate that type of air quality, air pollution issues.

Want to note that um you know reducing VMT reduces emissions.

There's also a large percentage of about 80% of customers at Quickwac are actually members, and there is data to back up the fact that a lot of these residents are already are are nearby, so this would be a closer quick quack than other um locations.

There's also the fact that there's um automatic license plate readers that uh streamline the entry uh into the quick quack, and most car wash um the the kind of the wash process takes less than three minutes.

There's also an increasing number of electric vehicles that are our uh member members and visiting quick quack.

So in terms of operational emissions, um there are there is no concern.

And we do know that some of the comments talk about another pedestrian-oriented use would be ideal, but none actually are backed up by quantify quantifiable data showing that this is somehow going to make a situation worse.

From a vision zero perspective, um, as you all know, it's a citywide policy framework, it's not a land use regulation.

Uh the vision zero plan does not single out any particular specific land use.

Um, there's no evidence on the record that shows that this auto this car wash use creates more pedestrian risk than any of the other commercial uses allowed in the zoning district.

We also note that the project is using an existing driveway curb cut, and that the project is um has been reviewed and will be constructed in accordance by of in accordance with public works development standards, uh which are all geared towards ensuring um traffic and safety for those that in vehicles and walking.

Um again, we we really do uh want to acknowledge that this is a use that is popular, that is a contributing, it's a good corporate citizen, it is a regional leader, it's a national leader actually in car wash um in the car wash industry, and um it has been uh not not an easy road to get here.

And the client and the applicant did this intentionally and has gone above and beyond in any way that they have been able to, both on the community outreach and the design, to be consistent with the general plan and to really show a willingness and a commitment to those goals.

Um again, we urge the council to grant the appeal and approve the CUP, and we are available to answer any questions council may have.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, this concludes the uh public comment period.

The public comment period is now closed.

Uh now is the time for uh council member deliberation discussion.

First up, council member maple.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and and thank you to our staff and um the applicants and everyone again, everyone who came to speak.

Uh it's always always uh warms my heart to see so much public participation on something as fun as uh as a car wash, but it's good.

This is what local government is.

So I'm gonna have a few questions.

Um I appreciated the the thoroughness of the staff report.

Um I did have uh one just kind of overarching question.

So there's there's several things that are mentioned in the staff report, um, including the you know the vision zero, the the the possibility of floor and road TOD, transit-oriented development or um in the future or BRT.

Um is there anything in the city code that would prohibit this project from moving forward?

And so the the bulk of the arguments are all related to essentially kind of generalities in the general plan things that we've kind of said hey these are things that we're striving for we'd like to do but they don't necessarily say absolutely no to something or absolutely yes to something is that a fair representation so the requested entitlement is a conditional use permit and the nature of a conditional use permit is to determine so these are uses known to cause uh nuisance and impacts and so uh the decision makers um would determine uh you know if overall there are impacts um it's discretionary uh so it it's intended to um be looked at in a discretionary way there it it's it's not a matter of yes or no yeah that that's really helpful because I just think it's also helpful for the public to understand that in this process too because there's a lot of government and legal jargon in these hearings but um you know we're here because there's not necessarily something that says no you can't put a car wash here there are things that we can consider in that process as as the planning commission and the council which is what we're doing here today.

Okay and then do we know and this this is a question for whoever can answer it.

Do we know how long this this lot has been vacant uh circa 20 since uh circa 2013 2013 do you know it was there before the there was a Chevrolet dealership before the dealership okay so it was essentially a lot with cars parked on it um okay and then the there is one person who owns the entirety or one entity that owns the entirety of this parcel so not just the one point something acres that's being proposed for the quickwack but the the totality of I think it's like 14 point something acres was that a question there's there's one owner of that of the parcel that we're talking about tonight one owner okay um so I had one question one of the public commenters spoke uh about the possibility of uh senior affordable housing that's obviously something that I really support um and I we have actually done a lot of senior housing um affordable housing development projects in my district I'm very proud of that um is again for whomever can answer this to our knowledge as of today has any organization done any outreach to the owner of this parcel to say that they would like to do any kind of affordable or otherwise housing project on this lot um we actually checked in with the property owner who is not our client we represent a quick who is the tenant the proper property owner confirmed that they have not been um contacted by anyone seeking to develop affordable housing or residential they would actually welcome that but um as staff noted it's been vacant since 2013 that's when the buildings were demolished um before then they were boarded up buildings um as far back as 2011 based on Google but likely um further back but since this current owner has owned the 14 acre parcel they have not been contacted okay regarding that's really helpful too because obviously the parcel is owned by someone and they would ultimately decide whether or not they sell it or use it for any purpose whatsoever and so I think it's really important that while there are a lot of great ideas and I welcome them because it um missing edited I would welcome meeting with you because guess what there are 13 plus acres available and I'm and I would love to see if we can organize a conversation with the owner of the property um to do that because I think that would be a wonderful amenity in that area um and again the owner of the property's not here but I I do we know if that's I don't think that from what I've heard and I've met with him before that I don't think he would be opposed to any type of housing do we know that if a quick quack it built gets built in the front that it precludes any other uses from being built on the lot the remainder of the lot uh it doesn't preclude it um uh typically though a car wash is uh not the most desirable use adjacent to uh housing um so um there's that as a consideration okay um so that because of noise or something else is is that your opinion or is that something we know it definitely because of noise um and also and Danny's right I wouldn't preclude it uh but housing typically if it would reduce the chances of going in there having the house and go in the back rather they're in the front where they have access to the side to the crosswalk and what have you would lessen the possibility of housing going there.

And also and Danny's right, I wouldn't preclude it, uh, but housing typically if it would reduce the chances of going in there, having the house and go in the back, rather they're in the front where they have access to the side to the crosswalk and what have you would lessen the possibility of housing going there.

Okay, because there are that lot is um I'm very familiar with it.

I'm by it all the time.

Um you have Franklin as a major arterial on this side, and then you have Florin as a major arterial on this side.

So and I as I understand the size of the quickquack, there's still avenues to be able to get into the parcel from both Florent and Franklin.

So I don't I I personally don't see how that would make it harder to access the housing, though there might be other things like noise as an issue, I'm not sure.

It's also a very big lot.

Um, so you know, having space in between.

I just think that's really important because I don't think this is an either-or conversation.

Um, I think that we and we should we can and we should be talking about all of these things together because that you know, if you look in the communities, like I'm sure if you go to Nathomas and you go to other areas, if you go to even a medievie, I'm sure you'll see a neighborhood with a quickquack and other uses and and homes right behind.

I see it all the time.

In fact, when um when I've gone and washed my car at a car wash I are at a car quick quack, I've seen them very nearby neighborhoods and other housing types.

So I know it's possible.

Um, I don't think that any decision we make today is going to um preclude housing from being built there if that's something that it is brought forth, and I would absolutely love to see a housing project get proposed um on this lot.

I have not personally seen any plans to do that, nor has um the owner of the lot or anyone else.

And so I think that's an important thing to note here that we're not really talking about theoreticals.

The other thing I'll say is this law's been vacant a long time.

Um, and while there are many things that I would love to see in the lot that would include everything from housing to a park and and beyond, I also live in reality where I don't own that lot.

The city doesn't own the lot.

Um, none of the rest of us in this room do, uh, and it's really up to that person about what gets developed there within the bounds of what we can do here at the city of Sacramento within our power.

And so what the last thing that I want to see is uh this lot stay vacant for years and years and years to come, which is something that happens all the time in my district.

You can drive all down uh the major roads and in District 5 and Broadway on Stockton on Franklin Boulevard and Florin on Freeport on Mac Road, um, and you will see empty vacant lots that have been sitting there for decades, and nobody wants to build anything, and it just breaks my heart because that is also not good for the community.

You know, imagine being a kid, those those students who came today, and you know, you're walking to and from school, and all you see is a chain link fence and trash and uh like in the same lot for your the entirety of your young life.

That's not good for you either.

Um but maybe you can have a job at the quick quack.

I don't know.

Um, and so the other thing, the last thing I'll say on this is that I um looked at our policies and priorities as a council.

In September, we met and we listed out our three top priorities, and the first one was economic development.

One of the things that I've heard from businesses and others who want it small businesses and beyond who want to open up in our city, is they have a really hard time navigating the process.

And you have a company here like Quickquack, who, you know, presumably you've opened up quite a few of these, um, and you know how to navigate the process, you know how to look for the right um land that is in the right zone that meets your requirements.

Obviously, your goal is to not spend a bunch of money because I'm sure you have at this point already spent quite a lot to get to where you are, just to be denied because you have you've missed something.

And so I don't think you've missed anything here.

I think you've identified a location that fits within um the rules and codes that we currently have in the city of Sacramento.

And if our goal is to increase businesses and increase jobs and economic development, then you know I have a really hard time squaring that with also then um deciding to deny because of more general things related to our general plan.

Um, not that they're not important, there are very important things, but I think we can do these things together.

I really do.

Um, and I think this is a this is a big piece of it.

I've heard quite a few um businesses come to me and say that they've they've had a lot of difficulty navigating our system and the uncertainty, and what that often leads to is this businesses saying, well, you know what, we'll just we'll just go and we'll go to Elk Grove or West Sacramento or somewhere else where they are open for business and they want us, and we have to live in the reality that this is where the demand is too.

I wash my car at Quickwack, I wash my car at other car washes.

Um is that the most ideal use?

Probably not, but it is also what the community wants, and we've we heard from many of them here, and so I don't view it as my job to come in and tell a business to make business decisions about whether or not it's nearby other car washes.

That's something that they will need to decide, just like a coffee shop can open up across the street from another coffee shop.

The city doesn't come in and tell them whether or not they can do that, because that's a business decision.

We just tell them what the parameters of our land uses are.

car washes um is that the most ideal use of probably not but it is also what the community wants and we've we heard from many of them here and so I don't view it as my job to to come in and tell a business to make business decisions about whether or not it's nearby other car washes that's something that they will need to decide just like a coffee shop can open up across the street from another coffee shop the city doesn't come in and tell them whether or not they can do that because that's a business decision we just tell them what the parameters of our land uses um are and so for all those reasons and many more I was especially compelled by the public comment of the young people and um the uh Rose family community empowerment center which is a huge deal and organization in that area and their support for the project um I'm going to be supporting the approval of the conditional use um permit for quick quack and that'll be my motion thank you we have a motion and a second council mayor maple uh mayor pro temgera uh well thank you uh mayor um I was gonna second the motion here but it's already been seconded uh first you know let me just say this is a little bit of deja vu and and uh and a little bit on uh my experience uh looking at a a quick quack and also uh what we saw in Stockton Boulevard and so I I took some time to think through about you know this location and a couple things come to mind uh number one um it's uh it's you know having strong goals and visions is important uh also with is there a practical ability to achieve that as well uh and you know particularly in in this site here uh if this was say on Franklin Boulevard where you already had housing where there already wasn't an a viable in attempt to um uh to access transportation or or public transit uh then I think this would be a different story second I think also that one of the experiences that we saw in Stockton Boulevard is we developed a plan and then said let's make sure that we set the roadmap for all business owners and property owners of what what is a an acceptable use and so we created a special planning district or amended the existing special planning district to eliminate any future auto uses but that is an an effort to to also uh make it clear uh no pun intended here what the rules of the roads are you know and uh in in essence what I find and particular with this situation here this one this site here uh you're on floor and road and months and away and there's nothing but uh parking lots all around uh it's not in uh it's not in an area where I could see you know the uh national auto sale changing their parking lot into housing I don't see auto outlet change changing their parking lot into housing I don't see cut capital auto services changing their parking lot into housing um I uh uh I don't see the Carl's Jr.

in the corner section or even uh you know Fien Vang travel changing their uh parking lot into housing so the opportunity here to actually change is different uh we're on Stockton Boulevard uh we saw clear opportunities of where vacant lots could turn into housing so every site I think um you know I I I want to thank staff for you know their and appreciate their um their attempt and inspiration to look at how do we convert more uh into opportunity zones I just har have a hard time seeing how this one particular lot that is off of the intersection off of the car wash off the off the intersection off of the crosswalks um becomes an in uh an opportunity site um for housing and to deny it for that uh particularly when it would be very skeptical to say that this lot in the middle of two vacant areas is going to be the one site that opens up if we look at the Stockton Boulevard example why did we think that those lots were were opportune housing because we already had a motel conversion that we turned into permanent supported housing we had another project where we had the old mercury cleaners where we said hey can you take this site on and then turn that into housing we have started the San Juan motel site already uh in the housing so there was already a um uh a plan to start you know and it wasn't easy like I'll I'll say it wasn't easy having that conversation with business owners to say we're looking at developing a special planning district to eliminate more auto uses and also more mini storages uh but we took that methodical approach and I think if if there is that plan and if that is the interest of the community and the and the council member and the community members then I think that needs to occur so that um that a new vision be created but in the meantime I don't see how there's a there's a a real viable way for this particular lot to um to uh turn into housing then finally and the staff report suggests that uh the number one item is that the neighborhood uses are incompatible but on the number one use all of the all of the proponents of the of the for the applicant came from the number one site uh as well so I I I um you know there's clearly a community disagreement uh on that on that factor so um again um I don't just I don't you know I don't disagree with the the concerns about um you know more auto related uses uh as I understand it at least the quick quack in in council district six

But on the number one use, all of the all of the proponents of the of the for the applicant came from the number one site uh as well.

So I I I um you know there's clearly a community disagreement uh on that on that factor.

So um again, um I don't just I don't you know I don't disagree with uh the concerns about uh you know more auto-related uses uh as I understand it, at least the quick quack in in Council District 6.

Um it was located over off of uh uh Folsom Boulevard because that's where everybody drives and everybody goes there.

So they they move where the auto where the vehicles are already, they're not trying to draw a new auto uses.

So that to me, at least understanding how that when that site went into effect, why uh why the site was chosen.

Uh because I do qu can have a concern, particularly in the AB 617 zone, is if we're going to create something that's going to add new auto uses.

Uh but this attempts to draw the existing auto use that is already in place.

So with that, I'll I'll be supporting the uh the motion here to uh um deny the staff recommendation and approve the the project here.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I have uh a couple questions.

Uh I happened excuse me, I happen to live in the vicinity of of a a quick crack, and so I get an chance to observe the operation of that location uh quite frequently.

Um so I am I'm curious, uh I was looking for it, but I didn't see I guess it dated back to the pre-application point in time where uh the uh air districts analysis of emissions must have must must have been um found.

Uh so uh one thing I have noticed about the the quick quack, which um I'm familiar with, and by the way, I don't think this is exclusive to quick quack.

I think this is this is um typically true is it's a significant amount of time, uh significant amount of queuing at various times.

So I'm just curious what what the air district's analysis was about emissions of emissions uh the districts uh where they have the leather that was theirs, that is as far as uh it rising to uh to where it's a sequa issue where it exceeds the the air district did not make that determination, um what the air district did say is in their letter that just there would be an increase, whether we can argue back and forth as far as that amount, but and that when you look at an alternative land use such as housing or what have you, that obviously would have, well not obviously, but as far as their opinion was would be a more preferable uh less impact with for AB 617.

Okay, I I I I saw that characterization, but in terms of the um the degree of uh emissions it didn't rise to the level of a significant environmental impact.

That's correct.

Okay.

Okay.

And then um uh was there a noise any kind of noise analysis done.

They yeah, they did do a noise uh I I actually I'm thinking about the raising gains.

No, so no noise analysis.

No noise analysis.

I it it's not immediately next to sensitive receptors, and that might be a reason, but I'd like to check with our maybe in our environmental staff uh who's more familiar with reviewing this type of thing.

I think they're maybe looking at it right now.

In the absence of a specific noise analysis for this use, is there any historical uh evidence related to noise?

I can tell you that uh near the crick crack that I'm referring to, there is also a Starbucks, and you cannot sit outside and have a have a cup of coffee or lemon glass of lemon or whatever it is and carry on a conversation because the the operation of the uh of the car wash is is that noisy.

So it's reaching at about 200 at least 200 feet uh in excess of uh 65 or 70 decibels.

I I mean I'm just uh offhand with so I'm just curious about the so to answer, yeah.

Um counsel to uh the so not on this site, no noise analysis uh though recently we did have an approved fruit on fruit ridge, some some of you may be familiar with the new car wash there that did not meet our noise ordinance standard, and they've had to uh had to make some alterations to the sound wall and to the car wash itself.

Uh though recently we did have an approved fruit on fruit ridge, some some of you may be familiar with the new car wash there that did not meet our noise ordinance standard, and they've had to uh had to make some alterations to the sound wall and to the car wash itself.

So and that um I think it was about 60 decibels that they were not attaining, so they had to do some uh some improvements on that.

So in other words, that there is we do have evidence or documentation from other car washes that they do exceed the noise ordinance.

So I um I then I would I would assume since there's no no noise analysis with this particular location, there are no mitigation measures that are required related to noise.

There weren't because our recommendation was for denial.

So if it would if our recommendation would have been for approval, then there probably would have been for sure conditions related to meeting meeting the noise standard uh and some other conditions on that.

Okay.

And then uh I didn't uh I was looking for it, but I didn't find what are the proposed hours of operation.

Either from the applicant or the staff who had the proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

And with respect to the noise, if I may, um so the project was evaluated for purposes of CEQA, and um there were no noise impacts that would be beyond again what has been studied in the master EIR related to this use.

Uh noise study was requested by staff, uh so none was actually completed.

Um but uh happy to um you know kind of uh reassure counsel that any condition of approval would require that the project comply with the existing noise ordinance if removed.

I didn't dig into it.

Was there an initial study done?

Yeah, it was a 15183.

So yes, there was a uh checklist.

It was a streamlined, yes, and and noise was not identified as potentially significant impact?

Not beyond what it was evaluated for the master EIR.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

I'll be happy to take the environmental staff over to the Starbucks with me.

Um thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um I I struggle with this, uh, frankly.

Um when I look at the comments of uh Civic Thread and I look at the comments of the AB 617 committee uh in the area.

When I think about councilman, Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Gera's comment that a lot of these uses with parking lots uh aren't likely to go away any time soon, that may be true, but of course, foreign road has changed.

It used to be dominated by car dealers that are that are mostly gone.

Some of them went to Elk Grove, some of them went away.

Uh so areas do transition.

They do they do change uh uh over time.

And uh so the struggle here uh from my point of view is recognizing the desire of the member who represents the the area to uh have something uh productive in the in the location uh in the immediate term versus the hope that something perhaps uh more desirable in the in the the broader context of changing the character of the area will come along eventually.

And that's that's a dilemma that all of us, probably all of us, no matter what district we represent, have um have faced, particularly those of us though who have districts with significant uh vacant property.

And uh so I'm very uh I'm very sympathetic uh to that.

Uh I I would just say that I think approving this is largely a concession.

It's a concession to uh the uh idea that this is the best we can do uh under the foreseeable circumstances uh for some uh relatively lengthy period uh to come.

And uh every time we make these concessions, we make that vision that we have for what we're trying to achieve more difficult to do.

Um so uh I I I am I wish uh I wish we had uh people who had shown interest in this in this property for different kinds of of uses.

I think the the floor and road uh corridor has the potential to look very different.

I think you'd have to do some different things to the street uh as well to to accomplish that.

But that's that's not in the cards in um the immediate future either, given given the lack of financial resources.

So uh in this instance, well uh I I think it's regrettable, honestly.

Uh I'm going I'm going to defer to the uh to the um view of the member uh who represents the area.

Um she knows her district better than than any of the any of the rest of us.

But um I hope the property owner will not just wait for others to come to it with that uh remaining 12-ish acres.

Um but we'll look to do something that's more consistent with the vision that the general plan lays out for this area.

I think it's gonna be challenging with uh with uh the some of the operational issues that I've been talking about, but I hope I hope that that becomes the case.

Um or else we're gonna continue to see a floor and road corridor that looks pretty much as it does today.

Okay, thank you.

Council member Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um it was asked earlier.

Uh did we have the opportunity to talk to any representatives regarding uh quick quack and um I said no initially because uh I thought that was the right answer.

I went back to my calendar and I found a meeting where I did meet with representatives that were representing the quick quack or organization, so I wanted to be transparent and let everyone know that I had met with them.

So my understanding from the standpoint of our city attorney, does that preclude me from voting or okay?

So but I just wanted you to know Mr.

Mayor I'm gonna talk to you at the end.

Okay, um well, then you speak, and then I will um graciously our city attorney has alerted me to the correct way to make my motion, and so when that time comes, I will correctly make a motion.

Yes, yes.

Uh I I did not speak to any representatives, so I don't have a um any thing to report there.

I do have one kind of awkward thing on my phone is that I'm a member of Quickquack.

So is that is that a conflict of interest?

No.

Okay, no personal.

So a few things is that yeah, I I have no problem like on Stockton Boulevard, where we're trying to change our land uses and prohibit certain uses and uh heavily auto uses, but um not all parcels are created equal.

Um and I I think the council member is Mr.

Dickinson alluded to um outlined that this is uh a tweener.

Um but there are plenty of other uh long vacant parcels up and down that corridor, which could be used um for for housing.

Uh I I took a look at I think this is a um this is uh a site that that works.

I will note that not all quick quacks are created equal, Mr.

Dickinson.

So that's one in in Woodlake is a tight lot, as is the one in Midtown.

But the one in your district, um, Mr.

Jennings, as well as the one in your district, uh Mr.

Gera, better for consumers.

So as you design this um facility on there, make sure you uh focus accordingly and keep the retail um maybe on the other side where the car stack.

But um, in all things here this is you know, we we balance things up here, and it's not always black and white.

There's a lot of gray in between.

I appreciate the city staff outlining this isn't right next to a tod site, you know.

It's it's uh down the it's down the street a bit.

Um but uh I support the the council members uh recommendation for this um project and I'll allow you to close the public hearing and uh finalize the motion.

One more.

Oh council member bank.

Thanks.

Um I didn't get a chance to disclose.

Um my staff did meet with um uh the the representative for for quick wax.

I just wanted to put that on record and uh we'll defer to the council member of the area and uh appreciate the thoughtful conversation back and forth from my colleagues.

Thank you.

Um and I'll just close out very quickly um again with with thanks um because I do think that our staff did an amazing job.

Um and uh there this is a this is a complicated one because there's a lot of things that we're trying to balance.

Um, but I I ultimately uh obviously believe that we need to also look at the economic development piece, how long the land has been vacant, what's realistic, what projects have actually come forward and been proposed, and all that.

And I, you know, I'll re-note again that this there's a lot of opportunity here.

You've got you know, almost an additional 13 acres on this parcel with with uh so much hope.

And so I am uh you know, in in contact with the owner of the parcel.

We've had really good conversations.

I am very hopeful that there will be even more projects that are much more aligned with what we want to do, and that this is actually a great way to catalyze that on this property.

And then one thing I forgot to mention that I think is kind of important, is uh I view Quick Quack in particular as as a Sacramento success story in a lot of cases.

You know, I think it was is it Roseville where it was first started?

I you know, I think that they're you know, I probably wouldn't tell them this, but you know, kind of a suburb of Sacramento.

Um in the Sacramento region, in the greater Sacramento region.

Um I think it's really great that you have you know a small family-owned business that started out with just one and has grown so much because they have met a demand that people want, and they're also doing it in a way that you know they have some very sustainable practices as I learned about.

Um they pay a living wage, which is important to me, and and many other things.

And so again, really focused on this economic development piece.

I think we need to be thoughtful as a city about what we're saying yes to and how um we support more opportunities like this.

I would love to see uh more businesses grow um in our area, hopefully in the city limits, but maybe beyond, um, that are just like that uh that we can point to and say, hey, that started here.

And I think that so this is a a big piece of it for me.

And so um, we're saying yes, we're open for business.

So with that, my correct motion is to deny the staff recommendation and direct staff to bring back findings in support of approval and conditions of approval for this quick round.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We have a motion a second.

Mr.

Jennings?

No.

Before you call the roll, I was just notified by my team that our staff did.

I didn't meet, but our staff did meet with the applicant as well.

So what a note for the record.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any noes or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes nine zero.

How much is the motion?

Um it is uh I think it's like um 35 for one and 55 for two cars.

So let's use this for that.

So you have to fancy okay.

You just need a new park.

Oh my god.

Okay, I can't believe it with the soccer piece.

Okay.

All right.

How about how about a uh 30-second stretch break?

Yeah.

Okay.

Get up and stretch.

Seven things stretch.

That's all you're seeing.

This is Rena's favorite, and every time she's she's like, now this has to stay into the seventh or so I can sing the songs.

I like that.

No?

You know, we're used to here.

I should love people members of the public know that we've been at it since 9 a.m.

Oh, it's a pretty amazing.

Two members at home.

We have been at council since 9 a.m., which is why we're stretching.

I know.

That's right.

This one's for you.

Oh no, uh shit.

This last one it was uh I don't know why that was out of slide.

On this last one, it was I don't know why that was how you can't do that.

Okay, we will reconvene uh the meeting, and we need a motion from Vice Mayor Totlamonte.

Um I I'd like to make a motion to extend the meeting past nine thirty PM.

And I we're gonna start this meeting, so if you guys can have a seat now, we're gonna get back to the city of Sacramento business.

There we go.

Thank you.

We're done.

Can we have a motion a second?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

No zero abstentions.

Hearing none, we will go past nine thirty.

Okay.

We are opening the third party appeal for the Alhambra redevelopment uh proposal.

Um the hearing is hereby opened for the uh public hearing of the appeal.

Uh first we are asking council members to report any ex parte communications.

Council members.

None?

Yes, Councilmember Plug you.

Yeah, I'd better uh representatives of the applicant and uh members of the community.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next, uh, we'll have our staff presentation.

Great.

Uh good evening.

My name is Zach Dulles, senior planner with the community development department.

Uh the item before you is the third party appeals of the O'Hamba Redevelopment Project.

Uh before I get started, just want to note that this is not my presentation.

I don't have uh slides.

Um I have no uh material.

Again, I think this is the next presentation or trend.

That's the first appellant's presentation.

Um the project site is located on the intersection northwest of D Street, uh, in Alhambra Boulevard on a city block that is developed with existing residential structures and commercial warehouses associated with the uh Poretta Sausage Factory and Mary Ann's Bakery.

Uh, the site is in the general general commercial zone in the Alhambra corridor special planning district.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residential structures and the non-historic portions of the commercial warehouses to develop a six-story mixed-use infill residential project.

Um it'll contain 332 residential units, 2,400 square feet of ground ground floor commercial, and 32 parking stalls.

On February twelfth, uh, 2026, the planning and design commission considered and approved the project consistent with staff's recommendation.

Uh, this included approval of a conditional use permit to exceed height standards in the Alhambra corridor special planning district, site plan design review for the demolition of structures, and construction of the mixed use development, and the tree permit for the removal of seven city trees, two private protected trees, and the non-standard pruning of two city trees.

Two third-party appeals of the planning and design commission decision were timely filed, including one from the city one from the citizens for positive growth and preservation, and one from the Casa Lomateris East Sacramento Neighborhood Association.

The basis of both appeals are centered on similar issues raised in the letters of opposition staff received during the processing of the discretionary application, including concerns with the height, design, and scale of the development being out of character with the surrounding East Sacramento community, objections to the CEQA review conducted under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, and concerns that the project is not consistent with the general plan zoning code, the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District, and would not qualify for protections under the Housing and Accountability Act.

Overall, staff maintained that the overall staff has evaluated the issues identified in the third-party appeal appeals submitted by both appellants and has and have provided a response to all issues raised as an attachment to the staff report.

Overall, staff maintain that the project is consistent with the general plan and relevant policies, is proposed at a development intensity that is consistent with the allowable building intensity standards under the general plan and is designed to comply with all development standards of the general commercial zone and the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District, and no deviations to development standards or design guidelines are required.

Based on staff's analysis of the appeals, staff believe denial of the project would be contrary to state laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, and other related statutes.

And we maintain our original recommendation to approve the project and recommend city council denied these third-party appeals.

That concludes my presentation.

The applicant team is here as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh next we'll go to the proponent, the applicant.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Mary Waltring.

I work for HRJ, which is the architecture firm on the project.

I just want to say thank you to Zach for your presentation.

I appreciate it.

Um, we have also read the staff report in response to the appeal, and we agree with the findings that the staff has provided in the report.

Um, and we are just happy to see this NFL project, um, mixed use project move forward, and we're happy to answer any questions that you have.

And then I also have John Hodgkins with me as part of our applicant team.

Okay.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Um, my name is John Hodgson, excuse me.

And I've been working on land use and entitlement uh projects in Sacramento for over 35 years.

I'm here on behalf of the applicants, uh, the Demas family, and specifically the owners of Mary Ann's Baking Company, which was there for a long time, has been out in the South Sacramento for the last 25-30 years.

This is a straightforward in fill housing project on a major corridor.

It's exactly the type of location the city's general plan envisions for new residential development within walking and biking distance of midtown and downtown in East Sacramento and along an established commercial corridor.

The project provides a wide range of unit types and will bring several hundred new residents who will support nearby businesses and services.

This is general plan working as intended.

The project has been carefully designed to respond to its surroundings, including building articulation and transitions that address the Jacan Development.

Both staff and the planning commission have concluded that the project is consistent with city standards and compatible with the area.

But change along major corridors is both expected and necessary if the city is going to meet its housing goals.

The question before you tonight is whether this project meets the city's adopted standards, and the record shows clearly that it does.

That wide type of support we believe reflects the broader citywide benefits of adding housing in this location.

The staff report demonstrates demonstrates that the project qualifies for CEQA exemption, and that all required findings of approval can be made based on substance substantial evidence in the record.

And for all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval of the project and denial of the appeal.

Thank you.

Happy to ask, answer any questions or available after a public comment.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We'll come back if we have questions of you.

Uh, next we'll hear from the um opponent number one, the first appellate.

Steve Cook.

Citizens for Positive Growth and Preservation.

Yes, Steve Cook, Citizens for Positive Growth and Preservation.

Mr.

Cook.

Good evening, Mayor, and good evening, City Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about this project.

Our group, Citizens for Positive Growth and Preservation, is comprised of members of the East Sacramento community who will be impacted by this project.

As you know, we submitted a lengthy letter opposing the decision of the design commission.

We also supported that with extensive expert opinions on the scale of the project and other concerns related to the general plan and its appropriateness in this area.

And then I'd like to propose a path forward.

First of all, CPGP, Citizens for Positive Growth and Preservation, does not oppose infield development.

That is not anything that they would object to.

They do not oppose low income housing.

This is not a low-income housing project.

They don't oppose moderate income housing projects.

That isn't this either.

They do not oppose in field development at this particular site.

If you've been there, and I'm sure many, if not all of you, have seen it, it something needs to be done there.

There's no question about that.

The anger towards this project begins with the lack of outreach two years ago when the outreach was made and limited to those who lived within 500 feet of the project.

The problem with that is that the impacts of this project extend far beyond that boundary.

Nearly one million additional vehicle trips per year will be generated by this project in an area that already ranks as amongst the most dangerous for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians in the city.

That is a real tangible health and safety concern.

It's not hypothetical, it's not theoretical, it's real.

Over a hundred thousand gallons per day of wastewater will be generated by this project.

That wastewater will be delivered to the city's combined sewer system, which I'm sure each and every one of you are very familiar with, its risk for catastrophic failure, and the documented history of flooding in East Sacramento during significant weather events leading to sewage in the streets, in the parks, in people's yards, and in a few cases in people's homes.

100,000 gallons per day will be generated by this project.

Now, the response to that from the from the project proponent from the city from the staff is that well, there are mitigation measures here.

If it turns out that the pipes that convey the wastewater from the project site to the combined sewer system are too small, we'll make them bigger.

We'll require them to be bigger.

But that misses the point precisely.

The problem is not how does that wastewater get to the combined sewer system, but what happens to it once it's there.

And more importantly, what happens to it once it's there, and we have a significant weather event, and there's flooding in East Sacramento that impacts not just people within 500 feet of the project, but all of East Sacramento with real significant, documented, not theoretical, health and safety concerns.

That was not studied, not in any formal way.

It was dismissed with well as the developer to pay a little extra fee, or we'll require the pipes from the building to the sewer system to be a little bigger.

That doesn't solve the problem.

That doesn't address the concern.

And while the residents and my client recognize the need for housing in our community, recognize the need to build something on this site, it cannot be done at the expense of the rest of the community that's already experiencing these significant health and safety issues.

Not theoretical, not subjective, but real.

And finally, we know there is hazardous waste located on this project.

The city has documented its existence but has not completed the preliminary endangerment assessment that would be required to determine whether that risk can be successfully or satisfactorily mitigated.

Yet it was approved in anticipation that it would be done.

That respectfully is putting the cart before the horse.

That preliminary endangerment assessment should be done now before the project is formally approved, so that you, so that the staff, the project proponent, and importantly the residents who will be impacted by this project can know what they're getting themselves into and what they may be exposed to, and how any of those dangers can, if they can be mitigated.

Those are three very tangible issues, not theoretical, not subjective, very real, the traffic issues, the wastewater issues, and the issues regarding the hazardous waste.

When those issues were raised in front of the Planning Commission, they were met with hypothetical and theoretical obstacles and excuses as to why the Planning Commission had to approve this project.

And the planning commissioner was quoted as saying there are some rules that are in place at the state level now between SD 330 and the Housing Accountability Act that really do effectively limit the discretion of the Commission to say no to housing projects.

And the staff report states that the 332 units of moderate income housing without any evidence that this will be moderate income housing, with no evidence that the deeds to this property will be restricted to require moderate income housing.

But but even if it were, even if this were low income housing, moderate income housing, or there are no restrictions at all, even if the Housing Accountability Act applied, the HAA does not require local agencies to approve projects that have a specific quote, specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be feasibly mitigated.

I've identified just three tangible, not subjective, real, documented health and safety risks that were not adequately studied before before the Planning and Design Commission approved this project and approved the conditional use permit.

That should have been done.

Could have been done as part of a sequel analysis.

We deal with CQ in our letter.

I won't get into that.

Whatever form that analysis takes makes little difference to the residents of East Sacramento.

They just want it done.

They just want to know they're not going to wake up to sewage in their front yard.

They're not going to wake up to more people getting hurt or killed because of excess traffic, including one million more vehicle trips per year in their neighborhood, which already has freeway level volumes of traffic during rush hour.

And they want to know that the hazardous waste that is known to exist there can actually be mitigated in a way that keeps them and their families and their children safe.

And that has not been done.

And that forms really the core anger behind the decision by the PDC to approve this project.

Now the scale issue, and there's an image on the screen that this is the developer's image, and then the red shading has been added by us to depict the additional levels and the additional height of the building beyond the 35-foot limit that would otherwise exist in the Ohambra Special Planning District area.

Section 17.420.020.

I promise that's the last citation I'll throw at you, is from the city code.

It governs the Alhambra SPD area.

And it says that without a conditional use permit, development located within 300 feet of a residential area shall not exceed 35 feet in height.

That's about a three-story building.

If I could flip to the next slide here, you'll see a line depicted at about 33 feet.

That's a 33, I'm sorry, a three-story building.

The average one-story home, which are adjacent to this project, is about 15 feet tall, two-story, 20 feet tall.

This project would be six stories.

And let's set aside for a moment the dispute that we have with the city staff as to whether or not this is even allowed.

Let's say that the law would actually permit, under certain circumstances, a building as high as this one.

In order to allow for that additional height, the planning and design commission must have found that, quote, the development will not be out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

I'm sure most of you, probably all of you, are familiar with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

There's no question, there can be no reasonable question that this is dramatically out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Now, the staff report describes when addressing the scale issue.

The staff report combines a discussion of the architectural features of the project with scale.

And it describes in detail the adjustments made to the construction material so that it could be consistent with the guidelines for the Alhambra Special Planning District, and it discusses that the windows will be a certain shape, certain walls will be retained from the original bakery, certain types of brick will be used to be consistent with the historical nature of the property, but it glosses over the scale issue and laments the fact that there's an absence of objective standards to define what out of scale actually means.

And it discusses that the windows will be a certain shape, certain walls will be retained from the original bakery, certain types of brick will be used to be consistent with the historical nature of the property, but it glosses over the scale issue and laments the fact that there's an absence of objective standards to define what out of scale actually means.

And when I read that, and we just got this staff report a couple of days ago, it reminded me of the very famous US Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court was asked to define something that lacked objective standards, and in that case it was obscenity.

And Justice Potter Stewart quite famously said, I know it when I see it.

If you look at this depiction, and you imagine not only what's on the screen, but that that building will occupy an entire city block at six stories high.

No reasonable person could conclude that is in scale and in keeping with the scale of the neighboring residential community.

Now, maybe in some other area it would be.

Maybe with the setbacks that they propose, that would make sense.

Maybe even here, if it wasn't so big, that might make sense.

But this is an entire city block.

Nobody can look at that unless they are deliberately setting aside, being blind to this issue and say that that is in scale.

Sometimes these subjective decisions are hard.

In this case, you know it when you see it.

Now I promise that I would suggest a path forward respectfully on this on this dispute.

One that reflects the community's collective desire to increase housing availability in the city.

My clients desire that something be done with this sort of blight in the neighborhood, but something that is safe and respectful to the neighborhood and recognizes that this project is not built in many other parts of the city, but it's built in a part of the city that is only served by the combined sewer system and has already extraordinary levels of traffic and contains hazardous waste materials.

So with that in mind, what can be done?

I'd simply ask that this council take a pause, that it pause on this issue.

I'd ask you to conduct real meaningful outreach of the impacted community, outreach, and discussions with the impacted community that is informed by objective analysis of the issues that we talked about in our letter and that I talked about tonight, so that together, collaboratively, as a community and as a city, we can make a decision about what is best for this project because we all agree something has to be done.

No one disputes that infill development is necessary, no one disputes that additional housing is important.

The only issue is can we do this in a way that is respectful of the community and the dangers that exist at this specific unique project site?

And I I was encouraged as I thought about this from the comments that I heard earlier today in connection with the zoo.

Unfortunately, we don't have Cappy Barras here to pull it uh emotional heartstrings, but um Mayor, you mentioned earlier that you believed it was important in the context of the zoo discussion that everyone have a fair opportunity to have a conversation about these issues.

And Congressman Jennings, you said that you wanted to come up with a plan that takes all of our fears away.

Councilmember Gera, you said that you were in favor of a working group to discuss the issue.

And Councilmember Dickinson, you said that you believe that that working group had to consist of a broad coalition of the public working together without a preordained outcome.

I could not agree more, and I respectfully suggest that the residents of East Sacramento are entitled to nothing less.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We have the second appellate now, East Sacramento Neighborhood Association, Carl Seymour.

Honorable mayor, city council members, and city manager, thank you for having us here.

And I'm sorry that we're so late.

I'll bet you're all wishing for dinner too.

So unfortunately, I can't promise to be brief.

Uh, this is a culmination of two years of trying to work with an applicant that doesn't want to hear from you or make any changes and uh etc.

So we have things we have to go over.

This is the clicker.

First off, we are not NIMBE's, we support housing here.

We understand higher density, we would welcome some new energy.

We're all for that.

So please do not misunderstand that.

We started out early on by actually surveying the neighbors and members and saying, what do you want?

And 95% of them say, hey, we'd be excited for something good.

The neighbors have even said, we'll come help the applicant if you do something, but that's not what they're doing.

This project violates local zoning, it violates the general plan, and it creates health and safety problems.

And with those issues, uh the city does have the ability to scale it back.

You've been told the planning commission was told they were not allowed to scale it back.

They can scale it back because of these problems.

I heard this described as a major corridor in the staff presentation.

In point of fact, uh, one block down Alhambra, it dead ends into the railroad tracks.

Uh one block to the west, it dead ends into the freeway.

This is not a major corridor.

This is an isolated uh corner, and there's only two ways out of this project, which becomes significant later.

As I talk, I'll be referring to the uh staff response, as you know.

We just got that Friday, so uh I had to submit my presentation to you before then, so my slides don't necessarily correspond to those, but the uh staff uh section is PDF pages 181 to 192 of the 600 pages.

If you want to look at the uh the PDF to go along with that.

So does it fit the local zoning?

And the answer is no.

These are the general uh tenants of the ACSPD and maintain and improve the character quality and vitality of individual neighborhoods.

This does the exact opposite of that.

This essentially destroys a neighborhood.

I've heard that over and over from the neighbors.

By the way, many of the neighbors that came to talk have had to leave because of the hour, but from their perspective, this kills it.

This does not enhance vitality or quality.

Um specifically, and this was already addressed, but I'm gonna go through it again.

To approve a conditional use permit, the Planning and Design Commission must find that the development will not be out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

And so the the planning staff says, well, there's nothing objective for scale.

I think any reasonable person uh can accept that these are objective standards for scale.

How high is it?

68 feet.

How high is the neighborhood at max 30 feet?

Most of it's 18 and under.

How many stories is it?

Six.

The neighborhood is one and two-story.

There are two three-story buildings in there.

Objectively, this is out of scale.

How many people per square block?

That's another objective measure, 870 people in one square block versus 48 to 96, depending on how you want to count.

Number of people per acre, 395.

Square footage, 442,000, uh, versus uh one and two family homes that are many of them are very small.

Uh maybe we get up to 1800 feet.

These are objective standards that anyone uh can agree on.

Uh looking at square footage, this thing is over half the size of the Golden One Center.

We're gonna plop it right here in a one-story neighborhood.

So this is a uh, since the picture's worth a thousand words.

Uh this is a uh hand-drawn map that shows you what's one story, what's two-story, and what's three story.

And if you look at this, uh the two stories are marked with a red two.

Everything else there is one story.

Uh there are two three-story buildings in this entire area.

There's the extra storage space where uh Alhambra uh tees into the dive dead ends at the railroad tracks.

Uh there is a three-story uh office building, and then way down the at the bottom of the slide, there's the Greek church.

That's the full extent of three-story.

Everything else in this neighborhood is one and two-story.

This is out of scale.

There's no way around it.

Going on, uh, we we've been told by the uh staff, planning staff that there are no objective guidelines.

Um, in fact, there are.

Uh, and this is in response A6 from the staff to our appeal.

They say there are no objective standards.

These are statements from the applicant submission that show in the first in the black area it says what the city guidelines require, and in red is the applicant's answer.

So it shall maintain the scale and rhythm of the existing neighborhood.

And the applicant says, yes, this does.

And I think the slide we just looked at, you can clearly see that this does not in any way maintain the scale.

More importantly, the city staff has told you there are no objective standards in the Alhambra corridor guidelines for architectural style.

Here is the city's own checklist again for architectural style, and it very clearly says Mediterranean Mission, Spanish Colonial, et cetera.

Any applicant, any architect can look at a building and tell you like that, it's Victorian, it's Italianate, whatever.

These are objective standards.

These are in architectural textbooks, they're universally accepted, they're well understood.

Yet the applicant says, yes, this style is similar in design and architectural character to the surrounding neighborhood.

I see nothing Italianate, Victorian, or any of these about the proposal.

Scale and rhythm of the neighborhood.

This is what the neighborhood looks like.

This is this is where we're going to add this project.

This is what the applicant is proposing to add.

And these are six story, these are three elevations of the building.

It bears no architectural resemblance to anything in the entire area.

It's six stories.

You can look at it, and it's self-evident.

Any questions at this point.

Moving on.

Sorry.

The whoops.

LUP 6.31 6.3 says neighborhood scale.

Again, we've looked at neighborhood scale.

It says it shall contribute to the livability in 6.4.

This does the opposite.

It says neighborhoods shall maintain their own unique qualities.

Yet in fact, between the two appeals, uh, the we specifically cite, and I I know that because the city combined the answer to both of us, 13 LUPs, mobility policies, and public facilities and safety policies, which this project directly conflicts with, and the documentation of the conflict is in the written appeals that you've received.

Staff dismisses all of these with a blanket statement in A7A.

Consistency with the general plan is achieved if a project will further the overall objectives and policies of the general plan.

So basically, we don't care about that document that the city spent an enormous amount of time and money preparing, updating, modifying, and trying to make the city the best it can.

Meets the general thing, so who cares about the details?

Well, why are the details there if we're not going to adhere to them?

This is kind of like saying, I feel I'm driving safely, so I can do whatever speed I want here, regardless of the speed limit sign.

I'm driving safely, that's the intent of speed limit law.

That's basically what uh they're saying here.

Uh here's some examples.

Uh this was originally proposed for five stories.

This has been conformed to the neighborhood.

Completely different thing than the modern office building look that we were looking at.

Here's some more recent development, conforms to neighborhood scale and rhythm, unlike what we're looking at.

There are serious health and safety uh issues uh on a multitude of fronts, but first let's talk about traffic numbers.

It seems that we can use whatever number we want depending on where we're talking.

In the initial study, mitigated negative declaration, the staff analysis says there will be 1,328 daily trips, vehicle trips generated by this project, 1,328.

In the appendix of the same document, the applicant's own consultant says there will be 2,637 to 3,300 daily vehicle trips.

That's over double what the staff used as as an analysis.

In the staff response to our appeals, it says there will be 1,879 daily trips.

I don't know where that number came from, but it's certainly not in the initial study mitigated negative declaration.

Appendix B, Section 5.9, the air quality and greenhouse gas modeling submitted by the application applicant is a very detailed, very thorough professional document, and that's where we get 2600 to 3300 cars a day.

However, based on using 1328 in the ISMND, staff concluded that there were this did not trigger a need for further analysis.

No EIR was needed, we're done, it's all good.

When you use the wrong number, it's easy to reach an erroneous conclusion.

There were numerous major errors and inaccuracies in ISMND.

People spent a lot of time documenting those, writing to the city about them, got no response.

And then we're told later the ISMND doesn't matter.

We're not responding to any of those.

We've already said it doesn't need any further analysis.

Well, you've used wrong numbers, you've used erroneous assumptions.

Sure, it doesn't.

So moving on.

Let's see, did we finish that?

Yes.

I want to reemphasize there's only two ways out of this.

Okay.

It dead ends to the freeway there, it dead ends to the railroad tracks there.

You can only come out on B C or D onto Alhambra.

So that means all of this traffic comes out right there.

Most places where you have this kind of building, you got four or more ways to go out.

There's only two out here, and it's already congested.

The nearby intersections, a couple of them are rated among the worst in the city for collisions.

This project is specifically bounded by the high injury network for school children, pedestrians, etc.

per the city's own streets for people.

And the only buffered bike lane in all of East Sacramento runs along Elvis, turns into C and turns on to Alhambra, right where we're going to add 19,000 cars a week.

Not good.

This clearly conflicts with the vision zero portion of the general plan.

You can't add 19,000 cars a week to one block and not expect to increase injuries and fatalities and collisions.

Simply not going to work.

If you're this doesn't zoom, does it, Zach?

There's no way to zoom this.

Okay, well, the dark red lines there represent the city's own report, the safe streets for people report.

The red lines represent what would have been defined as high injury network.

And if you are able to, without laser point or anything else, locate the project, you'll see this project is bound on both sides by what is considered high injury network by the streets for people, safe streets for people, the city's own report.

Now the city says in B-12 it's not.

Well, all of their graphs in this report say it is.

This is something that's going to generate 990,000 trips per year.

Plus, because of the existing congestion and the congestion that will be added by inadequate parking, there's going to be idling circling for parking, and you're just gonna pile up the additional greenhouse gas emissions.

This is this project is immediately adjacent to a section of business 80 that carries 64 million cars per year.

I left a slide out.

Are we allowed to put something into the record?

Can I if I hand you a piece of paper, can we do that?

This is from the city's uh climate action plan.

And what this shows, and I'm sorry I can't project it, it shows that the area where the project is uh is listed in the third highest category of concern about air pollution level, and immediately to the northeast of this, for example, McKinley Village, is in the highest.

And what we're gonna do is we're gonna add a million cars a year to that and just make it worse.

So this is this is not good.

This is not okay, this is unsafe, and it's unhealthy.

Thank you.

All right, next slide.

This is looking.

Uh do you do then add that to their this is a city report, which you have actually.

This picture was taken on a Friday afternoon.

Uh the project site is on the right.

The brick buildings there and the strip of green grass.

Uh, this is uh looking from Alhambra and C south to Ian McKinley.

This is not daily, but this is a regular occurrence.

Uh it's backed up, you can't see here three blocks on C Street.

It's backed up all the way to the freeway.

We're gonna add 19,000 cars a week to this.

The CQIN AB 130 issues, the ISMND is a fundamental problem.

It was wrong, it concluded, therefore, based on wrong data, that no further review was required.

Uh I'm not the attorney here, I'm not gonna try to argue.

Uh CECA and AB 130, but what is clear is that when the the project violates both local zoning and general plan, and the project has health and safety impacts that cannot be mitigated without reducing the scale.

The jurisdiction has the ability to reduce the scale, and that's all we're asking for that be brought down to the 35-foot established zoning for it.

That's fine, that's great.

Be easy.

Um market rate only.

Right now, 30% of the renters in California are considered rent burden.

I'm sorry, 50%.

This is all market rate.

This does nothing for people who can't afford housing.

30% of them are considered severely burdened, and we're adding market rate housing.

If we're gonna add something here, let's at least take care of people who need to be taken care of.

Uh the infrastructure impacts with the sewage has already been addressed.

Um parks and population.

Uh we can argue about that.

I'm not gonna waste your time.

The initial study said that this was not a significant uh impact.

In fact, um adding this project to East Sacramento has a bigger impact on East Sacramento than adding San Jose in its entirety to the state of California.

This has this increases East Sacramento almost 4%.

San Jose is 2.3% of the state of California.

There's no way to conclude that this does not have an impact.

This project is 34 times denser than East Sacramento in general.

And I'm all for increasing density, it's a good thing.

It's going on in my neighborhood.

We have uh you know, accessory dwelling units being built, uh, a lot of things going on that are that are uh going to help address our housing crisis, but you don't leap from one story to 34 times denser, which this project does.

So, whoops.

In summary, and thank you for your patience, especially at this hour.

I don't know about you, but I was really wishing there was a Starbucks in the lobby.

Um our request is that you would return this for redesign conformant to the 35-foot height limit because it does not meet the criteria for a cup.

Uh it conflicts with the general plan, the ACSPD, uh, and it creates health and safety air quality impacts that are not okay.

Questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we will go to public comment.

I think we have 15.

15 individuals.

You have two minutes apiece.

So please uh use your time accordingly if you'd like to be briefer, that would be appreciated.

But um, please come to the front.

15 people.

Okay, I'm Manda Pills, followed by Will Green and then Michael Rothschild.

And you can feel free to line up to in the center aisle.

Good evening, all, and I'll try to bring this in in one minute.

Um, I'm a resident of East Sacramento, and I support this project enthusiastically in its current form.

When my family built our home in East Sac a hundred years ago, most of the neighborhood north of J Street was affordable for lower and middle income home buyers.

Our neighbors were teachers at neighborhood schools, medical workers at local hospitals, and small business owners with shops on HJ in Alhambra.

They also included young families and recent immigrants.

But most of those folks would have a hard time affording housing in East Sacramento today, because limited supply and high demand have driven up home prices, as you all know.

If we want to restore the hope of affordability in East Sac, we need to seize opportunities to build new housing in the neighborhood while making any needed improvements to the underlying infrastructure.

East Sacramento has always been mixed use with apartment buildings, triplexes, and single family homes right next door to retail businesses, schools, hospitals, and even food processing facilities like the ones that used to be on this site.

Repurposing abandoned industrial sites like this as dense multifamily housing is a terrific opportunity.

And of course, mixed-use development, building height variations, and socioeconomic diversity have always been part of East Sacramento's history and helped shape its character.

My family and I hope this project succeeds.

We're looking forward to welcoming new residents to the neighborhood, and we hope to see them next year at McKinley Park.

Thank you for your comments.

Will Green, followed by Michael Rothschild, Mary Carnado, and Susie Williams.

Thank you.

Thanks to our truth and the late hour.

Um all of us are tired, very tired.

Um I have major concerns still about the health implications.

I think those have been made uh very clear by both uh speakers that spoke earlier.

Um still there are many uh traffic calming measures that would also need to be made to this neighborhood if they could be, even without further creating more hazardous conditions to the narrow streets that are already there.

Um if this is approved and you uphold the cup by the planning commission.

Um this is really only benefitting one party, and that's the applicant, the owner of this property.

Whereas at the same time, you're endangering an entire neighborhood, and you saw how many blocks of predominantly one predominantly one-story housing versus andor two-story housing, and very low density in fill.

So this the neighborhood is not benefiting by this.

Um person, an applicant, an owner.

Another question that I have tonight, and I'll leave this for submission to the record.

As recently as June 24th or 25, I have two copies of emails from Mr.

Hodskin to Zach Dola of the planning department.

Basically, Mr.

Demas was asking for Mr.

Hotkin to question about um during the time that there's a delay.

Why can't we go ahead with the demolition process?

And um basically a requirement to do that, it has to be approved, and I mean, does the thank you for your comments?

Your time is complete.

Thank you.

I'm that slow.

Yeah.

All right.

Michael Rothschild.

Anyway, I I say leave them with assistant clerk.

Give it to the clerk who will pass it around.

Michael Rothschild, Mary Caronado, and then Susie Williams.

Mr.

Mayor and members, I don't live in this neighborhood that you're talking about.

I live east of it off of 42nd Street.

And my family and I, when we go for a walk in the morning, walk down into this neighborhood that you're talking about.

And we've fallen in love with it.

Because when you look at it, it is a small village.

It is a village of small houses, and it's unique in the entire city of Sacramento, as far as I know, and I've lived here for 50 years.

There is a wide parkway between the sidewalk and the street.

And in addition to that, in some of the streets, there's a parkway down the middle of the street, and it's heavily wooded, and there's small houses and they're well kept.

And the people that live in those houses build gardens between the sidewalk and the street.

And they're flowers, and it's interesting and it's nice.

And in the middle of that, they want to drop this six-story monstrosity that will kill the village feel of this neighborhood.

This neighborhood is unique.

It's an asset to the city of Sacramento that should not be destroyed.

Not only is this building completely out of scale, but the tr the traffic that it will generate is horrendous.

Try right now to drive by the corner of Elhambra and McKinley Boulevard at commute hour.

You can't get through.

People are going into the opposite lane of traffic to try and get on the freeway.

Staff says that'll be alleviated by uh RT buses.

The only bus lines they talk about are on L Street, almost a mile away.

Or on Elhambra Boulevard where the bus leaps on the freeway at J Street, or on McKinley Boulevard where the bus runs twice in the morning and twice at night, only during peak hours and only on weekdays.

For your comments, your time is complete.

Thank you.

Mary Coronado, followed by Susie Williams and Rick Stevenson.

My name is Mary Coronado.

My husband Alex Galvadio and I have moved to Sacramento in '91.

We've built our careers here, our families, and we invest into small businesses.

We've lived on the busy C Street for 26 years, but it's our home and community we care deeply about.

And I want to be clear, we support low-income housing and how and opportunities for home ownership in this project, which has none.

We support growth, but growth should respect the neighborhood it joins.

What we are asking for is simple that this project fit the scale of our neighborhood.

Six stories does not fit.

And that doesn't include the multi-use down at the bottom.

It's going to be higher than that.

Three to four stories does.

For decades, the property owners have not been good neighbors.

The property has been neglected, not maintained, trees left without care, and now there's an urgency to build to maximum scale possible.

You will hear that this project serves important city needs, but what also matters is the direct daily impact on the people who already live here.

Our neighborhood deserves to be heard.

There has been a lack of community engagement.

Did you know that Phil Angelitas had 28 meetings for McKinley Village?

We've had one.

And as a middle school principal, I've made difficult decisions, but never listening to those that have been most affected, but never without listening to those that have been most affected.

I've kept an open mind and ask questions.

That's what leadership requires to find a compromise and a collaborative solution.

So I'm asking you, please come walk our neighborhood, walk C and D streets to 30 seconds streets, talk to the people who live there who are going to live with your decision, see the scale, the trees, the character that we're trying to preserve, and please save the trees along C Street.

So I ask you to pause when you make your decision.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Susie Williams, followed by Rick Stevenson and Paul Hellicker.

Susie here.

Okay.

Rick Stevenson.

I had uh written an article uh in for Inside East Sacramento on this project and the February issue.

Most of the points that I brought up have already been covered this evening, so I won't bring them back up.

I did notice that in the Planning Commission, a number of people were advocates for the six-story project.

Uh they came in and make comments, were under the mistaken impression that this would add to low and moderate income housing in the area.

No, it's not, and this has been pointed out earlier.

But I have read all the state legislation that's been cited in this.

And you can indeed, the city council can require that if you get frankly, if you go to six stories, require that they include lower and moderate income housing.

But I think, as I put in my article, the best answer for this is to hold it to three stories.

Because you go to six, you're destabilizing a neighborhood that's been stable for a hundred years.

A hundred years, and you're destabilizing it.

But again, if you go tall, and or even at three stories, include the affordability, please.

And I'll cut my time short.

Paul Hellecker, followed by Dimitri Ellis and Joe Haft.

Mayor and members of the council, Paul Hellickram, a resident of East Sacramento, and I support this project.

I think there are many examples of change and development that's happening in Sacramento.

Some ride in this neighborhood.

For example, Alhambra Ness.

You have even in my part of the neighborhood, 41st and Folsom, you have even even larger building, and of course, along the Folsom Boulevard corridor as well.

So I think this is an example of a building, a development that's critically needed in Sacramento.

It fully complies with AB 130.

The staff report's correct in that all of the elements raised by the opponents tonight have been addressed.

So please move forward with this as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you for comments.

Dimitri Ellis, Joseph Haft, and then Rodney Meyer.

Hey, good evening, uh, Mayor McCarty and Council members.

Uh my name is Nicolai.

I um am speaking on behalf of ESCA ESACMA Community Association, Mr.

President.

Um, we previously supported this when I went to PDC.

And we would like to say again that we fully support our organization believes this housing project is an important opportunity to welcome new residents in East Sacramento, and we continue to support the project, and we hope that council will deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Joseph Haft, followed by Rodney.

Um, Mr.

Mayor, uh council members, I just want to make a few comments that you've heard some of before, but I'm a uh resident and neighbor.

I want to apologize in advance if some of my comments may sound a little harsh regarding the project, but I've I find it difficult to see anything substantially positive in this project as presented that couldn't be accomplished with a scaled-down version has been suggested and almost unanimously agreeable to most East Sacramento neighborhood groups and residents.

It's hard to believe, therefore, and heartbreaking that an approval appears to be foregone conclusion, at least if you listen to the planning uh department's recommendation.

What I don't understand in that context is why we even have laws regarding things like height standards and tree removals and non-compliant parking and design review, if not for the protection of nearby residents and neighborhoods when almost by fiat this guidance can be dismissed.

Most of the homes in the Alhambra corridor are modest two-bedroom, one-bath houses approaching, if not more than, as you've heard, a hundred years old.

This is no fabulous 40s neighborhood, which is why it may have been vulnerable to a development like this, uh, where the partial acquisition cost was actually feasible for an over-scale to oversized, overcrowded, but potentially immensely profitable undertaking.

Uh I just like to close by saying I'd just like to appeal to the council to not sell out this mature, peaceful, accessible neighborhood anchored by the 150-year-old McKinley Park for the benefit of a handful of develop of developers.

No civic good can come from casting a shadow literally over hundreds of homes while cramming 870 potential residents into 332 apartments with only 322 parking stalls for their own cars.

It simply does not make sense unless, for the sake of some notion of approving like this will approve it will solve California's housing.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Thank you.

Rodney, followed by Michael Churchin and Wendy Langston.

My name is Rodney.

I am a resident of Boulevard Park, a short walk from the site of this proposed housing.

I live in dense multi-unit housing, and it's a privilege that more people should have.

It's afforded me the opportunity to become car-free on the grid.

Follow-on effects are that I'm always walking, cycling, I'm out and about at local businesses.

My generation and those younger than myself look for these qualities in our neighborhood, especially in the location like the one proposed.

Imagine 332 more residences like mine.

The economic values added from the increased sales tax, the property tax of the development itself, would also help offset infrastructure burdens that the current residents would otherwise need to shoulder alone.

Would I love to have better cycling options in the McKidley Park neighborhood?

Yes.

What I love better sidewalks and crosswalks, absolutely.

But that's not mutual, mutual exclusive to this development.

We can work as a neighborhood with the city to address crosswalks, intersections, and traffic.

Now is not the time to plan for the housing needs and land use of 20 years ago.

Now is the time to provide for the needs for the next generation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Trojan, followed by Wendy Langston and then Steve Rosen.

Hey everybody, uh Michael Turgeon here on behalf of uh House Sacramento.

Um I usually don't do personal stories for these things, but I have a good one tonight.

Um my grandpa is about to turn a hundred years old next month.

I learned tonight that he was born the same year as the Sacramento Zoo.

Um and he grew up in a small house on 34th and C Street, about two blocks uh from this site.

Um his dad, his family moved there because he got a job in the state government.

And uh at that at that time it was unquestionable that you could afford a house in that neighborhood, raise your family there, and so on.

Um fast forward literally a hundred years.

I'm a state worker, moderate income, I can't afford a mortgage on a house like my grandpa grew up in.

Um I could afford an apartment, but there aren't any, right?

Like there's no four-rent units in this neighborhood.

Um I really want that to be clear on the record.

I can't afford a mortgage, I can't afford, I can afford rent, even on a building with no specific, you know, AMI restrictions.

Um, and the people in this building would be a lot more people like me, state workers, nonprofit workers, city workers, you know, people who are gonna ride their bike to work, um, people who are gonna be appreciated, who are gonna appreciate being close to McKinley Park, gonna appreciate uh being in a good school district, um, people who contribute positively to the economic future of our city, uh, the kind of people that we want to welcome into existing neighborhoods.

Um, and so I urge you no more pauses, no more delays, let's get this thing going, let's get it built, and I really encourage you all to look at welcoming more projects like this in our established neighborhoods.

If anything, I would want to see less parking and more units.

Um, and I think that's where a lot of people my generation are.

We're fed up about the housing crisis.

We need affordable places to live, um, and this is just the start.

And so I really urge your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wendy Langston, Steve Rosen, and Don Mueller.

It's Wendy here.

Steve.

Okay.

Don Mueller.

Uh hello, Mayor and Council.

Um, actually, uh for the record it's Dan Mueller.

Um, sorry.

Sorry, I might have written a little incorrectly.

Um, honestly, this is the first time I've ever come to a city council, and this obviously the first time I've ever spoken at one.

Um, I'm a resident of Boulevard Park.

I fully support this project, and most of this basically just comes down to the fact that this would meet some of our housing needs.

Honestly, it still doesn't meet all of our housing needs.