Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

And I now call this meeting of the Sacramento Law and Legislation Committee to order at

1101 AM.

Members of the public who wish to address the committee may do so by submitting a speaker

slip, which can be found in the back of the room and bring it to the desk at the front

here.

Speakers slip may turn into the clerk prior to the beginning of each item.

We will no longer accept the speaker slips until the item begins.

You have two minutes to address the committee.

I just really want to thank everyone for being here today.

And Madam City Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Council Member Dickinson.

Here.

Council Member Plecky-Bong.

Here.

Council Member Jennings.

Here.

And Chair Maple.

Here.

Council Member Jennings, would you mind leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance and Landing

Knowledge Met?

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal land to the original people of this land, the Nesian people, the southern

Maidu Valley and plain to me walk, Patton, Whitten and the people of the Wilton Rancheria

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who come before us and still walk beside

us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together in the active practice of

acknowledgment and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, their contribution,

and their lives.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, of liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Council Member.

All right.

And now we move on to the consent calendar.

Do any of my colleagues want to pull any items for separate discussion or separate vote?

Any comments?

Any comments?

Any motion?

Any second?

Do we have any public comments?

Yes, I have one speaker, Kai One, on item two.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good morning.

I remember my name is Kai One.

In January, I request this committee to discuss the SPD, Hawaii, Forty Police Report, because

of City curb dismissment I campaign.

In the email, City curb office to final who, Hawaii, Mr. World War II, this 43 document

and which attorney in the city revealed this and approved this document.

However, nobody from City Government respond to me who, Hawaii, UC Davis intensive Mr.

World War II, this 43 report and which attorney in Sacramento City revealed and approved

this document.

Can chair 10, Hawaii comment on that because the city had never, Hawaii comment on my

request.

And I'm still the only one who can ask for the comment.

If June so far is the real driver to the community.

Thank you.

We'll have our staff follow up.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm seeing no other public comments and no comments from my colleagues.

Motion in second.

All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed to your abstinence?

Thank you.

Now we move on to our discussion calendar item number four.

An ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code related

to off street vehicle parking requirements.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair Maple and committee members.

I'm Ryan Dodge, associate planner in the community development department, long range

planning.

So staff recommendation for the item is for the law and legislation committee to pass

a motion and forward a recommendation to city council to approve a resolution relating

to environmental review.

Sorry.

If you just stop for a second.

We have a disturbance in the chamber.

Sorry to concentrate on the speaker.

I'm just messing with the speaker.

I'm just messing with the speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm just messing with the speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So staff recommendation for the item is for the law and legislation committee to pass a

motion and forward a recommendation to city council to approve a resolution relating to

environmental review.

An ordinance amending Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code, removing minimum vehicle parking

requirements.

Removing minimum vehicle parking requirements builds on the series of parking reforms that

the city has implemented over the past 12 years.

In 2013, the city eliminated all minimum vehicle parking requirements in the central business

in arts and entertainment district, which is downtown, and removed parking minimums for

certain non-residential project citywide.

In 2019, through the transit oriented development ordinance, the city removed minimum parking

requirements within a quarter mile of existing and proposed libel stations and reduced them

by 50% within a half mile.

In January 2023, assembly bill 2097 went into effect to further encourage housing production,

prohibiting minimum parking mandates within a half mile of what the state defines as a major

transit stop, which covers around 44% of the city.

In February 2024, city council approved the 2040 general plan, which included a new citywide

policy, LUP4.14 that ended minimum off-street vehicle parking mandates.

This general plan policy has been in effect since March 28, 2024, when the adopted 2040

general plan took effect.

In-parking adds cost to development projects while occupying space that could be used for

housing or other economic uses.

Requiring developers to supply a minimum number of parking spaces that exceeds market demand

can mean that they build fewer housing units or that they do not expand their business

because they do not have the space to expand their building while also supplying the parking

that we mandate.

So concern over impacts to housing production was a primary motivator for removing minimum

parking requirements in the 2040 general plan.

Removing minimum off-street parking mandates does not mean that developers will not supply

parking on their property.

Developers continue to supply parking in most cases because there is a demand for parking

in most areas of the city.

So the general plan is implemented through zoning specific plans and other city plans

and programs.

The city needs to ensure that city codes, ordinances and other policy documents are consistent

with the city's general plan.

At this time, the city code still shows minimum parking requirements.

This ordinance has been prepared specifically to clean up the city code to make it consistent

with the general plan.

I recommend that the law and legislation committee pass a motion forwarding to the full city

council, the environmental review resolution and the ordinance to amend Title 17 of the

Sacramento City Code to remove minimum off-street vehicle parking requirements from the code to

ensure consistency with the 2040 general plan.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from my colleagues?

Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will say that this item just conforms the city's ordinances to the general plan.

So to that extent, this seems to me to be pro forma.

But I will say, and I worked on reducing or eliminating parking minimums both at the local

and the state level over the last decade or so.

I will say that what it does is it creates, I think, a real emphasis and necessity for

parking management on an active basis by the city.

Because we see this in district two and certainly would be true in a number of the other districts

where there's a commercial corridor or commercial area, for example, that is it immediately

adjacent to a residential area.

And so spill over parking into the neighborhoods becomes an issue when there isn't off-street

parking associated with the businesses.

And so while I support parking and reducing or eliminating parking minimums in order to

try to stimulate alternative modes, active transportation and reduce environmental impacts,

I think that's what also places the emphasis on active parking management in those circumstances.

I will also say that I've seen in some instances where, for example, ADUs have been proposed or

constructed by property owners.

And again, ADUs are a good thing.

I think in almost all instances and to be encouraged as the city has done.

If they don't have any parking associated with them, they can become an issue in a neighborhood.

So again, I think an issue of some discretion and parking management that becomes critical to success.

And so that people don't, so that residents of the city and citizens don't react negatively to the elimination of parking minimum.

So I do support this, but it comes with those thoughts and the caveats.

Thanks.

All right, Councillor Poggybaum.

One condition we've used in buildings like the mansion of 15th and H where they don't have on-site vehicle parking is to not make the,

to prohibit the residents of that building from being eligible for the residential parking permit program.

If that were a condition that were more broadly applied to buildings that don't provide off street parking in communities like in District 2 where there may not be our residential street parking permit program in place now, how would,

how could we, how could we provide that kind of parking enforcement?

Do we have capacity to do that kind of engagement enforcement?

Also one thing I do want to mention is that our parking services division and public works does have a pilot project out.

It's called the supplemental parking permit, which is intended for the purpose of buildings that don't have enough parking supply for the perceived demand to where our public works department can issue permits and allow folks that live at a property to park on the street at the curb.

And pay I think it's 120% of the market rate.

So there is a process for that.

We do have another project that's coming for later this year. We're calling the parking strategy where we are developing a parking management toolkit and we're looking at all the available tools to manage the existing parking supply that we have.

So Council Member Dickinson in places like the central city where we have active enforcement it works in other parts of the city.

I think all the rest of the city. It's going to be a challenge where we don't have regular parking enforcement.

Something a lot to.

Council Member Dickinson.

If I may, Madam Chair, I appreciate Council Member Plyckibaum raising this issue.

And you know, it's interesting because in at least one, if not more neighborhoods in district two.

And again, I don't know the extent to which this same item has surfaced in other neighborhoods.

But if the suggestion is made of a neighborhood preferential parking program, people in the neighborhood, I have heard them comment and react, wait a minute.

We have to pay to park in our neighborhood. We're the ones who live here and already park in now you want to chart end.

And if we have want to have visitors, then we have to arrange to get permit so that we have to go through the logistics of that.

We're the ones who are in a sense, I don't want to say are victimized, but we're the ones who have the burden in many respects with that kind of approach.

And we're the ones who are already here, not the newcomers.

So that's why this parking management issue becomes, I think, both delicate and critical.

I think the other thing that we're already experiencing in parts of district two when there are events and parking spills over into residential neighborhoods is apparently parking enforcement doesn't operate.

After 8 p.m. And these are nighttime events.

So when people say, you know, someone was parked in my driveway, for example, what am I supposed to do? I can't get a hold of anybody with this.

I mean, the police aren't going to respond to that.

Or would we, I think, want them to do in most circumstances parking services is available to respond. What are people supposed to do?

So those are the kinds of real life little collisions that occur that I think become critical to figure out how to manage.

Hopefully no pun intended on collisions.

No, conentent. Perfect. You done councilman plucky bomb as well.

Okay. Madam City Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

I have one speaker. I'm CM Gernicia.

Welcome.

Good morning folks. How's everyone doing this morning?

Actually, I thought I was going to be speaking about the parking of the trailers on public property.

Oh, the next item. Okay. We'll call you up for the next item.

Thank you. Newmer speakers. All right. Any other comments from my colleagues? Councilor Jennings.

Just one question on the timeline. Maybe you can tell us the timeline of it leaving here and getting to the council and on the agenda.

Next we will do a pass for publication.

I believe on March 25th and then come to the full city council on April 8th.

And has there been any attempt to survey the community as it relates to this item?

During the 2040 general plan process, we did extensive outreach for many, many years.

And this was a policy that was part of the general plan.

So when the general plan was approved in February 2024, there was ample opportunities for the public to weigh in on the policy.

So this item here is just a cleanup of the code. It doesn't change policy as no effect on policy.

Well, thank you so much. Councilor plucky bomb.

I'm sorry. I'll move staff recommendation. If we could to think about fighting so hard not to say Supervisor Jacobson.

Councilor Maria.

Comments about enforcement. So when this comes back to the council, if we could have some discussion about what parking enforcement could look and really outside the grid and the parts of the city where we don't have residential parking controls.

Also, if it's possible to have a discussion about a sort of a model condition to exclude projects that don't provide Austrian parking from residential parking permit programs.

That again won't apply to most of the city where we don't have residential parking permit programs today. But in the future of 20, 30 years from now, if I build, let's say, a very high density project on a light rail parking right station, some are else in the city.

At some point, 20 years from now, we actually put in residential parking controls. Then that could be triggered.

At that point, that condition could be triggered. We don't have to have another discussion down the road with that that project about the use of that space.

So if that could just be a sort of a standard condition that we're a part of any application that came forward that wasn't providing.

So if we could have a discussion about the use of that space, that would be a very high density project.

So if we could have a discussion about the use of that space, that would be a very high density project.

As for those who didn't notice, there were two lovely horses that just walked by the windows, our PD equestrian team.

So thank you. So we have a motion of second. I'll just make a couple brief comments.

I really want to align myself with the questions of my colleagues.

Same questions that I had about what does this mean? We have impacted neighborhoods in my district, including the Med Center area.

And of course, just across the street in District 6 and Helmhurst. You know, we hear a lot of questions and concerns about parking and on street parking and what that means.

So I think this is going to be a continual conversation for us as we move forward.

But I also want to acknowledge that this is a small part of a much greater plan that's happening over the course of this year, where we're going to be implementing and passing policies to update to ensure that we're in line with our own general plan that we passed.

So I know many, many years of outreach and work went into that and I want to appreciate the staff for doing that and to engaging in the community.

This is a tough one, but I think that as we look forward back into decades into the future, as Councillor Pluckery said, what I would like to see is those continued investments and transit and active transportation and the things.

So the bigger strategies that we know that if we combine those along with this, getting rid of parking minimums that we are going to hopefully have a city that people have a lot more options to get around and maybe rely on cars lot less or are able to make choices like to be car free, which could be in the future.

And so I'm excited about this and I'll be supporting it today. So with that, motion is second. All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed? We have seen passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Up next.

We have item four.

So if I can actually flip to this.

Part of me, we have item five, which is the Council Member of Proposal for committee consideration.

The more attorney I am on code enforcement of RV trailers in front of yards.

Madam Clerk, I know that the Council Member cannot actually come and announce that proposal.

What is the best way for me to, should I introduce this myself or should we have someone from the staff?

Sure. There is no staff presentation. The action before you is really for this committee to take a look at the proposal and either recommend that staff start working on that and come back to the committee with recommendation or for staff to work on it and take it directly.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and do the committee.

Okay. Great. You know what I will do. I think I'm going to read the summary is pretty short here, but I'm going to read it into the record to the public knows what we're discussing here.

And then I'd like to open it up for public comment first. So the college clean community was recently targeted by code enforcement and dozens of tickets were issued for in an adequate storage of RVs.

Despite the homeowners having no legal place to keep their RV out of sight.

And RV and a front or side yard without an appropriate setback. District six is proposing that they place a temporary moratorium on enforcing this specific section of the code until code enforcement is able to develop an exception or permitting process to allow homeowners to park their RVs in front of their home with adequate paved areas that don't block entrance or egress.

And so that is from a council member.

Gara in district six.

And so this will be considering today whether or not we want to keep this in committee to discuss more or we want to move it forward to the full city council for discussion allowing staff to work on the proposal.

So with that, Madam City clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

I have three speakers. The first is CM Grinicia, Tim Hicks and Kathy Hicks.

Welcome.

Good morning. My name is Sam Arneca. This is my first time here and I'd like to know if any of you folks own a trailer.

And do you keep it on your property or do you rent a storage space to keep your trailer in when you're not using it?

Some of us are on fixed income and we can't afford to rent a storage for unit.

The trailer is a 19 foot trailer. I've had it approximately 10 years and I keep it on my property. It's on a paved or it's it's on cement.

I plug it in on occasion because I have to keep my refrigerator cool prior to me taking it out.

And I also go into my trailer and watch TV or do some work inside.

Again, I could turn on a radio and or watch TV.

The area that I live in is the Natomas area. I've been there approximately 20 years and since I've been there, there is only one other person on my street that has a boat on their property.

So it's just the boat and my trailer. My trailer is not on a.

I'm not impeding anybody from blocking any views of the street.

The only thing I see wrong about it is it's not set back 25 feet.

If I had the space to park my trailer in the backyard, I would.

Other than that, I can't think of anything right now. I want to thank you for listening to me and hopefully we will get this resolved in a timely fashion.

Tim Hicks.

That's fine. Come on up to say your name.

Welcome.

Morning. My name is Kathy Hicks. I've lived here in Sacramento for four years.

We came from Brimsburg County. We've had no problems with our bees till January 9th when we got a letter from.

The city of Sacramento and code enforcement told me and all my neighbors living in and around Belmars Street that we needed to move our bees and boats.

The rules you have on the books of not having anything on the side of your yard unless there's a 25 foot setback is not working.

The houses that were built in the 60s were built with no setbacks because they wanted more houses per acre.

Here in the neighborhood, we keep our yards nice, pay our taxes and now have to find a place for our boats and our bees.

Someone called code enforcement on me at my house for my RV.

I tried to get a solution and in doing so, my neighbors got the same solution, move all the boats and our bees away.

We're working class families trying to have fun with our bees and boats for the summer.

We're trying to make memories for our children and grandchildren. It's very important to us.

We have a choice of getting rid of them or paying for storage and hope that nobody at the storage areas break into our bees.

I think the city council should consider some of these rules and maybe take them off the books.

We have a lot of different areas that have the setbacks but we in our neighborhood do not have that luxury.

It's a shame that code enforcement cannot do anything about the homelessness that we have to navigate to go to the grocery store and we see on full symbol bar.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Tim Hicks is our final speaker on this item.

Hi, Tim Hicks. I live at 2960 Bill Maherstreet Sacramento.

I think we should be allowed to park our RV trailers in front of our house.

We have rules and laws on the books that we need to have in the city of Sacramento to enforce them.

Not every 10 to 12 years.

The last time anybody came through and said anything, one of the people that was notified, he had been there.

He had that vehicle there for 12 years.

So obviously we're not doing that.

You know, my answer is if we're going to have this law on the books, then we need to be out enforcing it every day, all through the whole city of Sacramento.

And I know that would put a burden on a lot of people.

But then again, I think that if we're going to make laws, we need to enforce them.

An example is the CHP. If you're speeding, they nail you. They're out there all the time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I have one more speaker, David Rappaport.

Welcome.

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for taking my comments to.

I'm a new resident to Sacramento. I've been here now a little more than a year.

And the gentleman, I believe statement is really quite apt and appropriate for as a lead into mine.

Enforcement must be even handed. I hold in my hand here two citations for parking a vehicle in my own driveway.

They were issued at 8.45 in the morning on a Sunday morning in late February.

I live on a court on Sweetdale Court. And everyone in that area, parks on their street.

There's very little street parking on the courts. And so we tend to stack our cars.

I happen to have a vehicle that's not operating, so I put that, not on the street, in compliance with the law.

I park that in the driveway and I park my other vehicle behind it.

I was blocking my own sidewalk in front of my own house on a court where there is no foot traffic whatsoever.

By about this much. And these two tickets, one for my wife's car, one for my car, total $115 each.

So that's $230 for parking our cars in front of our own houses, in our driveways.

So the thing that bothers me the most is when I went to dispute this, there was a accompanying picture and the officer at the behind the counter said,

oh I'm sorry, that's clearly illegal. So okay, well then there should be uniform enforcement of this because the entire street has cars parked all over.

That whole area doesn't vineyard. So I pose to you the question, either relax the Sacramento County Sheriff's office a little bit on a Sunday morning.

They could have knocked on the door. They could have done a lot of things to help us to get our cars moved if that was the objection.

And the second thing is to enforce as Mr. Hicks said uniformly, it's not fair that officer peoples cited our car only as opposed to the other vehicles.

Again I appreciate you taking my comments. I very much enjoy living in the Sacramento area and look forward to a long stay here.

Thank you.

Thank you. And just want to briefly say, you said you lived in vineyard?

I think I believe you're in the county of Sacramento, is that correct? And that's why you received a ticket from the Sheriff's Department.

So not to say that your comments are well taken, but for those specifically, I recommend reaching out to the County of Sacramento in the Sheriff's Department.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay.

Comments from my colleagues.

Councillor Pellocki-Bom.

A couple of questions about what we could do. So the standard concerns for driveway parking of accessory vehicles, visibility, weight, accessibility.

From my point of view, an RV boat is the same as any other vehicle. We allow overnight storage of our own personal vehicles and our driveways.

Whether that's a recreational vehicle or a work truck, a sprinter van, a camper van, or a minivan.

I don't know that from our point of view, there's a big difference.

My question is, and this I guess is for co-enforcement or other city staff, are there any concerns about either the height of the vehicle, the weight of the vehicle, or any other sort of categories of restriction that we would want to think about when allowing overnight storage of vehicles.

I think the current rules, it needs to be registered. The vehicle has to be registered to the property owner or tenant of the parcel that is being stored at, but then are there any durations.

So Peter, go ahead.

Commissioner Lee-Moss.

Peter Lee-Moss, Code Housing and Fortune Chief. So a couple of your answers. So for height and weight, there's not a concern that would be specific.

We do have weight requirements on commercial vehicles.

Terms and such, you know, we would look to see what types of exceptions and such they put to the code. We would just ask for as the council member or their group starts working on it.

And it's clear something that's not arbitrary. We need to have clear codes that are actually enforceable and the community can understand.

It would not be arbitrary to the judgment of the code enforcement officer because then it's going to cause a community argument and such.

Structions and such, it could be based on the property, you know, is the two driveways adjacent to each other.

Does it block or hinder backing out of the driveway and does a boatman, not might not be any worse than any large van.

So it's going to be arbitrary to that and the surfaces there being parked on such as that. So it's going to be a discussion of working with the council member staff and such to develop a code that's legal and enforceable.

So if a vehicle is light enough to drive on a residential street legally, it's probably also light enough to park on a residential driveway or side yard or some of this space.

By concerned, I mean, like, you know, big commercial vehicles RVs, something, you know, that would not be appropriate for a residential storage.

Would already be prohibited by vehicle weight, I think said.

You're going to have some very large RVs and such that can go on to residential property if they did have a adequate space to allow it.

It's going to be up to the property owner to develop that parking surface.

How they pour the concrete ice is going over utilities.

You know, you're going to have a setback requirements because you have utility easements so you have sewer lines, gas lines, water lines.

So it will be once again, arbitraries that each department could be or sorry each property can be different.

But you're going to have some very large RVs, very large fifth wheels that will be parking on private property and it will be up to the property owner to develop that surface that's adequate.

Okay. I guess the my thinking is in general if there are ways that we can support and encourage the kind of recreation opportunities folks are trying to take part in in a way that doesn't, you know, create a public nuisance or impediment.

You know, this is a vehicle same as any other vehicle for my point of view.

Are there any other concerns I'm not asking about other than aesthetic that folks when they're thinking about parking RVs in the front yard principally I think the issue is aesthetic.

But if there are other concerns, I'm not in on that.

That is going to be a large part of it.

Besides that it's going to be the impact of a large amount of them.

You still have your required walkways things like that as long as they're not trying to set back areas of best basically the utility easements and such and long term storage.

Still operational registered.

They can't be non registered non operational. So registered vehicle has both is required to be registered and operational both on private and public property.

So as long as it's not an incite of an enclosed structures, thoughts be operational, says to be current can't be bloody condition. So yeah, most of it will be aesthetics and registered to the tenant and or property owner or could be like can I store my uncles boat on my driveway.

You know if it's not registered to me.

On your private property it does not have to be currently registered to that property owners has to be currently registered.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Dickinson.

I just wanted to make sure I'm clearing a couple things.

One is the staff report recommendation is code enforcement to have a more time on code enforcement RV trailers.

The council members description was RVs and trailers.

I just wanted to confirm that we're talking not just about trailers. We're talking we're talking about RVs as well and so we're in that's that's the understanding.

That is my understanding.

Okay.

And then secondly, it would still be the case that if the moratorium is approved that the parking would have to be on a paved or gravel type of surface.

I don't know if that's a that's something we get to determine. That's a staff question. I'm not sure.

So if I may and and something please chime in clerk or say attorney if I'm incorrect but because this is a proposal from from district six.

I would be that if we decide this is an idea that's worthy of discussion at the greater council that staff would then work on this.

And I'm assuming that would include speaking you know with the community with the council members office and determining some options that might be before us.

When it does come to council if that's what this body decides we can also give specific direction.

So if you have some really specific ideas that you would like to see staff work on as a part of that staff report you can make that as a part of the motion.

Thank you. I think those are just the scope and the character of this probably needs some further definition as we as we consider it.

This is this is a little bit of an interesting circumstance because certainly sympathetic to those who've who've testified and who have real face real constraints in terms of their ability say to to store vehicles or otherwise.

There are other people who are concerned about the aesthetics of their other neighborhood and and I get the equal application enforcement point that's also certainly well taken.

Then we have some a couple areas in the city.

There are some roadblood being an example where we have larger lot sizes and a semi rural character and so people park their vehicles of all types on their on their property and not always on paved surfaces and they and they get cited by code enforcement in a setting where it doesn't make sense to me to to do that.

I think there are some issues to look at here. I do support moving this on but I do think there's some further definition that we're going to need in order to come to an ultimate conclusion.

Thanks.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Lee most or maybe just one. Sorry to make you walk back and forth that we appreciate you.

Obviously this isn't defined I'm assuming this is something that we would need to decide but in your opinion what would be an appropriate amount of time if we're to move this forward and do a moratorium for you and your team to need to actually review some of the changes that might be needed to do the outreach and come up with some options for council.

I'm just coming forward from the council members so they'll bring the item to us of what they would look at the requesting a moratorium we don't really have a time for him.

I would just want to clear more torrents are we only saying that we're going to put a moratorium on enforcement of recreational vehicles and boats which basically trailers RVs and boats stored properly in the setback area because I don't believe the request was to allow parking on unapproved surfaces or parking of commercial trailers or

parking of other types of trailers is this only recreational vehicles which would be a trailer that so this is a trailer you could actually camp in like a camping trailer RVs and boats or are we putting more time in all storage of vehicles and setback areas.

Okay that's a really good question and my you know I don't want to speak for council McGara but that's my understanding from conversations that I've had with him and from the proposal.

But maybe as a part of the direction to move this forward we can include that we want this to be recreational vehicles I think that makes sense to me I would have serious concerns about that applying to commercial vehicles or other things that maybe shouldn't be stored on a person's home property or that there should be the requirements around so that's something I'm comfortable with.

So that was my main question and for you is just in terms of what time you might need because more torsions can be pretty broad right we can say a moratorium until further notice until we have a system we can say a moratorium for 60 days whatever that might look like instead just wanted to get a sense from you if we are going to do a process to determine what might be a better a better you know setback requirement or what are the terms maybe how much time you think that you might need from a staff perspective.

I mean I can only determine our side you know once we meet with council member within 30 days but we still have to remember us to go to the city attorney's office review city managers options such so that's why it's hard to put that would say within the next 90 days something should be able to come forward and it's just a very clear we're going to put a moratorium on recreational vehicles and boats you know as are they non-blighted or blighted operational or not registered or not.

That's just that we're going to have to reason asking we have to bet the complaints so do we just say we don't accept complaints at this time or we still going to respond to the community's needs for things that are blighted things that are non-operational that would be the question I want to make sure our officers are responsive to the community.

That's really helpful thank you. I think you know what I would like to see in this motion whether I make it or someone else on the stage wants to do that that we make it really clear that we want the staff to come if we decide to move this far that we want the staff to come back with their staff report to council that includes clarity around these questions right so like so we're making a decision at council that is very clear about the types of vehicles that are covered under this the types of circumstances blight or not blight and you know we'll need your help and assistance in identifying those because you're receiving those.

You know you have to know that it's a request frequently about what you hear the most.

Okay so I see councilor Jennings.

I think my question has been answered. I'm very much in favor of giving our colleague time to be able to really work on this and work with you on this, to be able to address all the issues that we've talked about so far.

A recreational vehicle I think about my car and then I think about you know the boats the trailers the RVs all those things that really give us a quality of life that we want.

And so I think you know coming back with a recommendation is to how we make that work within our city brings value to our city and to the residents of our city who own these and have made significant investments.

So while we don't want blight in front of our homes or in our neighborhoods we do want to have some controls that maybe those can come back as well.

And so I think my question has been answered but I'm in support of giving our colleague enough time to be able to address this issue and work continue to work on it in order to bring something back that we can all agree that that works for the city.

I agree. Well thank you for that and so I'll just say you know I thank you so much to the community members who came and spoke.

I think you make some really compelling arguments I was certainly thinking about my own home that was built in 1950 and there was no way that I would have you know this the 25-foot set back in order to have a trailer and RV though I might want one one day right and so I think that it is an appropriate question for us to consider as a council about whether or not we want to update these roles I imagine it's been quite some time since they were originally implemented by a previous council and it's always a good practice for us to continue to revisit these concepts and see what we're going to do.

I'm happy to make a motion that we move this proposal forward to the full council. I would like our co-inforcement team to work with council and my gear on his team.

So I think we're going to have a motion that we can go forward and make sure that we have a host of options that can come forward to us to council that are considering all the things that you mentioned and that we're really clear about what types of vehicles that we want covered under this and so that we can appropriately consider that.

I see councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, ma'am chair. You know one other thing occurs to me that to the extent that it doesn't entail a great deal work it would be very I think helpful to know what some other jurisdictions have done.

This is not an issue that's exclusive to the city of Sacramento so I wouldn't expect you to go out and survey the world but if there are some other examples as you do your work as to how other jurisdictions have treated this issue I think that would be beneficial for all of us in consent.

So I think that's a good idea for all of us in considering the issue so thanks.

All right. Do we have a second? All right. Do we have a second? All those in favor please say aye.

Any opposed to obscene? Passes unanimously that will go to the full council at a future date to be determined once staff has an opportunity to work on it. Thank you.

Okay. Now do we have any committee comments ideas questions maybe 1234 reports seeing none do we have any public comment on matters on the agenda have no speakers saying none.

All right. With that we are now adjourned at 1147 a.m.